A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide an exception to the 60-day limit on Medicare reciprocal billing arrangements between two physicians during the period in which one of the physicians is ordered to active duty as a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce new legislation to tackle the escalating problem of global warming. Together with Senators Specter, Harkin, Stevens, Murkowski, and Akaka, I am introducing a bill we have entitled the ``Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007'' which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions that result from the production and use of energy in the United States. We do this with the support of many influential labor organizations and unions, business leaders, concerned conservationists, and environmental groups. I believe this legislation represents an important milestone in the debate on global warming. It is the product of over 2 years of deliberation and analysis based on committee hearings, on stakeholder workshops, on discussions among individual Senate offices.

I would like to make three basic points to my colleagues today that I hope will persuade them to join us in cosponsoring the Low Carbon Economy Act and to bring about action on global warming in this Congress.

The first point is that the time for action is now. The second point is the most effective approach combines technology research and development and deployments with market incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And the third point is that effective global action is only possible with leadership from the United States.

First, as to the point that the time for action is now, the United States committed in 1992--that was 15 years ago--to participate in a framework to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Since that time, what we know about global warming has become more and more alarming. According to the latest scientific findings of our world's leading experts--that is, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--the confidence that humans are altering the Earth's climate has reached 90 percent certainty.

As scientists have grown more certain and more concerned, so have our citizens. Across the country, Americans are seeing signs of global warming, not as a concern for the distant future, but as having an impact on their lives today. More intense hurricanes in the gulf, record-breaking wildfires and heat waves in the West, accelerating beach erosion on the eastern seaboard, melting permafrost in Alaska, all give us a taste of what climate change could mean. If we do not get together with other nations to start limiting emissions soon, we will have to expect worse in the future.

Across the country, convenience about climate change has motivated Governors, State legislators, and mayors to show that States and cities and individuals can help to manage this most important environmental problem of our time. Their motivation has another root, however, and that is frustration. I am talking about frustration that the Federal Government has failed, so far, to show the leadership and take the action necessary to meet this challenge.

It is against this backdrop we are introducing this legislation today, with the support of this historic new coalition. My colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, represents a State that relies heavily on manufacturing and coal production--a fossil fuel that is responsible for the emission of greenhouse gases. He has consistently fought to protect the economy of his State and of the country. This bill we are introducing continues that tradition. It does so with the full backing of labor organizations, such as the AFL-CIO, unions, such as the Steelworkers and the United Mine Workers.

My colleagues from Alaska, Senators Stevens and Murkowski, represent a State that is likely to be among those most directly affected by global warming. Alaska balances a reliance on fossil fuel production with the demands of a unique natural habitat and a long history of indigenous cultures that are threatened by the warming climate.

My Democratic colleagues from Iowa and Hawaii, Senators Harkin and Akaka, have helped bring to the table a way to include the agricultural community in greenhouse gas markets and to strengthen our protection of coastal lands and impacts on the poor.

This bipartisan coalition also has the support of companies, such as PNM, from my home State of New Mexico, Exelon, and American Electric Power. We have also worked closely with numerous conservation organizations to design provisions in the legislation to ensure that America's fish and wildlife can survive the effects of climate change.

As a result, 23 major national conservation organizations, representing millions of hunters and anglers, have expressed support for this approach we have taken to fish and wildlife conservation. They recognize the enormous threat posed by climate change, and they support the way we have responded to that in this proposed bill.

Combined with the support of other labor unions, such as the United Brotherhood of Boilermakers, the United Auto Workers, and the International Brotherhood of Electric Workers, this bill demonstrates that the ground has shifted sufficiently in Washington and we can realistically press for action now in this Congress.

My second point is the action we need now is a combination of technology incentives--both to develop the technology, and to use that technology, or deploy that technology--and also limits on emissions. Only mandatory limits will create the economy-wide price signal needed to spur serious investment and innovation in finding ways to curb emissions.

The bill we have put together is the product of a long process of deliberation and analysis. In 2005, I put forward a proposal based on the recommendations of the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy. In the time that has passed since then, we have worked on this issue in the Senate Energy Committee with colleagues to understand the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We convened hearings and we hosted workshops tailored to learn about key design features of mandatory market-based programs and the European experience with these programs.

I have concluded we need massive investment in technologies that are more efficient and less carbon intensive if we are going to effectively confront global warming. I doubt there is a single

Member of this body who does not believe new options for generating electricity and for fueling our economy are needed, whether it is to limit climate risks or to reduce our oil dependence and enhance our energy security.

Where we have come to a standstill has always been in finding the resources to make the research and development investments we need and to provide the incentives that will get these new technologies widely adopted in the marketplace once they are available. This Low Carbon Economy Act provides funding for an unprecedented push to develop and deploy new climate friendly technologies on a massive scale.

Specifically, the bill would more than triple the Federal investment in low-carbon energy technologies and would ease the transition to a globally competitive, low-carbon economy. In addition, this bill would provide bonuses--worth approximately $100 billion over 30 years--to ambitious and innovative companies that are willing to take on the challenge of building commercial-scale powerplants that capture and sequester carbon dioxide emissions.

Implementing the transition to a low-carbon economy is enormously important and it is also equally challenging. It requires new technology, new resources, and new policies, but most of all it requires political will. I am confident we can rise to the challenge if we can work together in a bipartisan manner to craft legislation that considers both our environmental and our economic challenges.

This Nation has a longstanding interest in developing clean domestic energy resources--an interest that predates our current concerns about climate change. But the problem has been this interest has waxed and waned in the past, usually in direct relation to the price of oil, along with our commitment and our ability to devote the resources it takes to get the job done.

Now, through enactment of this Low Carbon Economy Act, we can spur our industries and our universities, our entrepreneurs and our innovators to push the limits of feasibility in ways that have led to technology breakthroughs in the past. Examples, of course, are the space program, the Internet, and the communications revolution.

But voluntary initiatives and incentives alone will not get the job done. Many of my colleagues have expressed a reluctance to tread into the water of climate caps and regulation because they fear that burdening the economy before we have the technology available to meet the goals we set out would be unwise. We have concluded that further delay while we wait for technology is not a responsible strategy.

We can invest billions of dollars in research on technology, but those technologies will always be more expensive than the current way of doing business as long as the current way of doing business allows greenhouse gases to be released to the atmosphere without any charge at all. In a competitive market economy, it is unrealistic to expect companies to do otherwise than to maximize their profits and to look out for the bottom line. That means businesses will not implement new technologies unless those technologies make good financial sense.

The truth is, we have many of the technologies we need today to get started on this problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We can begin deploying them today while we invest in research for newer technologies for use tomorrow. It is absolutely essential we have a combination of technology incentives and price signals to make both of these things happen.

This Low Carbon Economy Act reflects this central premise, generating both the revenue needed to ensure that new technologies are available when we need them and the price signal needed to spur business to invest in deploying those technologies as soon as possible.

My final point is that an approach such as the one that is set out in this Low Carbon Economy Act offers the best hope for reestablishing U.S. leadership on the issue of climate change at this point in time. People will continue to debate the stringency of our proposal--whether it is too aggressive or too weak--but the bottom line is that other nations are looking to the United States to embrace mandatory action.

There has been much focus lately on China's rapidly growing emissions, but the fact remains ours is the world's richest economy and the one with the highest greenhouse gas emissions. Even if China's emissions eclipse ours this year or in the next few years, it is still the case that our historic and ongoing emissions account for a large, and some would say, a disproportionate share of the problem.

Our continued failure to implement a mandatory program has meant we have not been the driving force we need to be to bring countries together to resolve this serious issue. Nor has it put us in a position to encourage rapidly industrializing nations, such as China, India, and Brazil, to pursue a low-carbon pathway as they develop their economies.

Make no mistake, our legislation recognizes that all of the large emitting countries need to be seriously involved in global efforts to combat climate change and need to participate in good faith. The administration has put forward a program to engage developing countries through loan guarantees, cost-sharing for demonstration projects, and information sharing. I support this approach, but I am also convinced that it will only work as part of a broader policy initiative that includes mandatory limits on U.S. emissions.

Included in this Low Carbon Economy Act is funding for these programs so that the United States can put forth a true effort to make significant relationships work abroad. But we need to take a more aggressive step at home while we pursue this strategy abroad. Only through this leadership can we expect others to see that they too must do their part. Only through this leadership will we be able to rebuild the credibility we need to inspire an effective global response, including, if necessary, working with other leading countries to apply pressure on nations that continue to avoid implementing emissions limits. To sum up, we are well aware that the U.S. cannot do this alone. But we are equally convinced that others will not do their share unless the U.S. leads the way.

In conclusion, we ask our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the Low Carbon Economy Act. With their help, it is my hope we can bring the Senate to take action on this issue by the end of the year. I also hope the President will work with us to work out the details of this proposal going forward. Congress cannot do this without the leadership of the President. The issue is too significant to be able to make progress without having active and constructive dialog with the administration at every step of the way. Congress must make it known that we intend to forge ahead with or without the administration's help and the President's help. I hope the majority leader is able to schedule time here on the Senate floor to deal with this issue of global warming later this year. Only with deadlines and a structured process will the Senate be able to devote the energy and attention the issue needs and deserves.

I pledge to work in earnest with my colleagues, including the chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, Senator Boxer, and with Senators Lieberman and Warner of that committee, who I know are working on this issue. I hope they and others will see this legislation as a framework that will be helpful to them in developing an approach to bring to the Senate floor.

Ultimately, I am optimistic we can take the best ideas and succeed in passing legislation because there is now broad agreement within this body and within the business community and the general public about the need for real progress and action on the issue. Let's not wait any longer, when we know that one course of action we cannot afford and cannot defend is continued paralysis.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to join Senator Bingaman, chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in introducing the Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007. This legislation represents the most comprehensive and responsible approach to date in reducing our Nation's greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to the growing threat of global climate change.

The amount and quality of scientific data continue to improve our understanding of global climate change. This

information points toward potentially severe ramifications for Earth's climate, ecosystems, and life as we know it. The most recent assessment in February 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, concluded that ``most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.'' This 90 percent likelihood of human impact on the global climate adds to the compelling case that action to fight climate change is warranted.

Some skeptics of the human contribution to this global problem remain, however their voices grow more distant as more information comes to light. Given past uncertainties, I have previously been unable to support legislative proposals which have threatened U.S. economic interests without meaningful environmental benefit. The Senate voted 95-0 in 1997 to overwhelmingly support the Byrd-Hagel resolution, S. Res. 98, rejecting the Kyoto protocol for its unequal treatment of developed and developing nations, as well as the potential serious harm to the U.S. economy. Subsequently, the Senate has twice voted on climate change legislation offered by Senators McCain and Lieberman-- failing by votes of 43-55 in 2003 and 38-60 in 2005. As I stated on the Senate floor at the time, the McCain-Lieberman bill did not contain adequate consideration of the U.S. economy, nor did it adequately address the global nature of the problem.

However, due to my increasing concerns about the threats of climate change, in 2005, I joined Senator Bingaman in offering an amendment to the Energy Policy Act, amendment No. 866, which was passed by voice vote after an unsuccessful attempt--43-54 vote to table'' or set it aside. The amendment called on the U.S. Congress to ``enact a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits and incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of such emissions at a rate and in a manner that: (1) will not significantly harm the United States economy; and (2) will encourage comparable action by other nations that are major trading partners and key contributors to global emissions.''

In January of this year, Senator Bingaman and I announced a ``discussion draft'' of legislation to achieve these goals. Today, we are introducing a revised bill which has been shaped by a comprehensive and inclusive stakeholder process which brought together over 300 representatives of consumers, energy producers, manufacturers, workers, and environmental advocacy organizations, as well as numerous Senate offices.

The ``Low Carbon Economy Act'' creates a strong and credible approach to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas, GHG, emissions while protecting the U.S. economy and engaging developing countries. The act creates a cap-and- trade program for U.S. GHG emissions that is modeled on the successful Acid Rain Program. By setting an annual target and allowing firms to buy, sell, and trade credits to achieve the target, the program is designed to elicit the most cost-effective reductions across the economy. The target is set to avoid harm to the economy and promote a gradual but decisive transition to new, low-carbon technologies.

The strategic targets of the act are: reducing U.S. GHG emissions to 2006 levels by 2020 and 1990 levels by 2030. To limit economic uncertainty and price volatility, the government would allow firms to make a payment at a fixed price in lieu of submitting allowances. This fee, referred to in the bill as the ``Technology Accelerator Payment''--TAP--starts at $12 per metric ton of CO2- equivalent in the first year of the program and rises steadily each year thereafter at 5 percent above the rate of inflation. If technology improves rapidly and if additional GHG reduction policies are adopted, the TAP option will never be engaged. Conversely, if technology improves less rapidly than expected and program costs exceed predictions, companies could make a payment into the energy technology deployment fund at the TAP price, to cover a portion or all of their allowance submission requirement.

Under the act, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from petroleum and natural gas are regulated ``upstream''--that is, at or close to the point of fuel production. For these fuels, regulated entities are required to submit tradable allowances equal to the carbon content of fuels produced or processed at their facilities. Regulated entities that must submit allowances include: petroleum refineries, natural gas processing facilities, fossil fuel importers, large coal- consuming facilities, and producers/importers of non-CO2 GHGs. GHG emissions from coal are regulated ``downstream'' at the point of fuel consumption.

The proposal sets out a detailed methodology for distributing tradable emission allowances. At the beginning of the program in 2012, a majority--53 percent--of allowances are given out for free to the private sector. This amount is gradually reduced each year after the first 5 years of the program. In addition, 8 percent of allowances will be set aside annually to create incentives for carbon capture and storage to jump-start these critical technologies; 24 percent of total allowances will be auctioned by the government to generate much-needed revenue for the research, development, and deployment of low- and no- carbon technologies, to provide for climate change adaptation measures, and to provide assistance to low-income households; 5 percent of allowances are reserved to promote agricultural sequestration; and 1 percent of the allowances will reward companies that have undertaken ``early actions'' to reduce emissions before program implementation. Another 9 percent of the allowances are to be distributed directly to States which can use associated revenues at their discretion to address regional impacts, promote technology or energy efficiency, and enhance energy security.

To effectively engage developing countries, the act would fund joint research and development partnerships and technology transfer programs similar to the Asia Pacific Partnership. The bill also calls for a 5- year review process that provides an opportunity to reassess domestic action in light of efforts by our major trade partners--and relevant scientific and technological developments. If other countries are deemed to be making inadequate efforts, the President could recommend to Congress that products imported from such countries must be accompanied by allowances--from a separate reserve of allowances-- sufficient to cover their embedded greenhouse-gas content. If there is sufficient international progress in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, the President could recommend changes in the U.S. program designed to achieve further reductions--e.g., to at least 60 percent below 2006 levels by 2050.

There are many other provisions of this comprehensive legislation that help set the U.S. on the right track in taking meaningful steps to combat global climate change and put our trading partners on notice that we take this issue very seriously. Strong U.S. leadership will go a long way in moving the Nation and the world toward a cleaner and more sustainable future. I am pleased that the legislation we introduce today has so much support from labor groups, energy companies, and conservation and sportsmen organizations. Senator Bingaman and I intend to work closely with our colleagues and all interested stakeholders to answer questions and consider feedback on our proposal.

I invite my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007 and I look forward to a meaningful debate on global climate change and the U.S. role in leading the world in technology development.

Mr. President, today, with my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, I rise to introduce a bill to amend the Idaho Admissions Act of July 3, 1890, to permit Idaho to administer Morrill Act lands and the proceeds there from in accordance with contemporary investment standards.

The State of Idaho has been working to update its management of endowed assets received as part of statehood from the Federal Government to ensure the maximum longterm financial return to the beneficiaries. Key to endowment reform is the implementation of contemporary investment principles that require asset diversification to reduce the risk of loss and that permit a trustee to deduct reasonable costs of administration of the assets normally incurred by a prudent fiduciary. Of the Federal grants to Idaho as part of statehood, only the Morrill Act limits investments in bonds of the U.S. or Idaho and precludes deducting reasonable administrative expenses incurred by the trustee. This bill would allow the State of Idaho to administer the Morrill Act assets under the same fiduciary standards now applicable to all of Idaho's other federally granted endowments.

Additionally, a broad group of State, Federal, and private interests, including the University of Idaho College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, the State of Idaho, United Dairymen of Idaho and Allied Industry, College of Southern Idaho, the Idaho Cattle Association, Idaho Wool Growers, the Idaho

National Laboratory, and Federal agencies have joined together in developing plans for the Idaho Center for Livestock and Environmental Studies to serve as a premier center for research and education in dairy and beef science. The important mission of the center is to enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Idaho, the pacific Northwest, and the Nation by furthering the educational and scientific mission of the University of Idaho and its public/private partners, by providing a state-of-the-art animal research facility capable of large- scale research that provides sound scientific results and educational opportunities intended to: protect our air, land and water, improve the welfare and productivity of our livestock, encourage the efficient use of energy and capital, and enhance workforce and economic development.

The University of Idaho, as a partner in the project and beneficiary of the Morrill Act endowment, is well positioned to utilize endowment assets to both continue to carry out the educational purposes and maintain the underlying real estate endowment while contributing to the project. However, modernization of the management of endowed assets needs to occur in order for such a worthy project to move forward.

That is why the legislation Senator Craig and I are introducing today will provide more flexibility while allowing for the allocation of management expenses in the same fashion as other State endowments, expand investment authority to match other State endowments, and provide for the use of the earnings from management of the sale of endowed lands to be used for the acquisition, construction and improvements for the operation of research farms for teaching and research purposes.

I ask that my colleagues act on this measure in a timely manner.

Mr. President, today, along with my colleague, Senator Lott, I am introducing legislation to fix an unforeseen problem that unfairly affects the ability of physicians called up to duty in the National Guard and Reserve to maintain their practices while they are serving our country.

Under the Medicare rules, a doctor who is absent from his practice can enter into a reciprocal billing arrangement with another doctor, who cares for the absent physician's patients and bills Medicare accordingly. However, these arrangements cannot last longer than 60 days. After 60 days, a second replacement must be found. Failure to find a replacement can mean losing patients to other doctors or providing care that won't be reimbursed by Medicare.

For doctors called up to active National Guard or Reserve duty, finding physicians to cover their patients while they are gone is hard enough, especially if they have practices in remote and rural areas.

Asking these doctors to find replacements every 60 days is just too much. These folks are already making tremendous sacrifices for all Americans, and there is no good reason to ask them to shoulder this additional burden, along with all the other challenges that they must confront while they are called up to active duty. The least Congress can do is ensure that these brave men and women aren't also asked to sacrifice their medical practices.

In May, the House of Representatives passed a bill introduced by Congressman Mike Thompson, and Congressman Sam Johnson that temporarily suspended the 60 day rule through the end of the year. Senator Lott and I are introducing the same piece of legislation today. We are also introducing a bill that will provide a permanent fix to this problem; Congressman Thompson and Congressman Johnson are also introducing the permanent fix today in the House.

I urge the Senate to pass both pieces of legislation as soon as possible. These doctors are making enormous sacrifices and are responsible for saving countless lives. We owe it to them to ensure that when they come home, their medical practices remain viable. Fixing this Medicare rule will help ensure this.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of S. 1767 and S. 1768 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, along with my colleague, Senator Lott, I am introducing legislation to fix an unforeseen problem that unfairly affects the ability of physicians called up to duty in the National Guard and Reserve to maintain their practices while they are serving our country.

Under the Medicare rules, a doctor who is absent from his practice can enter into a reciprocal billing arrangement with another doctor, who cares for the absent physician's patients and bills Medicare accordingly. However, these arrangements cannot last longer than 60 days. After 60 days, a second replacement must be found. Failure to find a replacement can mean losing patients to other doctors or providing care that won't be reimbursed by Medicare.

For doctors called up to active National Guard or Reserve duty, finding physicians to cover their patients while they are gone is hard enough, especially if they have practices in remote and rural areas.

Asking these doctors to find replacements every 60 days is just too much. These folks are already making tremendous sacrifices for all Americans, and there is no good reason to ask them to shoulder this additional burden, along with all the other challenges that they must confront while they are called up to active duty. The least Congress can do is ensure that these brave men and women aren't also asked to sacrifice their medical practices.

In May, the House of Representatives passed a bill introduced by Congressman Mike Thompson, and Congressman Sam Johnson that temporarily suspended the 60 day rule through the end of the year. Senator Lott and I are introducing the same piece of legislation today. We are also introducing a bill that will provide a permanent fix to this problem; Congressman Thompson and Congressman Johnson are also introducing the permanent fix today in the House.

I urge the Senate to pass both pieces of legislation as soon as possible. These doctors are making enormous sacrifices and are responsible for saving countless lives. We owe it to them to ensure that when they come home, their medical practices remain viable. Fixing this Medicare rule will help ensure this.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of S. 1767 and S. 1768 be printed in the Record.