Climate Stewardship Act of 2005

Madam President, I believe under the previous order, the Senate returns now to the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona and myself; am I correct?

I call for the regular order.

Madam President, with the consent of my friend from Arizona, at this point I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Florida.

Madam President, I thank my friend from Florida for his very powerful statement supporting this amendment. We all bring a unique perspective to the Senate, but nobody brings the same perspective as Senator Nelson. He was up in space, he was an astronaut before he came to the Senate, so he has that big picture.

He also has a very local understanding, as he said, because of the threat that the rising water levels will place on Florida. The occupant of the chair is a distinguished Senator from Alaska. We can already see evidence in Alaska of water rising.

One of the great reinsurance companies, from a pure business point of view, supports antiglobal warming legislation because they project that within 10 years, we are going to be spending $150 billion a year to compensate for climate-driven disasters.

There was a particularly notorious Emperor of Rome who is remembered for fiddling while Rome burned. I believe we here in Washington are fiddling while the planet warms and while the waters rise. I honestly do believe this amendment we offer today gives us a chance to turn that around. I thank my friend from Florida very much.

I now yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.

I am glad to.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for pointing out that point. And I thank--it must be Vanna White holding the chart.

I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of the Senator from Vermont, that he be allowed to remain seated--he just had recent knee surgery--as he delivers his remarks for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, seeing none of my colleagues on the floor, I will proceed for a moment or two and then suggest the absence of a quorum.

Yesterday, Senator McCain and I laid down the basic arguments for our amendment. The fact is that the planet is warming. It is warming as a result of human actions. This is no more just a matter of science, although most scientists agree with this. We can see it. We can see it in the kinds of satellite photos that Senator McCain showed such as in the case of the State of Florida. The most graphic evidence is the satellite photos of the polar icecaps. The way in which they have diminished, shrunk, over the last 10, 15, 20 years is startling, with the obvious effect that the water is rising.

One could pick their favorite story of evidence. The one that we cite a lot is the Inuit people, the native people in northern Canada, saw robins a few years ago for the first time in their 10,000-year history. They did not have a word for ``robin.'' They had to create a word. That reality is something my friend from Vermont is aware of. Senator Jeffords has been a great crusader, in the best sense of the word, for environmental protection. He is from the green state, as he says. He has been a wonderfully green Senator in the best sense of that term, and I thank him for his support of this amendment.

This amendment is the only amendment that will come before the Senate that will do something about global warming. With all respect to the amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska yesterday, it offers some technology support, it may request a report or two, but all of its goals are voluntary. We found out in the 1990s that voluntary goals do not work, that the planet has continued to warm. The result of that conclusion was the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The Bush administration has now taken us out of that protocol. I wish to make very clear that the amendment Senator McCain and I have introduced sets goals for a reduction of greenhouse gases by the United States much below what Kyoto requires. In fact, I think if one puts the Hagel amendment of yesterday on one side and the Kyoto Protocol on the other, Senator McCain and I are right in the middle where we like to be. In this case, substantively, we are in the middle.

This amendment makes meaningful reductions, by 2010, to reduce American emissions of greenhouse gases to the 2000 level. It creates a meaningful market, and it is the only one that does that. It is not oldtime command and control. This is bringing in an enormous number and range of emissions reduction options for businesses and other sources of greenhouse gas emissions. The allowances are allocated at the point of emissions to electricity and industrial sectors. Agriculture can participate in this program on a voluntary basis. They are not covered mandatorily at all.

This is a tremendous opportunity for the agriculture sector of our economy to come in voluntary and say, I want to earn some credits by reducing some sources of greenhouse gas or, even more, I want to make some money by holding some of my land in uses that will absorb carbon dioxide and therefore achieve some credits that can be sold. In our amendment, this is a maximum opportunity for innovation and cost savings.

One of the foremost studies conducted by a group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded that per-household cost of the passage of this bill--we are going to hear a lot of numbers about this--is in the range of $15 to $20 per year more per household. I am sure if the average American householder were asked whether he or she would pay $15 to $20--frankly, a lot would be willing to pay a lot more--to deal with the problem of global warming so that we can preserve this planet and turn it over to our children as close as possible to the way we found it, they would say yes. That is not even taking into account the innovative, cost-saving technologies that this bill will support in research.

It is a comprehensive technology strategy that we offer. We have a new title this year that creates a technology program funded by the sale of allowances, not appropriations; would stimulate innovation at each of the three critical phases of innovation: engineering, full-time construction, and bringing it to market. The language in this amendment says that the funding would go to a series of possible uses, including but not limited to biofuels, solar, advanced clean coal, and nuclear. All of the technologies must meet environmental and economic criteria to gain support, and any technology beyond the ones we mentioned is eligible for funding. This is a real economic investment and economic growth section of this bill.

I know there are some who are concerned about the mere mention of nuclear. The fact is, today 20 percent of electric power generated in America comes from nuclear plants. They are functioning safely. Some of them are getting to a point where they are going to have to be replaced. This amendment simply opens the door to some research in the next generation of possible savings on nuclear powerplants. It is not an endorsement. It is not a win or a lose strategy. Anybody who has a good idea for proposing or doing some research in a technology or a system that could reduce greenhouse gases, that person can apply to this public corporation we are setting up for funding under this proposal. We do not want to close the door on any technology that will give us the power to run our society and help us deal with the greenhouse gas global warming problem, and that includes but is not limited to, as we say, nuclear.

We also have some very important funding for a separate program for the retooling of manufacturing facilities, particularly targeted to advanced technology automobiles--a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, a major consumer of oil.

Interesting fact that probably a lot of people do not appreciate: Only 2 percent of the source of electric power in this country today is oil-driven. That is pretty amazing. Most of it is coal, twenty percent is nuclear, and the rest is a mix of renewable sources. When it comes to the transportation sector, just about 95 percent is driven by oil products. That is a big source of greenhouse gas emissions and, of course, a big source of our vulnerability to the kind of crazy oil price shocks we are now experiencing that run through and eat up the budget of every family and every business in our country. So here we offer funding for the retooling of automobile manufacturing facilities.

This is the only climate amendment that really does something and does it

comprehensively. It passes the emissions test, it passes the market test, and it passes the technology test.

I know the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, is soon going to be on his way to speak on behalf of the bill. I know my colleague, Senator McCain, will return to the Senate floor to join in this discussion.

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

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

Assuming my friend from Colorado is here to speak on our amendment, I yield to him from the time allocated to Senator McCain up to 10 minutes. Is that enough or would the Senator like more?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I want very briefly to thank my friend from Colorado for a very powerful and learned statement. I appreciate his support very much.

I am proud, as we think about how the debate has gone, the Senator from Arizona and I, the Senator from Connecticut, introduced it. Yesterday we had the Senator from California. Today we have Senators from Florida, Vermont, and Colorado.

This is a national problem which is being recognized across the Nation. The fact is, if you put this amendment to the American people for a vote, it would pass overwhelmingly. I hope that sentiment can express itself here before long on the floor of the Senate.

I note the presence on the floor of the Senator from Ohio, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Ohio. He has spoken with characteristic sincerity and thoughtfulness. We talked along the way. I am disappointed we cannot take care of the amendment today, but I am encouraged by the very strong statement he has made recognizing what has changed since we last took up this matter, seeing global warming is a real problem, and wanting to work together with Senator McCain and me and others to find a solution that is good for the planet, good for the country, and good for Ohio. I thank him for that outreached hand. I accept it, extend myself to him, and look forward to working together in the months ahead to reach a good, balanced, progressive solution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am honored to rise with my friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, to introduce the Climate Stewardship Act. It is an urgent matter. I was thinking of one clause that I could remove from Senator McCain's comments. He said: Suppose Senator Lieberman and I are deluded.

It struck me that probably many times in the battles that we have fought together or individually, people have thought we were deluded. If I was going to be deluded, I would rather be deluded in the company of John McCain than anybody else I can think of. But let me say this: We are not deluded in our battle to get the U.S. Government to assume a leadership role in stopping this planet of ours from warming, with disastrous consequences for the way we and certainly our children and grandchildren will be forced to live if we do not do something.

When Senator McCain and I first started to work with people in the field, the scientists, the businesspeople, the environmentalists, we had a pretty clear picture of what was coming, but very often we had to rely on scientific models and assume their accuracy in terms of the worst consequences. That is over.

As Senator McCain's charts and pictures show, we can see with our eyes the effects of global warming already. The planet is warming. The polar ice caps are melting. One can see that with their own eyes. The sea level is rising in coastal areas already, and in other areas the water is diminishing, declining, as in the great State of my cosponsor, Arizona, and the State of the distinguished occupant of the Chair, Nevada. Forest fires are increasing. The evidence is clear that the problem is here, and that is why we have to do something about it.

Doing nothing is no longer an option. We have reached a point where the intractable must yield to the inevitable. The evidence that climate change is real and dangerous keeps pouring in and piling up. What this legislation is all about is pushing, cajoling, and convincing the politics to catch up with the science.

I will give real market-based evidence to back up what Senator McCain and I are saying about how compelling the science is. The leading insurance companies in the world--we are not talking about environmentalists--are now predicting that climate-driven disasters will cost global financial centers an additional $150 billion a year within the next 10 years. That is $150 billion of additional costs for the world as a result of climate-driven disasters.

Just a couple of weeks ago, at an international conference, the head of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr. R. K. Pachauri, said that we are already at ``a dangerous point'' when it comes to global warming, and ``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.''

It should be noted that Dr. Pachauri is no wild-eyed environmental radical. In fact, the administration lobbied heavily for Dr. Pachauri's appointment to the IPCC leadership because it considered him a more cautious and pragmatic scientist than the other leading candidate.

To call global warming simply an environmental challenge is almost to diminish it or demean it with a kind of simplicity that puts it alongside a host of other environmental challenges that we face. Global warming is both a moral and an economic security challenge, as well as an environmental challenge.

I start with what I mean by calling it a moral challenge. Greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere for about 100 years, so failure to take the prudent actions that our bill calls for--market-based, moderate, with caps--will force children still unborn to take far more drastic action to save their world as they know it and want to live in it. There is just no excuse for this.

We know it is real. I cited the melting glaciers, the coastal communities damage, the increased rate of forest fires. Previously, on this floor I have talked about the fact that a robin appeared in the north of Alaska and Canada among the Inuits native tribe, and they had no word in their 10,000-year-old civilization and vocabulary for robin.

Robins now linger longer into the winter in Connecticut, my State. Why? Because it is getting warmer.

Polar bears may soon be listed as an endangered species. Let me put it another way. We know that a petition will be filed soon to ask that polar bears be listed as an endangered species. Why? Because global warming is removing their habitat. It is wreaking havoc in the arctic climates where they live and grow. So to spoil the Earth for generations to come when we knew what we were doing and could have stopped it would be a moral failing of enormous and, I might add, Biblical proportions.

This time, it would be mankind that condemned itself, if I may put it again this way, to no longer living in the garden.

The challenge of solving global warming also presents our Nation with untold opportunities to reshape our world and assert our moral, economic, and environmental leadership. There is always opportunity in change. The world will transition to a world with limited greenhouse gas emissions, and the United States needs a program like the one we offer today to seize the new markets, as well as the environmental challenge.

In particular, Senator McCain and I are seeking now to develop additional provisions to this legislation that will provide American innovators and businesspeople with the technological incentives they need to make our bill work for them.

Looking at the recommendations of the International Climate Change Task Force, the National Commission on Energy Policy, and the Pew Center Workshop on Technologies and Policies for a Low Carbon Future, there are a number of consensus provisions that could help the U.S. transition to these technologies of the future.

These technologies are here. A recent paper in Science magazine showed that the scientific, technological, and industrial know-how already exists to limit carbon dioxide emissions substantially in the next 50 years. So we do not have to invent them. We just need the incentives and the motivation for industry, innovators, and individuals to deploy this knowledge and start us on the path toward a healthier, more sustainable future.

That is what the Climate Stewardship Act that Senator McCain and I are introducing today will do. It will provide the incentives. It will create a cap and let the market do the rest of the work, a real opportunity for change.

I am very pleased that one study being released today by the NRDC applying a method of evaluating which is advocated by the Energy Information Administration of our own Government says the Climate Stewardship Act will add 800,000 jobs to our economy by the year 2025. So it will not cost jobs, it will add them.

Over the last few years, we have seen our colleagues grappling with the challenge of global warming. So many of them seem to be of the same mind, feeling that something needs to be done but still unsure what should be done and how. Senator McCain and I want our legislation to work for them so they can come forward and join us in this effort. This is an opportunity to invest in our future to face this challenge, an opportunity to enhance our energy security, and therefore our national security, by placing a price on greenhouse gas emissions, which is what our legislation will do.

Our Nation's best energy options will become more cost competitive with foreign oil. It will make economic sense for dramatic growth in clean coal, alternative energy, and energy efficiency. It will be an opportunity for economic development in rural communities. By placing a price on carbon, it will create new value for range lands, farms, and forests by compensating landowners for the carbon they can store. It is an opportunity to innovate clean energy technologies for a growing global market. By placing this price that the cap and market will do on greenhouse gases, we will push demand for clean technologies, promoting innovation through both public and private enterprise and making that innovation profitable. It is an opportunity for our country to control the development of our own carbon market that will inevitably become part of a

global market someday soon. It is an opportunity, as Senator McCain said, to improve our relations with our allies and the rest of the world and gain a stronger voice and ability to bring in developing nations.

Without a price for carbon, these opportunities disappear. Our bill provides that price for carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. We know it is not the entire answer. A lot of people think it is too moderate and holds greenhouse gas emissions at today's levels.

By the end of the decade, it is less demanding than the Kyoto Protocol, which goes into effect as a result of Russia's ratification next week, but it is a cap that major utilities have told us they could meet. It may not be strong enough to reduce U.S. emissions as much as some would like, but it will be strong enough to start turning America around in the direction of dealing with global warming, reasserting our world environmental leadership, and moving our economy in the right direction. We cannot afford to be as shortsighted as we have been up until now. We cannot afford anymore to allow the special interests, who will also resist change because change is unnerving and sometimes more costly, to prevail.

We have to assert the public interest of ourselves and all those who will follow us on this Earth and in this great country to do something about global warming while we still can, before its consequences are disastrous. This is an enormous political challenge.

I go back to where I began. When we started, we had just models, so we were trying to portray what might happen over the horizon and ask our colleagues to join us in doing something now. It is not easy to do that because the crisis always seems further away than the immediacy of the changes a solution requires, but now we can see it. Shame on us if we do not do something about it.

I begin this battle today with Senator McCain and other cosponsors with not only a sense of commitment but a sense of encouragement and optimism that people ultimately are too reasonable and responsible to ignore the facts and do nothing about this looming disaster for humankind.

Senator McCain and I begin this battle again, and we are not going to stop until it is won.

I ask unanimous consent that several articles on climate be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am honored to rise with my friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, to introduce the Climate Stewardship Act. It is an urgent matter. I was thinking of one clause that I could remove from Senator McCain's comments. He said: Suppose Senator Lieberman and I are deluded.

It struck me that probably many times in the battles that we have fought together or individually, people have thought we were deluded. If I was going to be deluded, I would rather be deluded in the company of John McCain than anybody else I can think of. But let me say this: We are not deluded in our battle to get the U.S. Government to assume a leadership role in stopping this planet of ours from warming, with disastrous consequences for the way we and certainly our children and grandchildren will be forced to live if we do not do something.

When Senator McCain and I first started to work with people in the field, the scientists, the businesspeople, the environmentalists, we had a pretty clear picture of what was coming, but very often we had to rely on scientific models and assume their accuracy in terms of the worst consequences. That is over.

As Senator McCain's charts and pictures show, we can see with our eyes the effects of global warming already. The planet is warming. The polar ice caps are melting. One can see that with their own eyes. The sea level is rising in coastal areas already, and in other areas the water is diminishing, declining, as in the great State of my cosponsor, Arizona, and the State of the distinguished occupant of the Chair, Nevada. Forest fires are increasing. The evidence is clear that the problem is here, and that is why we have to do something about it.

Doing nothing is no longer an option. We have reached a point where the intractable must yield to the inevitable. The evidence that climate change is real and dangerous keeps pouring in and piling up. What this legislation is all about is pushing, cajoling, and convincing the politics to catch up with the science.

I will give real market-based evidence to back up what Senator McCain and I are saying about how compelling the science is. The leading insurance companies in the world--we are not talking about environmentalists--are now predicting that climate-driven disasters will cost global financial centers an additional $150 billion a year within the next 10 years. That is $150 billion of additional costs for the world as a result of climate-driven disasters.

Just a couple of weeks ago, at an international conference, the head of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr. R. K. Pachauri, said that we are already at ``a dangerous point'' when it comes to global warming, and ``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.''

It should be noted that Dr. Pachauri is no wild-eyed environmental radical. In fact, the administration lobbied heavily for Dr. Pachauri's appointment to the IPCC leadership because it considered him a more cautious and pragmatic scientist than the other leading candidate.

To call global warming simply an environmental challenge is almost to diminish it or demean it with a kind of simplicity that puts it alongside a host of other environmental challenges that we face. Global warming is both a moral and an economic security challenge, as well as an environmental challenge.

I start with what I mean by calling it a moral challenge. Greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere for about 100 years, so failure to take the prudent actions that our bill calls for--market-based, moderate, with caps--will force children still unborn to take far more drastic action to save their world as they know it and want to live in it. There is just no excuse for this.

We know it is real. I cited the melting glaciers, the coastal communities damage, the increased rate of forest fires. Previously, on this floor I have talked about the fact that a robin appeared in the north of Alaska and Canada among the Inuits native tribe, and they had no word in their 10,000-year-old civilization and vocabulary for robin.

Robins now linger longer into the winter in Connecticut, my State. Why? Because it is getting warmer.

Polar bears may soon be listed as an endangered species. Let me put it another way. We know that a petition will be filed soon to ask that polar bears be listed as an endangered species. Why? Because global warming is removing their habitat. It is wreaking havoc in the arctic climates where they live and grow. So to spoil the Earth for generations to come when we knew what we were doing and could have stopped it would be a moral failing of enormous and, I might add, Biblical proportions.

This time, it would be mankind that condemned itself, if I may put it again this way, to no longer living in the garden.

The challenge of solving global warming also presents our Nation with untold opportunities to reshape our world and assert our moral, economic, and environmental leadership. There is always opportunity in change. The world will transition to a world with limited greenhouse gas emissions, and the United States needs a program like the one we offer today to seize the new markets, as well as the environmental challenge.

In particular, Senator McCain and I are seeking now to develop additional provisions to this legislation that will provide American innovators and businesspeople with the technological incentives they need to make our bill work for them.

Looking at the recommendations of the International Climate Change Task Force, the National Commission on Energy Policy, and the Pew Center Workshop on Technologies and Policies for a Low Carbon Future, there are a number of consensus provisions that could help the U.S. transition to these technologies of the future.

These technologies are here. A recent paper in Science magazine showed that the scientific, technological, and industrial know-how already exists to limit carbon dioxide emissions substantially in the next 50 years. So we do not have to invent them. We just need the incentives and the motivation for industry, innovators, and individuals to deploy this knowledge and start us on the path toward a healthier, more sustainable future.

That is what the Climate Stewardship Act that Senator McCain and I are introducing today will do. It will provide the incentives. It will create a cap and let the market do the rest of the work, a real opportunity for change.

I am very pleased that one study being released today by the NRDC applying a method of evaluating which is advocated by the Energy Information Administration of our own Government says the Climate Stewardship Act will add 800,000 jobs to our economy by the year 2025. So it will not cost jobs, it will add them.

Over the last few years, we have seen our colleagues grappling with the challenge of global warming. So many of them seem to be of the same mind, feeling that something needs to be done but still unsure what should be done and how. Senator McCain and I want our legislation to work for them so they can come forward and join us in this effort. This is an opportunity to invest in our future to face this challenge, an opportunity to enhance our energy security, and therefore our national security, by placing a price on greenhouse gas emissions, which is what our legislation will do.

Our Nation's best energy options will become more cost competitive with foreign oil. It will make economic sense for dramatic growth in clean coal, alternative energy, and energy efficiency. It will be an opportunity for economic development in rural communities. By placing a price on carbon, it will create new value for range lands, farms, and forests by compensating landowners for the carbon they can store. It is an opportunity to innovate clean energy technologies for a growing global market. By placing this price that the cap and market will do on greenhouse gases, we will push demand for clean technologies, promoting innovation through both public and private enterprise and making that innovation profitable. It is an opportunity for our country to control the development of our own carbon market that will inevitably become part of a

global market someday soon. It is an opportunity, as Senator McCain said, to improve our relations with our allies and the rest of the world and gain a stronger voice and ability to bring in developing nations.

Without a price for carbon, these opportunities disappear. Our bill provides that price for carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. We know it is not the entire answer. A lot of people think it is too moderate and holds greenhouse gas emissions at today's levels.

By the end of the decade, it is less demanding than the Kyoto Protocol, which goes into effect as a result of Russia's ratification next week, but it is a cap that major utilities have told us they could meet. It may not be strong enough to reduce U.S. emissions as much as some would like, but it will be strong enough to start turning America around in the direction of dealing with global warming, reasserting our world environmental leadership, and moving our economy in the right direction. We cannot afford to be as shortsighted as we have been up until now. We cannot afford anymore to allow the special interests, who will also resist change because change is unnerving and sometimes more costly, to prevail.

We have to assert the public interest of ourselves and all those who will follow us on this Earth and in this great country to do something about global warming while we still can, before its consequences are disastrous. This is an enormous political challenge.

I go back to where I began. When we started, we had just models, so we were trying to portray what might happen over the horizon and ask our colleagues to join us in doing something now. It is not easy to do that because the crisis always seems further away than the immediacy of the changes a solution requires, but now we can see it. Shame on us if we do not do something about it.

I begin this battle today with Senator McCain and other cosponsors with not only a sense of commitment but a sense of encouragement and optimism that people ultimately are too reasonable and responsible to ignore the facts and do nothing about this looming disaster for humankind.

Senator McCain and I begin this battle again, and we are not going to stop until it is won.

I ask unanimous consent that several articles on climate be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the amendment offered by Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman. Climate change is happening. There is simply no question about that. It is time the United States takes the lead in slowing its progress and in decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. The amendment before us now, while it certainly has a great deal of merit, is, I am afraid, drafted in a way that I cannot support at this time.

First, the amendment, if adopted as currently written, sets an unreasonable schedule. Simply put, the energy sector would be unable to adjust quickly enough to adopt new technologies and new operating procedures in the limited time mandated by the amendment. When you are talking about energy, you cannot just change and pivot on a dime. It takes time to build infrastructure and capacity. As of today, the technology for capturing carbon is simply not ready yet. In essence, we have designed an engine that is not quite able to run yet.

Second, the amendment uses the year 2000 as a baseline. This concerns me. It concerns me because the fact is that some companies' emissions were at an artificially low point in the year 2000, due to the recession and other economic fluctuations. A sound carbon control system has to be fair. If we provide no flexibility to that standard, some companies would bear a higher burden than other companies with emissions at a normal rate at that time.

Third, the amendment does not provide a big enough upfront Federal investment into scientific research and development. We have to invest substantially more Federal dollars into the development of the technologies we need to reduce the greenhouse gases causing global warming. For instance, we need to dramatically increase funding for the Clean Coal Power Initiative. In the year 2005, we only funded this program at 25 percent of its authorized level. That must change.

We must be bold. We need to be imaginative. We need to be visionary. This is truly a race, and we are not moving forward fast enough. Realistically, greater investments are not going to be made until we, as a Nation, pull our heads out of the sand and accept the reality that climate change is in fact occurring. In 1997, when the Senate debated the issue the last time, the science wasn't as good. Today, however, we know a lot more, and the science is unambiguously clear. Since 1997, we have had the 5 hottest years on record, and there is now a clear consensus that temperatures have risen globally at least 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last 100 years.

Since 1997, the National Academy of Sciences, the Nation's most prestigious, most credible and most vigorous voice for the scientific community has said that:

Temperatures are in fact rising [and that] national policy

decisions made now in the long term future will influence the

extent of any damage suffered by vulnerable human populations

and ecosystems.

Almost daily we hear reports from the field of natural indicators of climate change.

For example, glaciers are melting. Dr. Lonnie Thompson, distinguished professor of geological sciences at the Ohio State University, is an expert on the study of glaciers. All of his work points to one conclusion:

Every glacier we have any data on is retreating . . . Our

best evidence for the current loss of tropical glaciers is

mainly due to rising temperatures, and those temperatures are

higher in many areas than they have been for more than 5,000

years, with the major increase occurring in the past 50

years. Glaciers operate on thresholds and as such are

extremely sensitive to global climate change.

Other national indicators strongly suggest the Earth is warming. The sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctic is declining. Coral reefs are disintegrating. Snow cover is decreasing. The oceans are getting warmer, and extreme weather events are occurring with increased frequency.

As the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, the United States has an obligation to take the lead in efforts to control climate change. We have an obligation to be an engaged global player. We have an obligation to urge other nations to join efforts to lower emissions. It is time for our Nation to get into the driver's seat and take the lead in developing the technology and the alternate energy sources that will become an inevitable part of our economy.

Right now, we are falling behind. Japan and Europe are well on their way to developing the very technologies that will be necessary to retrofit our powerplants and make our cars environmentally friendly. We should be the ones developing that technology. We should be the ones designing and creating and inventing the tools we need to adapt and adjust to their future.

Let me repeat: Climate change is happening and a shift to a new global energy economy is also happening. We cannot avoid it. It is inevitable. Without question, we are going to have to change operations and clean up our powerplants and find alternatives to oil and gasoline. Do we want to be the buyers of the technology that gets us there or, rather, do we want to be the sellers?

This much is obvious: If we do not do something, in a few years we will be creating jobs, but they won't be in the United States. They will be in other countries. They will be in Europe; they will be in Japan; they will be other places. That is not the way to go. We will have ourselves to blame and no one else.

I am pleased to say my home State of Ohio is beginning to position itself to face the future and is already involved in efforts to successfully transition to the new energy economy. Ohio has the opportunity to deploy, and in some cases develop, the very technology our own State needs so we can continue to burn coal in our powerplants but with dramatically lower emissions of nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and mercury.

There is a process called integrated gasification combined cycle, IGCC, which will allow coal, including high- sulfur Ohio coal, to be burned more cleanly. The IGCC process immediately reduces the emission of nitrogen oxide. It also makes it possible, for the first time, to capture carbon before it is emitted into the atmosphere.

This is the kind of technology that can put Ohio at the top. As James Rogers, chief executive of the Cincinnati-based Cinergy Corporation, said:

I'm making a bet on gasification. I don't see any other way

forward.

Similarly, Jason Grumet, the executive director of the National Commission on Energy Policy, called the IGCC process ``as close to a silver bullet as we are ever going to see.''

Currently, there are only IGCC pilot plants operated in Florida and Indiana. However, American Electric Power, AEP, in Columbus and Cinergy Corporation are on track to build additional plants in Ohio and Indiana, respectively. AEP plans to build a $1.6 billion clean coal plant along the Ohio River in Meigs County.

Ohio also can lead the way in commercialization of fuel cell technology which produces electricity by combining hydrogen and oxygen. Cars are one of the biggest emitters, of course, of carbon. Fuel cells have the potential of providing a carbon-free fuel source for vehicles. Ohio is ideally suited to develop this technology and, at the same time, help begin again its leadership in automotive technology.

I applaud Ohio Governor Bob Taft for his new plan to invest significant funds in fuel cells. He has announced a 3-year extension of the Ohio fuel cell initiative which is a $103 million program aimed at making Ohio the leader in fuel cell technology. Over the last 3 years, already the State has awarded $36 million in grants to 24 future cell projects involving academic researchers and small companies. Indeed, Roger McKain, chairman of the Ohio Fuel Cell Coalition, was correct when he said:

If you want to be in fuel cells, you should be in Ohio.

Use of clean renewable sources of energy is another way to help slow climate change. As we all know, solar power is one of the most commonly recognized renewable sources. Ohio has several companies that are developing technologies to lead to widespread commercialization of renewables. For example, First Solar in Perrysburg, OH, is a leader in the development and manufacture of solar collection systems. And Parker Hannifin, headquartered in Cleveland, is developing a hydraulic drive system that can precisely position solar collectors used in a powerplant, thereby increasing their efficiency.

I encourage the State of Ohio to do all it can to become a leader in energy technology. We are on our way, but we need to do more. It could help decide the future, quite candidly, of our great State.

In closing, climate change is here. We have to face that fact. And we have to address it. We have to do it in a practical, workable, intelligent way. I look forward to working with my friends Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman in the months ahead to craft a bill that will, in fact, work; a bill that will work for Ohio, a bill that will work for the United States, and a bill that will put the United States out front as a leader on global climate change in dealing with this problem.

I am confident we can, in fact, draft a bill that will own up to our obligations to our children and our grandchildren and, at the same time, will have dates that are practical so the emerging technologies will be ready to meet the needs of the energy sector--technologies that will allow us, for example, to expand the use of Ohio coal, something we have in Ohio in abundance, and we have in this country in abundance. We can also craft a bill that will frontload more money in research and development and a bill that will use a baseline date that does not unfairly penalize certain regions of the country.

I am confident we can work together to produce such a bill. We can do these things. If we do, the United States will have done the right thing. We will begin to make demonstrable progress in slowing the rate of climate change and in protecting our environment. History is on our side. History is on the side of passing a bill similar to this bill. It is imperative we get it right. It is imperative we do it right.

I thank Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman for their courage, for their vision and their leadership in taking up once again this tough issue. We must finish the task. I look forward to working with them to do the right thing for Ohio, but, more importantly, to do the right thing for our country and for the world, for our children, and for our grandchildren.

I yield the floor.

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, let me speak also in opposition to the Feinstein amendment. Federal jurisdiction over the siting of import and export terminals is constitutional, it is appropriate, it is a necessary part of this energy bill, in my view, and of any rational national energy policy.

Obviously, as the Senator from Tennessee was just pointing out, an adequate natural gas supply is extremely important to our Nation's economy. The regulation of foreign commerce, such as import and export terminals for LNG, is a Federal role under our Constitution.

The States have a legitimate interest, an interest in protecting their environment and the health and safety of their citizens. But the Feinstein amendment is not necessary because State participation authority in the LNG siting process is already very robust. For us to add another provision of law that says after the NEPA process is completed a Governor can come in and veto the siting of an LNG facility would be bad policy. In my view, the amendment being offered ignores the current State authority and turns the process on its head.

Today, for both offshore and onshore LNG proposals, State agencies with environmental expertise and related permitting authority are active participants in the NEPA process. Furthermore, an applicant must obtain all of the required State and local permits before that applicant can construct and operate an LNG terminal.

The bill which we have reported out of the committee does not take away any existing State authorities related to the LNG siting process. And the key Federal statutes that provide States permitting authority-- those statutes are explicitly protected in our committee bill. It strikes a balance between Federal and State interests.

The Deepwater Port Act Gubernatorial veto, which has been referred to by the Senator from California, is not a good model for us to follow in this legislation. It was enacted in 1974 to provide a process for siting deepwater oil ports. The Governors' veto authority in the Deepwater Port Act has never been utilized. We are not certain why, but I would argue it is an artifact from a time when the environmental statutes that States currently can use were very new and were untested. The National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, of 1969, was just in its infancy in 1974.

The NEPA process has evolved since the 1970s to require a thorough and wide-ranging public review of the environmental impacts of Federal actions and a consideration of alternatives to the proposed actions. Many other environmental statutes--the Coastal Zone Management Act mentioned by the Senator from Tennessee, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and the Clean Air Act--were also enacted in the early 1970s. These Federal statutes delegate significant permitting authority to the States.

The Feinstein amendment is not workable as it is currently drafted. It allows the Governor to veto a proposed terminal after the entire NEPA process has been completed and a final environmental impact statement has been issued. Yet the amendment does not require the Governor or the relevant State agencies to participate in that same NEPA process. This is a process that can take up to a year to complete. It is a process that is designed to involve all interested parties and to identify all of the significant environmental and safety issues that need to be resolved.

The amendment also allows the Governor to require the FERC to impose conditions on the LNG project to make it consistent with State environmental laws. But the veto and the consistency provisions in the Feinstein amendment duplicate authorities the States already have under other laws. The Coastal Zone Management Act requires that an applicant seeking a Federal permit to construct an LNG terminal in a coastal area prove to the State that the activity will be consistent with the State's coastal laws. If the State denies the consistency determination, the Federal permit cannot be issued. This effectively vetoes the project. There is a limited right of appeal to the Secretary of Commerce.

The Clean Water Act requires that an applicant obtain from the State a section 401 certification that the facility will comply with the act, including the State's water quality standards. Denial of this certification effectively vetoes the project as the only appeal that is provided for is to the State courts.

The committee bill does not take away any of these powers, nor does it affect the State and local laws that require project developers to obtain dozens of permits for LNG facilities.

I ask my colleagues: Why do we need to add this additional authority? It will discourage States from engaging in the NEPA process for a project that is in its early stages, when alternative sites can be identified and safety measures can be required. Indeed, the prospect of the Governor waiting to interject himself and the State at a later point in the project after the environmental impact statement is done will discourage industry from developing the LNG terminals that the country will need in the future.

Let me mention one other fact. I know the Senator from Rhode Island was talking about problems. He mentioned the KeySpan project in his State. FERC currently is actively engaged in assuring that these facilities are sited in safe locations. The Energy Daily, on May 23, had an article in it with the headline ``FERC Staff Flunks Rhode Island LNG Facility on Safety.''

In this article they point out that ``the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff, in a final environmental impact analysis, said Friday that a controversial liquefied natural gas terminal project in Rhode Island would flunk Federal safety standards with inadequate earthquake protection and an insufficient fire buffer.''

Then the article goes on to say:

. . . it is highly unlikely that FERC would vote to approve

the project over the findings of the final [environmental

impact statement] which said rather bluntly: ``KeySpan's

LNG's proposed LNG import terminal would not meet current LNG

safety standards . . . [and] KeySpan LNG has not provided any

data to show that the proposed import terminal can be brought

into compliance with the current safety standards.''

I cite that to make the point that FERC is doing its job. They are not trying to put facilities or permit facilities at locations that are unsafe. They are taking into account the concerns of the local community and the concerns of the States. They are flunking applications where those concerns are valid.

We have tried to protect the rights of States and local communities in this legislation. I believe we have done that. I urge that we not adopt the Feinstein amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there is 3 minutes remaining in opposition to the amendment?

Mr. President, let me speak briefly. I thank my colleague for yielding me some time to conclude my remarks here, and I compliment him on his statement. The Constitution is very clear. It says in article I of the Constitution--and Senator Byrd isn't on the floor, but he is usually reading this to us--that ``the Congress shall have the power''--then it lists a whole bunch of things--``to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States and with the Indian tribes.''

This is a question of siting import and export terminals, so that we can conduct business with foreign nations. Clearly, there are major authorities that States and local governments have to participate in this process and to object. Anybody who has tried to site one of these terminals--and I have talked to several of them--will tell you there are a lot of people in the process who can say ``no'' and that ``no'' will stick.

The States clearly are in that position. The States, under the Coastal Zone Management Act, have the ability to say no, if they do not determine that the permitting or that the applicant who is seeking a permit is consistent with the State's coastal laws. Under the Clean Water Act, the State can say no and deny a certification under section 411 if they determine that the proposal has not complied with the State water quality standards. There are a variety of places where the State can say no and, of course, local communities as well.

What we have tried to do in the underlying bill is to be sure that once the need for process is completed, once the State has signed off on various permits and certifications, then there is not an additional problem that can be raised by the Governor of the State. Presumably, that government will have been involved in every stage of this process, and that State's appropriate agencies will have been involved in every stage of the process. But we need to have some finality to this, and we need to be able to be sure FERC can go ahead with the siting if they determine, after all this has been done, that in fact this is a safe project that makes sense and ought to be permitted. That is all we are trying to do in the bill.

The amendment of the Senator from California would have the effect of saying to Governors that you have the final word. Regardless of what FERC determines, regardless of what the process reveals, regardless of any of that, if you still don't like it, you can say no. That is not a good process. That will not give the confidence and assurance that is needed.

Mr. President, I urge defeat of the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to honor Abraham Lincoln in 2009, the bicentennial of his birth, by issuing a series of 1-cent coins with designs on the reverse that are emblematic of the 4 major periods of his life, in Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and Washington, D.C. The bill would also provide for a longer-term redesign of the reverse of 1-cent coins so that after 2009 they will bear an image emblematic of Lincoln's preservation of the United States as a single and united country.

Abraham Lincoln was one of our greatest leaders, demonstrating enormous courage and strength of character during the Civil War, perhaps the greatest crisis in our Nation's history. Lincoln was born in Kentucky, grew to adulthood in Indiana, achieved fame in Illinois, and led the Nation in Washington, DC. He rose to the Presidency through a combination of honesty, integrity, intelligence, and commitment to the United States.

Adhering to the belief that all men are created equal, Lincoln led the effort to free all slaves in the United States. Despite the great passions aroused by the Civil War, Lincoln had a generous heart and acted with malice toward none and with charity for all. Lincoln made the ultimate sacrifice for the country he loved, dying from an assassin's bullet on April 15, 1865. All Americans could benefit from studying the life of Abraham Lincoln.

The ``Lincoln cent'' was introduced in 1909 on the 100th anniversary of Lincoln's birth, making the front design by sculptor Victor David Brenner the most enduring image on the Nation's coinage. President Theodore Roosevelt was so impressed by Brenner's talent that he was chosen to design the likeness of Lincoln for the coin, adapting a design from a plaque Brenner had prepared earlier. In the nearly 100 years of production of the ``Lincoln cent,'' there have been only two designs on the reverse: the original, featuring two wheat-heads, and the current representation of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC.

On the occasion of the bicentennial of Lincoln's birth and the 100th anniversary of the production of the Lincoln cent, we should recognize his great achievement in ensuring that the United States remained one Nation, united and inseparable.

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

Mr. President, I would speak for a moment, if I could, on an issue which is near and dear to not just seniors but their families.

Last night, CMS Administrator Mark McClellan acknowledged the cumulative cost of the Medicare prescription drug program between 2006 and 2015 will reach $1.2 trillion. Although Mr. McClellan said the number would be reduced to $724 billion after seniors pay their premiums and the Federal Government is reimbursed by States for coverage of their Medicaid populations, it is still much higher than originally thought. As recently as September, Mr. McClellan said this program would only cost $534 billion.

Remember this program? This was President Bush's Medicare prescription drug program.

Now, we all understand that Medicare did not cover prescription drugs. Seniors need that coverage because drugs are so expensive, and drugs are essential for them to maintain their health and stay independent and strong for a long period of time. But when we got into this debate on the floor of the Senate about creating this program, the pharmaceutical companies lined the hallways around the Senate with men in expensive three-piece suits and Gucci loafers and said: Whatever you do, don't touch the profits of the pharmaceutical companies.

Too many Senators on both sides of the aisle decided that the profits of the pharmaceutical companies were more important than the cost of the drugs for seniors. So, in the bill we included a provision that prohibits Medicare from negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies to get lower prices for drugs for seniors.

What does it mean? It means every single year the cost of prescription drugs under this Medicare program will inflate like the cost of prescription drugs for people across the United States.

Take a look at the drug price comparisons, just for the years 2005 and 2016, on some common drugs listed on this chart--what we anticipate, using the Bush Administration's calculations for the rate of increase for prescription drugs, will happen to their costs.

Look at Norvasc. It will go from $170 to $525 in 2016; Plavix, $230 to $710; Prevacid, $120 to $374; and Zocor, $124 to $383.

So in this period of time, if you want to know why the prescription drug program's costs are going through the roof, it is because the cost of the drugs is going through the roof. Unless and until Medicare can negotiate the price of these drugs, and keep them reasonable for seniors, there is no way in the world this program is going to be cost- effective. It is interesting to me that when this estimate of cost came out, Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the Republican chairman of the Budget Committee, said $400 billion was the original cost of this program, and we have to cut the benefits back to hit that cost, instead of saying, why don't we find a way to reduce the pharmaceutical company profits so we can keep the drugs seniors across America are buying at reasonable prices.

Drug prices are going to continue to rise. The price of 26 drugs most commonly used by seniors increased 21.6 percent, on average, over the last 3 years, and they will continue to increase in the future.

I have gone through some basic drugs on this chart, but I want to tell my friends who are following this debate, this is no surprise. Those of us who voted against the bill said exactly this would happen: If you do not contain the cost of drugs, you cannot afford this program. It will explode in the outyears, and future Members of Congress and Presidents will decide to cut back on the benefits under the program rather than face the reality of what we did in passing this legislation.

Medicare actuaries estimate the prescription drug benefit premium will increase from $35 a month under the President's plan in 2006 to $68 a month in 2015. Deductibles will increase. I think we are at a point where we have to acknowledge the obvious.

Let me say a word about pharmaceutical companies. We want the pharmaceutical industry to be strong and profitable because in their profits is the money for research for new drugs. That is essential for America's health and the world's health. But what we find now is that pharmaceutical companies in America are spending more money on advertising than they are on research. You cannot turn on the television without finding another ad for another drug. Why? Because they want the consuming public to walk into their doctor's office and say: Doctor, I beg you, give me the little purple pill. And doctors do. It is an expensive pill. It may not be the necessary and required pill, but doctors do it. And if you sell more of those little purple pills, the pharmaceutical companies do quite well.

Take a look at the profitability of the Fortune 500 drug companies versus the profits of all Fortune 500 companies in the year 2002. When you take a look at the drug companies on these red bars, and the other companies on the yellow bars, you can see exactly the difference. Profits as revenues: 17 percent for drug companies, 3.1 percent for other companies. Profits as a percentage of equity: 27.6 percent for pharmaceutical companies, 10.2 percent for the rest of the Fortune 500 companies.

They are extremely profitable companies. We want them to make profits, but not at the expense of seniors who cannot afford to pay.

Mr. President, I want to give my colleague an opportunity to speak here. I would say the most important thing I can tell you today is there is an answer. I am reintroducing a bill today that I believe will go a long way to reducing the cost of prescription drugs. The Medicare Prescription Drugs Savings and Choice Act instructs the Secretary of HHS to offer a nationwide Medicare-delivered prescription drug benefit in addition to the current PDP and PPO plans available in the 10 regions. It instructs the Secretary of HHS to set a uniform national premium of $35 for the first year, and it instructs the Secretary of HHS to negotiate group purchasing agreements on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.

This is the way to lower the costs of drugs. I am honored that my proposal, the legislation which I am introducing, has been endorsed by the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the American Federation of Teachers, the American Public Health Association, the American Nurses Association, Campaign for America's Future, Center for Medicare Advocacy, Consumers Union, Families USA, and a host of other groups. It is an indication to me that they know, for their membership and seniors and Americans in general, this legislation is going to be an important step forward.

I invite my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this legislation so we can bring the cost of drugs within the reach of senior citizens and keep a prescription drug program that is affordable.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 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.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the next generation of Hispanic Serving Institutions legislation. This legislation is critical if we, as a Nation, are going to continue to compete in a global economy. Education is the key to building a strong and dynamic economy, and therefore, it is our obligation to ensure quality educational opportunities for all Americans. That is why I am introducing, along with my colleague Senator Hutchison, the Next Generation Hispanic Serving Institutions Act of 2005. This legislation is supported by the Hispanic Education Coalition, an ad hoc coalition of national organizations dedicated to improving educational opportunities for more than 40 million Hispanics living in the United States, including groups like National Council of La Raza, HACU, and MALDEF. Senators Bill Nelson and Clinton have joined in this effort as cosponsors.

According to Census Bureau data, Hispanic population in the United States grew by 25.7 million between 1970 and 2000 and continues to grow at a very brisk pace. The most recent census data puts the Hispanic population at over 40 million, representing approximately 14 percent of the U.S. population and making it the Nation's largest minority group. Estimates project that the Hispanic population will grow by 25 million between 2000 and 2020. By the year 2050, 1 in 4 Americans will be of Hispanic origin.

Currently, Hispanics make up about 13 percent of the U.S. labor force. While the overall labor force is projected to slow down over the next decades as an increasing number of workers reach retirement age, the Hispanic labor force is expected to continue growing at a fast pace. It will expand by nearly 10 million workers between now and 2020, through a combination of immigration and native-born youth reaching working age.

Our Nation's economic and social success rests, in large part, on the level of skills and knowledge attained by our Hispanic population.

I was one of the authors and lead supporters of the original Hispanic Serving Institutions proposal when it was enacted as part of the Higher Education Act in 1992 in order to increase educational opportunities for Hispanic students. Since then, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, HSIs, have made significant strides in increasing the number of Hispanic students enrolling in and graduating from college. Although Hispanic- serving institutions account for only 5 percent of all institutions of higher education in the United States,

HSIs enroll over half, 51 percent, of all Hispanics pursuing higher education degrees in the 50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

While Hispanic high school graduates go on to college at higher rates than they did even ten years ago, Hispanics still lag behind their non- Hispanic peers in postsecondary school enrollment. In 2000, only 21.7 percent of all Hispanics ages 18 through 24 were enrolled in postsecondary degree-granting institutions in the United States.

We must take HSIs to the next level. While the percentage of Hispanics attending college has increased significantly over the past few years, Hispanic students are disproportionately enrolled in 2-year colleges, and are much less likely to finish college than their non- Hispanic peers. In 2001, only slightly more than 1 in 10 Hispanics ages 25 years and over had received a bachelor's degree or higher.

According to the Department of Education, in 2000, Hispanics only earned 6 percent of all bachelor's degrees awarded, 4 percent of all master's degrees, and only 3 percent of all doctorates. But the pace of bachelor's degrees or higher earned by Hispanics is accelerating rapidly, according to the Department of Education. Therefore, we must keep pace. We must increase the capacity of our institutions of higher education to serve the increasing number of Hispanic students.

The Next Generation HSI bill does just that. Simply, this legislation will improve educational opportunities for Hispanic students by establishing a competitive grant program to expand post-baccalaureate degree opportunities at HSIs, and by eliminating unnecessary and burdensome administrative requirements HSIs must contend with.

Current law only provides support for 2-year and 4-year Hispanic Serving Institutions. This legislation will support graduate fellowships and support services for graduate students, facilities improvement, faculty development, technology and distance education, and collaborative arrangements with other institutions. This legislation will build capacity and establish a long overdue graduate program for HSIs.

In addition, current law places a number of unnecessary, burdensome administrative and regulatory barriers at the gates of our HSIs. If our goal is to increase educational opportunities for all students, and particularly Hispanic students, then we must eliminate bureaucratic barriers that impede access.

Accordingly, this legislation removes a 2-year period in which HSIs must wait before becoming eligible to apply for another grant under title V of the Higher Education Act. This 2-year wait out period obstructs the efforts of many HSIs to implement continuing programs and conduct long range planning. As a result, many HSIs cannot maintain continuity in educational programming. We should be creating opportunities to improve the quality of education, and eliminating this wait-out period is a step in the right direction.

In addition, this bill eliminates another onerous requirement on HSIs that other minority-serving institutions are not required to follow. Currently, in order to be eligible as an HSI, the institution must serve ``needy students''--meaning at least 50 percent of the degree students are receiving Federal need-based assistance or the institution's percentage of Pell Grant recipients exceeds the median percentage for similar institutions receiving Pell Grants. Also, to be eligible, 25 percent of the full time, undergraduate population must be Hispanic. However, unlike other grant programs in the Higher Education Act, HSIs must also show that 50 percent of the Hispanic population is low income.

This last requirement is particularly burdensome, as it is duplicative and unfair, and, in many cases, prevents HSIs from providing vital educational services to Hispanic students. This provision requires the institutions to collect information and data that is not readily available or easily acquirable. It requires the schools to come up with data beyond what is required for financial aid purposes. Further, there is no other requirement in Federal law for institutions to collect this type of data. As a result, many institutions with large Hispanic student populations must divert critical resources and staff to acquire this information, or they simply do not qualify as an HSI.

To ensure that the institution continues to serve low-income students, the Next Generation HSI Act maintains the requirement that the institution serve needy students, but eliminates the additional requirement that the school demonstrate that 50 percent of its Hispanic students are low-income. The elimination of this requirement will ease the administrative burdens placed on our schools, and further our goals of increasing access and improving quality.

Finally, this bill facilitates the transition of Hispanic students from 2-year colleges to 4-year colleges. As I noted earlier, Hispanics are disproportionately enrolled in 2-year colleges as compared to their non-Hispanic peers. To encourage and support these students' continued education, this legislation adds as an authorized activity programs that assist a student's transfer from a 2-year institution to a 4-year institution.

Hispanic students now account for nearly 17 percent of the total kindergarten through grade 12 student population. Estimates project that this student population will grow from 11 million in 2005 to 16 million in 2020. We must provide our institutions of higher education with the resources and flexibility they need to build capacity and serve the increasing Hispanic student population. We must be ready for the next generation of students to meet the demands of a competitive workforce and to fully participate in the global economy. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, over 50 years ago, Sir Winston Churchill uttered the immortal words, ``never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few.'' Although Prime Minister Churchill was referring to the selfless and courageous effort of the Royal Air Force in their defeat of the Germans in World War II, I would like to argue that these words apply equally to the men and women fighting to preserve democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. These men and women are not only making it possible for each and every one of us to go about our daily lives under the blanket of safety and freedom to which Americans have become accustomed, but they are also striving to bring these benefits to people who have never had them before.

If you have had the opportunity to spend time with these men and women, as I have, you quickly observe that they embody everything good about America. Their patriotism, their unyielding commitment to serve their country, their selflessness and their sacrifice should serve as examples to us all. Perhaps what amazes me most, is that although these men and women are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country, they ask for little in return from it. It is therefore incumbent on us to recognize the debt we owe to them, and honor it.

Today there are 80,000 members of the National Guard and our Reserve armed forces serving bravely in the war on terror. In addition, close to 89,000 members of the Guard and Reserve have been activated in anticipation of being sent to Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other place their country calls on them to serve. While deployed, these citizen soldiers are asked, in a moment's notice, to leave their families, their jobs, and their communities behind, causing tremendous stress on the home front and in the workplace.

While having a loved one in harm's way is reason for stress alone, many of the families of these men and women have the added stress of trying to fill the void left. Many families have lost the main bread winner when a Guardsmen or Reservist gets deployed. As a result, they have trouble paying bills, the rent, the mortgage, or medicine for their children.

The primary reason these families cannot make ends meet is because for Guardsmen and Reservists military pay is often less than civilian pay. We call that the ``pay gap.'' According to the most recent Status of Forces Survey of Reserve Components, 51 percent of our citizen soldiers take a pay cut when they get deployed and 11 percent of them lose more than $2,500 per month.

We ask these men and women to make so many sacrifices on our behalf. I think that it is time that we be willing to make one in return. The least we can do is to help these families find relief from the financial woes caused by this gap. To help do this, my colleagues Senator Graham, Senator Allen, Senator Durbin, and myself are pleased to introduce the Helping Our Patriotic Employers at Helping our Military Employees Act of 2005. We call the bill by its nickname: HOPE at HOME. Our guard and reserve families have enough to worry about when a loved one gets called away, the least we can do is relieve some of the financial worry by encouraging employers to make up the pay gap. Let me describe for my colleagues how this legislation works.

HOPE at HOME will give a 50 percent tax credit to the thousands of employers around the country who have taken the patriotic step of continuing to pay the salary of their guard and reservists employees who have been called to active duty. There are literally thousands of employers out there who already take this noble step--they do it voluntarily, selflessly and at great sacrifice. The HOPE at HOME Act honors that sacrifice.

HOPE at HOME will also encourage companies that cannot afford to make up the pay-gap an incentive to do it. One survey found that only 173 of the Fortune 500 companies make up the pay gap. If the wealthiest companies cannot afford to help their active duty employees, imagine how difficult this is for smaller companies. HOPE at HOME will allow companies large and small to do the patriotic thing and reward those employees who are serving to keep us all free.

HOPE at HOME will also give small patriotic employers additional tax relief if they need to hire a worker to temporarily replace the active duty Guardsmen or Reservist. In addition, the bill clarifies the tax treatment of any pay-gap payments to make income tax filing easier for our Guard and Reservists.

A moment ago, I mentioned that thousands of employers make up the pay-gap for their employees. There is one employer, however, and it happens to be the Nation's largest, that does not make up the pay gap: Uncle Sam. The Federal Government, which should set the bar for patriotism in our country, does not do its part to help citizen soldiers. Senator Durbin has been a leader in this area, so our bill includes language that he has been fighting to require the Federal Government to make up the pay gap. We cannot ask the private sector to do more than they are doing if the Federal Government is not willing to step up and do its part for our military men and women.

This is not only the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do. Today our Nation relies on the Guard and Reserve to meet our armed forces needs more than at any other time in our history. At times in the war on terror, forty-percent of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan were citizen soldiers. Many of them performed multiple tours of duty or found their duties extended.

All of the experts tell us that our need for our Guard and Reserve troops will only get greater. In the post-Cold War world, we have drastically reduced our standing Army from 800,000 in 1989 to approximately 482,000 today, a 40 percent decrease. The number of deployments has increased by over 300 percent. The Guard and Reserve have made it possible to meet these challenges. We still find ourselves stretched thin, but without the Guard and Reserve we would never be able to meet our obligation as guardians of freedom in the World.

But this over-reliance on the Guard and Reserve is starting to have a toll on our ability to recruit and retain these men and women. The percentage of Army Reserve personnel who plan to remain in the military after their tour of duty ends fell from 73 percent to 66 percent over 2004. The top reasons for leaving the Guard and Reserve, according to the Status of Forces Survey of Reserve Components, are family stress, the number and lengths of deployments, income loss, and conflict with civilian employment.

We are beginning to have recruitment problems as well for our standing military. Back in February, the Army and the National Guard and Reserve recruited 3,824 soldiers, but this was only 69 percent of their monthly goal. The numbers went up in March, but still fell short by 12 percent of the goal.

HOPE at HOME recognizes that a soldier who is worrying about how his or her family is paying the bills is not focusing on the mission at hand. A soldier who is worrying about whether the family is paying the rent, is not going

to reenlist. And every time one of our soldiers leaves, our Nation loses the experience and service of a highly trained, capable professional. We need to make every effort to keep our citizen soldiers in service to their country. HOPE at HOME is a first step to addressing our military's larger recruitment and retention issues.

During the Cold War we built our strength on having the biggest, best equipped standing army in the World. Now our military gathers its strength from a large reserve of qualified men and women in the Guard and Reserve who are ready to fight at a moment's call. We will lose that strength if we do not give our Guardsmen and Reservists and their families HOPE at HOME.

I hope my colleagues will join Senators Allen, Graham, Durbin and myself in supporting the HOPE at HOME Act.

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