Federal Labor-Management Partnership Act of 2007

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico. No one in the Senate on either side of the aisle has been more consistent or more effective in advancing our Nation's position in science and technology. He is also a delight to work with. It is rare to have a chance to work across the aisle in the way we have the last couple of years, not only on this legislation, but Senator Bingaman, for example, noticed that we were losing our edge in world-class computing. He saw that because of a visit to Japan. He came to me, and we worked together to try to restore that edge. He constantly is doing that in a quiet and effective way. It is a pleasure to work with him.

I also thank the majority leader, Senator Reid, and the Republican leader, Senator McConnell. Senator Bingaman and I went to see the majority leader 2 years ago when he was the minority leader. We asked him to do exactly what he has done. He and Senator Frist did. They created an environment in which this bill had a chance to succeed. Then Senator McConnell stepped right up, following Senator Frist's tremendous help and leadership in this effort, and it is fairly remarkable that we worked so evenly together in the last Republican Senate on this bill that the legislation was introduced in the Democratic Senate in the same way because we worked together on it and, hopefully, that has produced a better result.

I begin my remarks with a story. Last August, a group of Senators went to China. We were led by two of our most distinguished Members, Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, the two leaders of the Commerce Committee and two of the major contributors to this legislation. Those two Senators were very well received in China. Senator Inouye, of course, is a Congressional Medal of Honor winner from World War II, and Senator Stevens was a Flying Tiger. He flew the first cargo plane into Beijing toward the end of World War II. So he was very well received in China.

As a result, we had a chance to meet with the senior leaders of China in a way most Americans had not to that time. We spent an hour with President Hu. We spent another hour with the No. 2 leader in China, Mr. Wu, who is chairman of the National People's Congress.

We talked about the issues one would expect an American delegation of a dozen Senators would talk about with the leaders of China. We talked about their military posture. We talked about North Korea. We talked about Iraq. We talked about Iran. But, Mr. President--I can still see this--in both of the meetings we had, one with Mr. Hu, the second with Mr. Wu, there was one subject about which those two leaders of China were most animated, and that was the subject we are discussing today: how to develop China's brain power advantage so they can create more good, new jobs in China. That was the subject they really wanted to talk about.

President Hu had gone to the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Engineering just a month earlier in July. He assembled them in the Great Hall of the people. He outlined a new 15- year plan to make China a technology leader in the world.

In his speech, President Hu said China must ``promote a huge leap forward in science and technology. We shall put strengthening independent innovation capability at the core of economic structure adjustment.''

Anyone who follows China knows that when their leaders talk about leaps forward, it is a pretty big deal. President Hu's new plan appears more likely to succeed and includes reforming China's universities and massively investing in new research.

We regularly see stories of how Chinese-born academicians, some of our most distinguished faculty members at our major universities, are now accepting invitations to go back to China, their homeland, and create great universities there. There are a lot of people here--one- half of the Nobel Prize winners in physics who are American are immigrants or the sons and daughters of immigrants.

So China is serious about this plan. Mr. Hu said:

We all bear the time-honored mission to provide strong

scientific support for the construction of a well-off society

by improving our independent innovation capability and

building an innovative country. I hope that our scientists

and technicians will strive hard to make our brilliant

achievements and constantly contribute to our country and our

people.

Those are the leaders of China. They know what to do.

The United States has a remarkable position. As Senator Bingaman said, Senator Reid said, and Senator McConnell said, we don't want to take it for granted because we can't. But let's stop and think about where we are. This huge brain power advantage we have in the United States of America has given us a situation in which we produce about 30 percent of the gross national product in the world in for about 5 percent of the people. About 30 percent of all the dollars, volume in the world this year is being produced in this country, a country that only includes 5 percent of the people. How does that happen? The United States has a number of advantages: its location, its resources, the great diversity we have here, the fact we have turned all that diversity into one country. But when we look at all of our advantages-- and I should quickly put the great entrepreneurial engine we have here, the fact that if you want to come to a big country and start from scratch and create a company--and I have had the privilege to help do that in the private sector--this is the place to do it. But when you look at our major advantage, it is our brainpower.

No other country has had the broad system of education we have had. No other country has the large number of great research universities the United States of America has. No other country has the great National Laboratories we have. As a result, over the last century, especially since World War II, no other country has come close to turning its brainpower advantage into jobs, into dollars, into a high standard of living for a large number of people, and the rest of the world sees that. They see it on television. They see it on the Internet. They see it because more than half a million students from around the world, many of the brightest men and women in the world, come here to our universities, and they see what we have been able to do, and they say: Why can't we do this at home in China? Why can't we do this at home in India? Why can't we do this in Ireland? And they are doing it. We are glad they are doing it. We want them to have a high standard of living, too. The more money they make, the more goods they can buy from the United States of America. So we encourage that activity.

It also spreads our democracy, our ideals. We go to Thailand or some other country, and we find the Minister of Agriculture is a graduate of the University of Tennessee. He has learned here. He goes there and teaches about agriculture, and he promotes our ideas. Our higher education system has probably been the most effective foreign aid we have ever invested in, just those half million students who go there.

However, we are at risk of losing our brainpower advantage. If we lose our brainpower advantage, we lose our advantage and our standard of living. In other words, in plain English, we don't have as much money in our pockets, we don't have as many good jobs, and our families don't have the kind of prosperity many have come to take for granted. That is what this piece of legislation is about.

We talk a lot about outsourcing jobs, about growing new jobs. Well, this is the way to keep good new jobs in the United States and to grow them. When a graduate of a university, such as the student at the University of Maryland--I think he dropped out, actually--a foreign student--creates Google, that creates thousands and thousands of new jobs in the United States, as Thomas Edison did years ago, as Bill Gates did more recently, and as thousands of entrepreneurs do every day. It takes the brainpower advantage to create the job and it takes the brainpower advantage to work at the facility or the plant that has the jobs.

That is why, toward the end of a long Budget Committee hearing 2 years ago, I was getting a little depressed listening to what I heard about the numbers. According to the budget 2 years ago, and the budget last year, and the budget this year, we are on an unsustainable course in terms of being able to pay for Medicare and Medicaid. So the question came to me: Well, if we are going to squeeze out everything else in order to pay for Medicare and Medicaid and other programs, the war in Iraq, then how are we going to invest in this great engine of brainpower that creates the money that pays all the bills? I struggled with this as the Governor of Tennessee. I was trying to raise our standard of living in Tennessee. We were the third poorest State 25 years ago when I became Governor, based on family incomes. We already had low taxes. We had a right-to-work law. We needed to change some rules about the usury limit in banking. We needed to add a new four- lane highway system. All those were progrowth. But the most progrowth action I discovered we could take was to improve our colleges and our universities and our research facilities. That is progrowth.

As a result of better schools, better colleges, and better universities, combined with our other advantages, we moved ahead in our State. Better schools meant better jobs. Better colleges and universities mean better jobs. More research means better jobs. So we are talking today about better jobs--progrowth.

We better realize as well that we have some pretty big bills to pay. Last year, we spent $237 billion on debt, $378 billion on Medicare, $545 billion on Social Security, $70 billion or more on hurricanes, and we are spending about $4 billion a week on Iraq. What this legislation does is authorizes $4 billion a year over the next 4 years. As Senator Bingaman said, we made room for it in the budget this year to create and encourage and continue to push ahead this brainpower engine that creates the money to pay for all these necessary and urgent needs we have, these priorities we have. This is a progrowth piece of legislation.

I would say this may be the most important piece of legislation the Congress considers in this 2-year session. If it is not the most important piece of legislation, there is certainly no more important subject to most American families than: How do I keep money in my pocket to pay my bills? How do we keep our jobs from going to India and China? How do we keep our economic advantage? How do we come close to continuing to be the country that produces 30 percent of all the money in the world for only 5 percent of the people? That is why, at the end of that Budget Committee hearing I mentioned a little earlier, I literally walked down the street to the National Academy of Sciences and asked them, on behalf of Senator Bingaman and myself, with the approval of Senator Domenici, the chairman of our committee, and with the endorsement of Representatives Boehlert and Gordon in the House of Representatives--I said: Most ideas in Washington fail for lack of the idea. You are here at the end of a long day in the National Academies. You are supposed to be our advisers. So let me ask you a question: Why don't you tell us the 10 most important things we can do, in priority order, to keep our brainpower advantage? I said to them: I am merely one Senator, but I will bet if you do that, we will do it. We will take your advice.

The National Academy of Sciences and of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine formed an immediate group. They asked Norm Augustine, the former chief executive officer of Lockheed Martin and a member of the National Academy of Engineering, to chair the group. He turned to 21 distinguished Americans who know a lot about the world and our country, Craig Barrett, chairman of the board of Intel; Steven Chu, cowinner of the Nobel prize in physics and Director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Robert Gates, who was then head of Texas A&M and now is the Secretary of Defense, and a number of others; the former head of MIT, Peter O'Donnell, a Texas businessman who has worked on AP courses, and they did this report: ``Rising Above The Gathering Storm.'' They didn't make 10 recommendations, they made 20, and they made them in priority order. Their priorities began with K-12 education. They went next to engineering and research. They went next to higher education. They went next to incentives for innovation.

At that point, we formed a bipartisan group of Senators and began to have what we called ``homework sessions'' with the various agencies of the Federal Government that had jurisdiction over these programs and the areas where the programs would fit. We also recognized that Senator Lieberman, Senator Ensign, and others had been working hard with the Council on Competitiveness, and they had similar recommendations. We also acknowledged that Senators Hutchison, Bond, and Mikulski had for many years been advocating various aspects of these programs, so we tried to integrate all of this into a whole. That produced a long piece of legislation that had to make its way through five different committees, but it attracted 70 sponsors last year--35 Democrats, 35 Republicans. The Republican leader, Senator Frist, and the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, were the principal sponsors of the bill.

Senator Bingaman has done a good job of outlining most of the provisions of the bill, so I will, in a few minutes, put those into the record, but there is no other piece of legislation during the past 2 years that was so broadly recommended by disinterested groups outside of the Senate and the House, that has been worked on by so many Senators here, and that has moved forward in the way this has. Making this even more remarkable is not only was it introduced by the Democratic and Republican leaders, it has been brought directly to the floor for debate. So what we hope is our colleagues will carefully read the bill, bring their amendments to the floor, and maybe we can operate in an old-fashioned way here. Maybe we can consider the amendments, or the improvements, debate them, vote on them, go to the next amendment, and then after we have finished with that, have a vote on whether to pass the bill, which I believe we will. I think we have a good chance of doing that.

Mr. President, I wish to now insert into the Record a few items that are important for our colleagues and those who are following this debate, so I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks a ``Dear Colleague'' letter of April 10, written by Senator Reid and Senator McConnell to all of our colleagues, signed by the chairmen and Democratic and Republican leaders of the three major committees which contributed to this, and which produced 50 cosponsors--we hope there will be more by next week--be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a two-page summary of the America COMPETES Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of the cosponsors of the America COMPETES Act, the 50 cosponsors, as it stands today, be printed in the Record.

Finally, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the America COMPETES Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we will have plenty of time to debate this next week, so I will reserve most of my comments until then, but let me reiterate some of the major provisions that are here. As Senator Bingaman said, this is only an authorization bill. It is permission to establish programs, but it is backed up by an amendment to the Budget Act which creates room in the appropriations bill to pay for these programs.

Here is what we intend to do: Double funding for the National Science Foundation; set the Department of Energy's Office of Science on track to double its funding; strengthen the skills of thousands of math and science teachers by establishing training and education programs at summer institutes hosted by the national laboratories; and by increasing support for teacher institutes for programs at the National Science Foundation.

These are the kinds of programs that Senator Reid, the majority leader, was talking about.

Expand the teacher scholarship programs at NSF; help establish academies for math and science in the various States.

North Carolina has had one for a long time, and 20 years ago, when I was Governor, I went to see if Tennessee could create one. We decided we didn't have the money to do it, so we created a summer Governor's school, which turned out to be a good idea, where outstanding students from math and science could go to the University of Tennessee for 4 weeks in the summer. The faculty loves it, the students love it, and they participate in the Oak Ridge Laboratory. They go back fired up into their classrooms, and the teachers are fired up as well. Our Governor Bredesen wants to create a summer school for math and science, and he has started on a modest basis, but this will help him expand that.

We will expand advanced placement in international baccalaureate programs by increasing the number of teachers who are trained to teach math, science, and foreign languages. This would allow thousands of new students to take these courses. The AP courses, as we call them, are a good track to college, and college is a good track to success. Those students are the ones who will help create the jobs to keep our high standard of living. But we have a lot of students, many of them lower income, who don't take these courses and who easily could. So we will help pay for their tests, and we will train more teachers so they can be taught, and we will see that three or four times more students will be able to do this.

These programs weren't picked out of thin air. This group of distinguished Nobel laureates, university presidents, and business leaders spent their summer 2 years ago reviewing many programs. For example, the AP program comes from a Texas program which has been successful for 10 years. They picked the 20 best ideas in priority order from among hundreds of ideas. This is not merely a group of Senators and Congressmen picking our best friend's favorite program. We all have one of those. This is the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering and the Institute of Medicine reviewing hundreds of programs with a distinguished panel in answering our question exactly what do we need to do to keep our brainpower advantage, and they say here are the first 20 things you ought to do.

Not in this legislation are other provisions that were part of this report and that were acted on in the last Congress. One was the temporary extension of the research and development tax credit. It should be made permanent. Another are several provisions for attracting and keeping in this country talented professionals from overseas. These 500,000 foreign students who are here include some of the brightest students from China, some of the brightest students from India, some of the brightest from around the world. They are going to create jobs somewhere. We would like for them to stay and create jobs here, yet our archaic immigration laws prevent that. They require these students to swear they are going home before they come. They make it hard for them to stay once they get here.

So the Senate, last year, in debating the immigration bill, adopted three of the provisions from this report. One, for example, pins a green card on any foreign student who gets a graduate degree in math, science, engineering and technology so that person can stay here and create jobs for us here.

I am hopeful when we get to the immigration legislation within a few weeks that we will do at least that much to change our archaic immigration laws and allow those students to stay here and create jobs for us. We talk a lot about outsourcing jobs. This would be insourcing brain power, and we would be smart to do it.

I particularly thank our staffs, and we will do this specifically by name next week. This is a complex bill with many different parts, as the section-by-section analysis shows. They have worked evenly to try to make this a well-crafted bill. We have more work to do.

I conclude by again thanking the Democratic and Republican leaders, Senator Bingaman, Senator Domenici, especially, who was chairman of our committee last year, Stevens and Inouye, Enzi and Kennedy, Ensign and Lieberman, Bond, Hutchison, Chambliss, Murkowski, and Mikulski--all of these Senators made major contributions. I am sure they will be on the Senate floor next week to address this legislation and to support it.

We are talking about keeping our brain power advantage so we keep our jobs. We are talking about a country that has grown accustomed to 30 percent of all of the money in the world being produced each year with just 5 percent of the people, and we are saying, unless we take at least these steps, that won't continue.

Exhibit 1

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, April 10, 2007.

Dear Colleague: We are writing to invite you to cosponsor

the America COMPETES Act; a bipartisan bill to help America

maintain its edge in science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics in an increasingly competitive global economy. An

earlier version of this bill was introduced in the final days

of the 109th Congress as S. 3936.

The America COMPETES Act is based upon recommendations from

both the national Academies' ``Rising Above the Gathering

Storm'' report and the Council on Competitiveness' ``Innovate

America'' report. It contains revised versions of the

legislation approved by both the Senate Energy and Commerce

Committees [from the 109th Congress] in response to those

recommendations: S. 2197, the PACE-Energy bill, and S. 2802

the American Innovation and Competitiveness bill, which were

reported without opposition to the Senate floor. The bill

also includes provisions developed by the bipartisan

leadership of the HELP Committee to improve science,

technology, engineering, mathematics, and critical foreign

language skills.

The competitiveness package would significantly increase

the federal investment in basic research, foster and

innovative infrastructure, improve the teaching of math,

science, engineering and technology to our children, and

encourage the brightest minds to pursue careers in these

fields. Among other provisions, the bill would: Double the

investment in basic research at the national Science

Foundation (NSF), the National Institutes of Standards and

Technology (NIST), and the Department of Energy's Office of

Science (DOE-SC) over five to ten years; Improve teacher

training in math and science, through summer institutes

hosted by the NSF and the DOE-SC and grants to increase

university degree programs that combine math and science

study with concurrent teacher certification; and Increase

support for Advanced Placement programs to expand access for

low income students to take and succeed in college

preparatory courses.

This bill alone will not secure American leadership in the

decades to come. But it is a critical first step toward

protecting our competitive position in the world. We hope you

will join us in this effort and cosponsor this bipartisan

legislation.

Sincerely,

Harry Reid, Majority Leader; Jeff Bingaman, Chairman,

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; Daniel K.

Inouy, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation; Edward M. Kennedy, Chairman, Committee

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; Joseph I.

Lieberman, U.S. Senator; Barbara A. Mikulski, U.S.

Senator; Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator; Mitch McConnell,

Republican Leader; Pete V. Domenici, Ranking Member,

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; Ted Stevens,

Vice-Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation; Michael B. Enzi, Ranking Member,

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions;

John Ensign, U.S. Senator; Lamar Alexander, U.S.

Senator; Kay Bailey Hutchison, U.S. Senator.

Mr. President, I see no other Senator on the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, first I thank Senator Reid and Senator McConnell for their fine statements and their willingness to be the lead in bringing this bill to the floor. It is bipartisan legislation. It is legislation that was developed in the last Congress. We were not able to complete action on it there, so we are trying to do so at this time.

It does represent the work of three committees over the past year. Those are the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and, of course, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. I am fortunate to serve on two of those committees.

The chairman and ranking member of each of the three committees are cosponsoring this bill. In fact, we now have 57 Members of the Senate who are cosponsoring this legislation, with Senators Reid and McConnell as the lead sponsors.

This bill reflects a deep undercurrent of anxiety in this country. It was highlighted recently by the very best-selling book by Tom Friedman called ``The World Is Flat.'' It is also highlighted by the report to which Senator McConnell just referred, the ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report issued by the National Academies of Science and Engineering. Both of these publications highlight a strengthening, worldwide, of the effort in science and technology.

Although we in the United States are still a world leader in these areas, other nations are clearly catching up. Without effort and intervention now, and attention to this issue now, I fear we may lose our edge in high technology areas that are critical to our future economy. The high technology competition has been an ongoing effort and continues and will continue indefinitely.

In the 1980s, during the Cold War, we were about to lose our semiconductor leadership to Japan. Motivated then by national security concerns, the U.S. Government worked with industry to help preserve our domestic chip-making capability. Along with Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and Dr. Bob Noyce, Gordon Moore from Intel, and others, we were able to launch a public-private partnership called Sematech. This partnership developed early phase technologies designed to keep our semiconductor industry competitive.

Sematech was a success. It kept our industry competitive through the 1990s and even today. But the issue we are faced with here in 2007 is even more troubling. India and China and other countries from the former Soviet Union now represent nearly 3 billion new capitalists who are coming at us in a competitive way through the Internet where, in one click, anyone in this country can order a product from anywhere in the world and have that delivered to his or her doorstep. Not only can these countries and entrepreneurs in these countries manufacture at a fraction of the cost that oftentimes is required here in the United States, but in coordination with their Governments they are climbing up the value chain by developing the professional talents in areas such as research and engineering and in telemedicine and in finance--in a whole variety of areas.

We have taken for granted that our Nation would never be displaced in many of these areas. These are areas that represent part of the pillars of our national identity. Many Americans have grown up assuming the United States would always be the leader in high technology, but that is not a foregone conclusion. It is not the simple box fan that is being made in China today that concerns people. It is the sophisticated code from Beijing for enterprise server software or state-of-the-art locomotives and turbines designed in Bangalore when they used to be designed in this country.

The data paints a disturbing picture about the trends with which we are faced. Right now the United States invests about 2.7 percent of its gross domestic product in research and development. That is not bad. It puts us No. 5 in the world in the percentage of our gross domestic product invested in research and development. Yet we are still behind Korea. We are still behind Japan. Both those countries invest over 3 percent of their gross domestic product in research and development.

However, the issue is not to look at the static snapshot that says today we are fifth in this level of effort, but to look at the change in the rate of commitment over time.

Let me do that with a chart here. I have several charts I want to briefly take people through, to make the case for what we are up against. This is the Emerging Economies Rapidly Increasing Research and Development Investments chart. The top line with the orange dots upon it shows the United States and shows we are investing more than other nations. But the bottom line, which, of course, is rising rapidly, is fast-growing economies. Those economies are specifically China, Ireland, Israel, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. So clearly we have a circumstance where the rate of change is not favorable to us. In fact, during this same timeframe, China's research and development per GDP grew from .6 percent to 1.4 percent. That is still well behind us, the United States, but it doubled in slightly more than a half dozen years, at a 7-percent annual growth rate.

The trend line on the chart is self-evident. We need to begin to focus again on this area if we are going to maintain our ability to compete in biotechnology, in semiconductors, in flat panel displays. In some of those areas, particularly flat panel displays, the reality is we no longer compete effectively.

Let me move to a second chart. This second chart shows the widening trade deficit in certain advanced technologies, in areas such as semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and telecommunications. As the sophistication of the imports we bring into this country increases, so will the sophistication of the research and development that is needed to support this type of manufacturing. You can see this orange line here, which represents the trade balance in advanced technology. You can see that up until somewhere around 2000, or the late 1990s, we had a very positive balance of trade with regard to advanced technology products. Since then, the line has been going down and going down rapidly. This is a concern which all of us should focus on, and this legislation is designed to address this concern head on.

The third chart shows the average science literacy score of 15-year- old students by country. This is very hard to read. Unfortunately, the lettering is too small. But the main point can be understood. These, of course, are the future scientists and engineers in the world, young people on whom we depend to become future scientists and engineers and innovators. Obviously, we are concerned that the United States ranks way down here on the chart compared to 15-year-old students in all of these countries above us: Japan, South Korea, Australia, Netherlands, Czech Republic, New Zealand, Canada, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Sweden, Ireland, Hungary--you can follow on down. We come in right behind Iceland. We need to do better. I think

everyone in this country who is concerned about the future of our economy and the future of our children knows we need to do better by those children and provide a better opportunity for them to compete in this world.

Let me move to the fourth chart. If we look further up the pipeline of future innovators, the news is not that much better. This chart shows the fraction of United States undergraduates who receive science and engineering degrees, so you can see that at least three times more college students graduate with science and engineering degrees in China each year than in the United States. This is not a favorable trend either. Obviously, there are more people in China. But our ability to compete in the world, to a substantial extent, is going to depend on how many people we can train and equip to compete in this science and competition.

The fifth chart I have here relates to trained scientists and engineers. This shows that China now produces almost as many Ph.D.'s as the United States. Again, the trend is the disturbing part of this chart. It is not that China is producing nearly as many doctoral degrees in the natural sciences and math and engineering as is the United States today. That is a fact but one that does not cause great concern. The concern is that we were dominant in this area and have been for a very long time. Now that has changed very dramatically. Universities in these other countries are first-class universities and people need to focus on that. Universities such as Tsinghua, in China, are very high quality. If they turn out a Ph.D. in engineering or science or the natural sciences in these schools, those individuals are world-class scientists in their fields.

There is a 1995 quote by Alan Greenspan that sums up the importance of investment in research and development and education:

Had the innovations of recent decades, especially in

information technologies, not come to fruition, productivity

growth would have continued to languish at the rate of the

preceding 20 years.

Much of the prosperity we have enjoyed and have come to expect has been the result of the focus we have had on science and engineering in our history.

The final chart I have here is one from ``The Economist.'' It is based on the 2006 work that was done by three individuals at the Federal Reserve. It deals with this broad category of so-called intangible assets, assets such as research and development, information technology, even finance.

Basically what it says is, as a percentage of gross domestic product, there is a very large amount of our gross domestic product that is tied to these so-called intangible assets. They now account for nearly 11 percent of our gross domestic product--that is $3.1 trillion in 2003. In other words, growth that is attributed to such areas is absolutely crucial to our overall economy--again, another reason why we need to be concerned about this issue.

With this background, let me briefly talk about what is in the bill before I defer to my colleague here, Senator Alexander. In the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the portion of the bill that was developed out of that committee, we do several things. First, we create a director for math and science education in the Department of Energy whose job it is to coordinate math and science education, departmentwide. The director would report to the Under Secretary for Science in the Department of Energy.

Next, we would significantly increase funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science to match the multiyear funding profile of the President's advanced competitiveness initiative which he presented to us here this year.

Third, the bill proposes to create an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, to translate basic research that is carried out in the Office of Science into solutions for critical problems facing the applied energy programs in the Department.

Examples of such problems would include hydrogen fuel storage using new materials or applying nanoscience to a new generation of solid- state lights.

The bill will also address broader themes related to math and science education. According to the National Academy of Sciences, the technical building blocks of our Nation's economic strength have been eroding for a time. We need to produce students who are prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century. That means more attention to math and science education.

America COMPETES contains a number of important provisions to improve K-12 math and science education, strengthen science and math skills of our teaching workforce. I know Senator Reid talked eloquently about that need and, of course, the commitment our former colleague, Paul Simon, had to progress in that area.

First, it provides incentives for universities to systematically change the way they prepare teachers to teach math and science. The legislation provides grants to universities to integrate the teacher preparation programs with rich content subject matter in math and science, develop bachelor's degree programs in math and science with concurrent teacher certification, as well as master's degree programs in math and science for people who are currently teaching in our schools.

Second, to make these programs attractive to students who are inclined to study these subjects--math, science, and engineering--the legislation significantly expands the National Science Foundation scholarships for students to become math and science teachers.

The legislation significantly expands opportunities for teachers to strengthen their math and science skills. The bill increases training for teachers to become qualified to teach advanced placement courses and international baccalaureate courses in math and science. The bill provides significant training opportunities for teachers at both the National Science Foundation, as well as our National Laboratories, and there I think some of the summer programs Senator Reid was talking about are intended to take place at our universities, at our laboratories. Clearly, he is right in saying we need to provide the financial wherewithal so that teachers can take advantage of these programs and can upgrade their knowledge and then give that knowledge to their students the next school year.

Further, the legislation provides grants to States to promote better alignment of elementary and secondary education with the knowledge and skills needed for success in postsecondary education and in the 21st century workforce.

The bill significantly increases funding for the National Science Foundation, essentially doubling that budget in 5 years, while ensuring that the math and science education programs that are in the National Science Foundation increase at the same rate as the overall budget increases.

The bill helps manufacturers by increasing funding for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, by 33 percent over 4 years.

As I have said many times, this America COMPETES bill is only an authorization bill. The hard part, obviously, is going to be providing the funds to carry out the programs in this bill to meet these authorization targets we have set.

In this regard, we were successful just a month or so ago, with Senator Alexander's good help, in adopting an amendment in the Senate which was an amendment to the budget resolution. It was adopted 71 to 1 to provide $1 billion in additional leeway or additional opportunity to meet the President's request in the areas of funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science, the National Science Foundation, and NIST. Because of that amendment to the budget resolution, virtually all of the authorization we are calling for in this legislation will be permitted to be appropriated this year, and that is very good news.

This bill is a good bill. It is bipartisan. Like most bipartisan bills, it is the product of much negotiation. Many competing views, many competing interests have had a chance to be heard.

I am proud of the way this bill has come together. Our staffs deserve great credit for the hard work they have put into this legislation.

I particularly commend Senator Alexander. He is the person who got this initiative started and came to me initially and said: Let's do this letter to the National Academies and see if they will do a study and tell us what are the most important things we can do in this country to keep this country competitive in world markets. That is what

then led to the Augustine Commission report and, of course, that combined with the other reports that came forward--and there were several other very useful reports--that have gotten us to this point. Senator Alexander deserves particular credit for the success we have had so far.

I hope all colleagues will look seriously at this legislation and will support the effort to move ahead with it. This is authorizing legislation. In doing the appropriations bills that will come to the floor later this year, we still will have an opportunity to debate the specific funding levels for some of these programs. This sets out a framework for progress which can be very beneficial to this country and a framework which is long overdue.

I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

I yield the floor. I know my colleague from Tennessee wishes to speak at this time.

I also want to say a few words on climate change and the issue of global warming. Let me begin by quoting from an op-ed that appeared in the Burlington Free Press, my hometown newspaper, on October 7, by Bill McKibben, well known as one of the most savvy and best known environmental writers in the world. He happens to teach at Middlebury College. He said:

It's not Democrats negotiating with Republicans or

environmentalists negotiating with business interests. It's

human beings negotiating with chemistry and physics, and

chemistry and physics don't really do much in the way of

bargaining. Science has told us what we need to do: cut

carbon emissions quickly in the next few years, and keep that

pressure on til we've trimmed our emissions at least 80

percent by midcentury. No loopholes for vested interests, no

hard-to-quantify offset schemes, no giveaways to the

utilities. Just a commitment to stop vetoing the laws of

nature. That commitment has got to come soon . . .

The point that Bill McKibben and many other scientists and environmentalists have made is, we are up against very serious laws of physics. That is what we are dealing with. It is not what I say or what anybody else says. It is whether we are going to get a handle on global warming. Because if we don't, this planet is going to suffer severe and irreparable damage.

I begin my remarks by thanking Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner for their hard work in putting together America's Climate Security Act. As a member of that same subcommittee, I look forward to playing an active role in strengthening that legislation. I look forward to working with them on this issue.

I also take this opportunity to thank the 18 cosponsors of the legislation Senator Boxer and I introduced in January of this year, S. 309. Those are Senators Akaka, Biden, Cardin, Casey, Clinton, Dodd, Durbin, Feingold, Inouye, Kennedy, Klobuchar, Lautenberg, Leahy, Menendez, Mikulski, Obama, Reed, and Whitehouse.

This legislation, S. 309, tackles global warming as best we could based on the science. To be more specific, this bill is based on the desire to limit the global increase in temperature to no more than 2 degrees Celsius, and to meet this goal science tells us we must stabilize global CO2 concentrations at no higher a level than 450 parts per million. This level only provides us, the scientists say, with a 50/50 chance of keeping the worst from happening. These odds are not great. It is a gamble. If we were cautious and conservative about these things, we would err on the side of safety and keep the pollution down lower than this level in order to protect the one and only world that we have.

I thank all of the cosponsors of the legislation that Senator Boxer and I introduced for standing with science. We should also be clear about one other thing. This is a very important point. What the scientists are now telling us is, in terms of their projections, in terms of their analyses, they have been too conservative. What they are now telling us is the problem of global warming and the rapidity of the global warming changes is more severe than they had previously anticipated. In other words, we have to be even more aggressive, not less aggressive, in addressing this major planetary crisis.

It may well be that the legislation Senator Boxer and I introduced is too conservative, but it is for sure that we should be going forward and not backward.

Let me take this opportunity to quote from some of the major environmental organizations in terms of what they are saying about the legislation introduced today by Senators Lieberman and Warner. I think it is best that I read from them rather than giving my views at this particular point.

This is what the U.S. Public Interest Research Group says:

We applaud Senators Lieberman and Warner for their

leadership on global warming. Time is running out to stop the

worst effects of global warming, and this bill is an

important starting point for action.

U.S. PIRG then goes on to say:

To rise to the challenge of global warming, this new bill

must be strengthened. Three changes are essential:

(1) The bill must achieve faster and deeper cuts in

pollution, which is what the science demands. The pollution

caps in the bill aim to reduce total U.S. global warming

emissions by about 11 percent by 2020 and by just over 50

percent by 2050.

Additional, modest reductions may be achieved through other

policies in the bill, but those reductions are difficult to

quantify and are not guaranteed. According to the current

science, the United States must reduce its total global

warming emissions by at least 15% by 2020 and by at least 80%

by 2050. In addition, periodic reviews of the bill's

scientific adequacy must trigger additional pollution-

reduction requirements.

(2) Flexibility mechanisms in the bill must be tightened to

prevent undermining the goals of the bill. The bill currently

allows companies to exceed their pollution limits by paying

sources not covered by the program to reduce emissions.

Ensuring that a ton of pollution from such ``offsets'' equals

a ton of real reductions is a major challenge. In addition,

offsets delay the transition to cleaner technology that will

be needed to achieve deep future cuts in emissions. Under the

bill, a company could theoretically meet its entire 2020

pollution-reduction requirement through offsets. The number

of offset reductions allowed under the bill must be

significantly lowered.

(3) Polluters must be required to pay for every ton of

pollution they put into the atmosphere. The bill gives

hundreds of billions of dollars to polluters for free, which

will create windfall profits, such as has occurred in Europe,

and take vital resources away from easing America's

transition to a clean energy future. In the United Kingdom

alone, windfall profits from emission trading have been

estimated at nearly $2 billion. These profits come directly

from the pocketbooks of consumers. Under this bill, just

under half (49%) of the pollution permits would initially be

given to polluters for free, and it will take 25 years (until

2036) before we stop handing polluters free money.

That is what U.S. PIRG had to say.

Let me go to another group, an even better known environmental group, and that is the Sierra Club. Let me tell you what they said today in their press statement. I quote from the Sierra Club:

The bill is a significant political step forward for the

U.S. Congress, but unfortunately the legislation as

introduced still

falls short from what is demanded by the science and the

public to meet the challenge of global warming. This comes

even as U.S. states, cities, and counties move forward with

ambitious, science-based proposals to tackle the issue. We

look forward to working with Senators to seek the additional

improvements necessary for the bill to sufficiently address

the challenge before us.

I continue to quote from the Sierra Club:

At this crucial moment, we must continue to insist on a

global warming bill that is committed to scientific integrity

and economic fairness. In order to prevent the most

catastrophic effects of global warming, we must cut emissions

80 percent by 2050--an achievable annual reduction of about 2

percent. In order to get the market moving and bring

America's clean energy future to life, any bill must start

out strong by seeking a short-term reduction on the order of

20 percent of total emissions by 2020. Disturbances to the

climate have come more quickly and forcefully than even the

most pessimistic among us predicted. The Lieberman-Warner

bill, as introduced, leaves us in serious danger of reaching

the tipping points that scientists tell us could lead to

catastrophic changes to the climate.

Continuing to quote from the Sierra Club statement of today:

While the bill has moved in the right direction, it gives

too many free allowances to polluters for far too long--

enriching executives and shareholders instead of generating

the funds needed to help us meet our emissions goals and

ensure a smooth transition to the clean energy economy.

That is some of the statement from the Sierra Club.

Let me now quote from another organization, an organization of physicians. It is called Physicians for Social Responsibility, a well- known group. They have also issued a statement today. Let me quote from the statement of the Physicians for Social Responsibility:

Physicians for Social Responsibility appreciates the

efforts of Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner to craft

legislation to address global warming but calls on the Senate

Environment and Public Works Committee to make necessary

improvements before passing the bill.

It continues:

The reality of global warming is becoming more apparent

every day, and the science is clear as to what action we need

to take. In order to prevent this world-wide disaster, we

must stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse

gases. And, the U.S. must meet the challenge of starting now

and reaching a goal of 80 percent reductions below a 2000

baseline. Unfortunately, the bill drafted by Senators

Lieberman and Warner will not meet that goal.

Let me continue quoting from the Physicians for Social Responsibility, who, of course, are physicians. This is what they say, providing an interesting analogy:

Physicians for Social Responsibility's approach to this

[global warming] is similar to the manner in which a

physician treats a patient: what are the symptoms, what are

the causes and how do we treat the disease? We would not

prescribe half of the needed medication to a patient, and we

cannot support a bill that does not fully address the causes

of global warming. To protect human health and reverse global

warming, we need to begin aggressive treatment right away.

That is Physicians for Social Responsibility.

I could sit here and quote from many other press statements or talk to my colleagues about the science, but I will not do that. This is what I want to say: If we are concerned about the future of this planet--I know every Member here is--and the lives and well-being of our kids and our grandchildren, not only in this country but all over the world, we are going to have to rise up to this issue.

It is not just a bargain here and a bargain there. Because you can have all the bargaining you want, and all the nonpartisanship you want, and yet this planet will face catastrophic damage unless we deal with the reality of the science. It is not whether we are nice guys or bad guys. This is what we are facing. We are facing science. What the scientists are telling us is their projections were too conservative. The problem is more severe than they had anticipated.

I note my friend and colleague, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, made a very important point that others have made, which is, as we deal with the issue of global warming, let us not forget about the workers who are impacted, the consumers who are impacted. Certainly and absolutely we must do that. One of the bright aspects, the positive aspects about this whole discussion of global warming is if we get our act together-- if, for example, we begin the process of breaking our dependency on the automobile and expand our rail system; if, in fact, we produce cars that get the kind of mileage we know Detroit can produce--we can grow jobs in the transportation area, not see them shrink.

If we begin to move intelligently toward energy efficiency, if we retrofit our homes and our offices and our schools, we can create huge numbers of good-paying jobs through the installation and the production of the products we need to make this Nation much more energy efficient. It is all sitting there waiting to happen. If we have the courage to move away from fossil fuel, to move to solar energy, to move to wind, to move to other forms of sustainable energy, we can create millions of good-paying jobs.

I would mention to my colleagues that right now out on the Mall--I was there last evening--there is a wonderful display of solar homes put together by the Solar Decathlon. We have universities from all over the United States of America, and from Europe as well, showing us what we can do today in making energy-efficient homes and utilizing the potential of solar energy. California is making progress. Germany is making progress. We are not moving anywhere near the degree to where we should be moving.

Think about the jobs we create when 10 million homes in America have photovoltaic units on their rooftops. Think of the energy we produce through solar plants in the South and the West and the Southwest of this country. Think about what it means when we have small wind turbines all over rural America. It is not only moving away from fossil fuels, which are destroying the planet, not only moving to clean energy, it is creating millions of good-paying jobs.

We know how to do this. We know how to do it. The technology is there today. It will only get better. Our country has to start investing in these technologies. We can create the jobs. We can reverse global warming.

I conclude by saying this: I applaud Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner. I hope we can work together. But I think we have a distance to go to make that legislation better, stronger, more consistent with the science that is out there. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to do that.

Mr. President, sometime last year, word was received that Senators Bingaman and Alexander had an idea. The idea was to do something about our country's educational slide the wrong way. I spoke to them on several occasions. They wanted to see what we could do to increase our competitiveness internationally. Their suggestion was, first, let's do a study and find out how bad it is; is it as bad as we think it is. These two fine Senators got other Senators to join with them in the idea. They received a study from the National Academy of Sciences to find out where we were internationally with our science programs. The information was not good. As a result of that, we have the legislation now before the Senate.

This legislation is not the know-all and cure-all, but it is certainly a major step forward, if we can do this, and there is no reason we cannot.

I am happy and pleased to speak about the America COMPETES legislation. America COMPETES comes from the words ``creating opportunities to meaningfully promote excellence in technology, education, and science,'' COMPETES. This is something we should do and are doing on a bipartisan basis. The bill is sponsored by both leaders and 50 Senators. That is a step in the right direction. Frankly, this is the way we used to do legislation here. There was so much that was done on a bipartisan basis. If we are able to complete this legislation, it will allow us to move forward on other meaningful legislation dealing with this subject generally.

The bill is the result clearly of a truly bipartisan effort. This legislation has been in the making for 2 years. I said last year. Time flies by. It was the year before last that these two Senators came to me to talk about this subject. They asked the National Academy to make recommendations on steps we should take as a nation to maintain our competitive advantage. The result was the Augustine report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' The report warned that the Nation's traditional advantages are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength and that decisive action is needed now.

We faced a challenge such as this before, one that occurred when I was in high school. In 1957, when the Soviets launched Sputnik, there was panic and concern. That panic and concern came about from our inability to do what they were doing to maintain our technological superiority. The Soviet Union clearly was ahead of us. Our great country responded to these threats quickly. The following year Congress passed, on a bipartisan basis, the National Defense Education Act, the sole purpose of which was to keep the United States ahead of the Soviet Union, to increase investment in math and science education. As a result of that bipartisan legislation, our country trained a whole new generation of engineers and scientists and ensured our preeminence in technology innovation for a generation.

The fact is, Federal investment in the basic sciences and research has long been a critical component of America's competitive dominance globally. Some economists have estimated that more than half of the country's economic growth since World War II has been a result of that technological innovation and dominance. Today, sadly, our position of dominance has been lost. We can debate where we are, but our dominance is not there--strong, of course, but dominant, no. We are challenged by emerging countries such as India and China where national investment in basic research, math, and science education continues to grow at a far greater pace than in the United States.

The Augustine panel cited many examples, but some statistics are striking. Consider that in 2005, more than 600,000 engineers graduated from institutions of higher education in China, 600,000; 350,000 in India; in the United States, 70,000--70,000 in the United States, 600,000 in China, and 350,000 in India. We can't keep up at that rate. China's population is more than the United States, of course, yet they graduate eight times the number of engineers even though they are only three times larger than the United States. The report also found that American 12th graders, seniors in high school, performed below the national average for 21 countries on a general knowledge of math and science.

Another study cited in the report had American 15-year-olds rank 24th out of 40 countries on a math assessment. I am embarrassed to tell the Senate and everyone within the sound of my voice Nevada students ranked 43rd out of 50 States in the Nation on math assessment.

As other countries become more competitive, it is clear we must refocus our energies on enhancing the Federal commitment to funding basic research in education.

My mind goes back to Paul Simon. The three of us had the opportunity to serve with him. Of course, Senator Alexander served with him in different capacities when he was part of the Cabinet. He was a wonderful man, uneducated himself, no college education, wrote more than 20 books. He was a newspaper publisher when he was 19 years old. He knew that education was important, even though he was uneducated. He wrote a book called ``The Tongue-Tied American,'' about our declining knowledge of languages and how it was hurting us internationally. I joined with him in legislation to give summer workshop programs sponsored by the Federal Government where we could pay math and science teachers on an elementary and secondary level so they could make more money than other teachers to keep up with math and science and keep them in the classroom. Paul Simon has passed away, but I am sure he is smiling on us today as a result of our trying to move forward on something that was his vision many years ago.

The America COMPETES Act addresses concerns of Paul Simon and the National Science Foundation. It is in effect a downpayment, a very modest first step in ensuring that America retains its competitive edge.

I extend my appreciation to Senators Bingaman and Alexander for authorizing the academy study. This study, along with a number of recent reports and books, brought a much needed sense of urgency to this issue. There are also chairmen and ranking members of committees who have expressed an interest in and support of what we are doing. Senators Inouye, Stevens, Kennedy, Enzi, Lieberman, Ensign, Mikulski, Hutchison, and Nelson of Florida have been instrumental in crafting this legislation. This legislation will double the Federal investment for the National Science Foundation over the next 4 years and for the Office of Science at the Department of Energy over the next decade. I personally think it should be more than five. I am happy if we can do this. I hope we can. I am confident we can.

The bill provides grants to States in order to better align elementary and secondary school curriculum with the knowledge and skills needed for the global economy. Nevada has a program recognizing where we are in the overall scheme. It is called a P-16 Council.

This Federal legislation we have introduced and are considering now will also strengthen our math and science teaching workforce--that was Paul Simon's dream--by recruiting and training teachers to teach in high-need schools and help improve math instruction at the elementary and middle school level, through Math Now grants.

I suggest to the two authors and the two managers of this bill we go back and look at the idea Senator Simon had--and I joined with him-- that we have summer workshop programs sponsored by the Federal Government for elementary and secondary teachers so they can update their math and science skills, get paid for doing that, and stay teaching. We have such a shortage of math and science teachers.

On the high school level, we have far fewer physics teachers than we have schools. Of course, the other reason for doing this is, with the collective bargaining agreements--I support them, and we have them in many of our schools, in most of our school districts--it makes it very difficult to pay math or science teachers more than you can pay a PE teacher. This summer workshop program would allow that to take place.

So I hope that is something Senator Alexander and Senator Bingaman will look at and see if we can come up with that. It is not only important to produce these math and science teachers but to keep them in the schools also.

America COMPETES will expand important advanced placement and international baccalaureate, IB, programs by increasing the number of math, science, and foreign languages AP and IB courses and preparing more teachers to teach these challenging courses. This is essential for all States. But take, again, Nevada, where only 6 percent of 12th graders took the AP calculus exam and only 7 percent took the AP science exam.

If signed into law, our bill will do much of what the Augustine Report recommended, but the truth is, in years to come we will have to do even more.

Although we make new and significant investments in research, we still must address our tax structure and make sure we do as much as possible to encourage investment in research and development.

In 1844, this Congress was approached by an individual who said he had a great idea. He could not raise the money in the private sector, but he had an idea that would revolutionize the communications of this country, and in 1844 Congress appropriated $40,000 for a man to build a telegraph line between Washington, DC, and Baltimore, MD. It revolutionized--revolutionized--the communication industry, the telegraph.

The Federal Government is going to have to understand there are times when we have to advance moneys for research and development that cannot come from the private sector. I hope we will look to do it. We should start by finally making the R&D tax credit permanent.

We must also do more in education. The bill strengthens educational opportunities in science, technology, engineering, math, and critical foreign languages, but this, again, is a first step--but it is a big first step.

As an example, we must take a very hard look at our high schools. As Bill Gates has said, and often, our high schools were designed for a 20th century economy and often do not address the needs of the 21st century workforce.

Bill Gates and Melinda Gates now are giving money to schools, school districts, but they have a lot of strings on it. For example, recently they gave money to a New York school district, with this proviso: You can only use this money if you are going to make your schools smaller.

Nevada, again--we have high schools in Nevada that have more than 5,000 students. How in the world can students learn well--and try to make that basketball team--with 5,000 students? Some of the schools are not that big now, but we have many schools in southern Nevada that have over 3,000 students. So the Gates recognize this. We have to recognize this also as part of our problem. The average school in America is about 50 years old.

We should also realize that unless our most basic commitments to America's students are met--by properly funding title I and No Child Left Behind and making a college education accessible and affordable-- these efforts alone in this bill cannot prepare our students for the global economy.

The American COMPETES Act is a tremendously important step in maintaining this Nation's competitive advantage. I look forward to doing whatever I can to make this legislation a reality.

I express my appreciation to the Republican leader for joining in this legislation. This is something he and I have talked about now for 3 months since we have assumed our roles in this 110th Congress. We are going to work to make sure this legislation goes forward.

I say to everyone within the sound of my voice, for this legislation there is going to be no cloture motion filed.

We are either going to do this or not do it. This is something we need to do. We need to prove we can do things on a bipartisan basis. And if we cannot do this, Mr. President, we are in real trouble.

So I hope we can move forward on this legislation. I hope it sets a foundation for the first of many items we can do on a bipartisan basis to move this country forward.

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

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chair of our Environment Committee. I thank her for her very kind and informed remarks, but, more broadly, I thank her for the steadfast encouragement she has given to Senator Warner and me and for her principled, passionate, and very effective leadership. She understands that global warming is real and wants to use the chairmanship she has now to see that we, together, fashion a solution to this very real problem. I thank her.

I hope and believe myself that she is right--that we will look back on this day, as we stand here together across party lines to introduce this legislation, as the beginning of something very significant that finally happened. I have said before, and I will say it again, at this moment, I feel as if we had been in a race between tipping points. The challenge would be that we get to the political tipping point where we could come together and do something about global warming before we reach the environmental tipping point, after which it would be harder to avoid the worst consequences of global warming.

I think today we have begun to reach that political tipping point, and there is no one who is more responsible for that than the senior Senator from Virginia, my dear friend, John Warner. His partnership with me on this and his commitment to get this done have made all the difference.

I am pleased to stand with my friend from Virginia to announce today the introduction of the America's Climate Security Act. I am proud to also say that we have five original cosponsors--Senators Cardin, Coleman, Collins, Dole, and Harkin. The doors are wide open for additional cosponsors as this day and the days after go on.

This day comes after several months of work with Senator Warner, with our staffs, with stakeholders, environmentalists, business community people, and numerous hearings before the Environment and Public Works Committee.

This legislation, S. 2191, America's Climate Security Act, is the result of all that work. It is a pleasure now to yield to the aforementioned great Senator from Virginia, John Warner.

Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma is correct.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee, and I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. Obviously, we are going to have a spirited debate on this subject.

What I want to say is the pleasure I have in having announced the seven original cosponsors. As Senator Inhofe indicated, I had partnered with Senator McCain on an earlier version of a climate change bill. We brought it before the Senate twice. It failed twice.

To me, the most remarkable and specific fact today that gives me encouragement is of the seven original cosponsors--that is, Senator Warner and I and the five others who have just come forward without us reaching out to them--four of those seven voted against one or both of the iterations of the McCain-Lieberman bill. So this issue is moving in the right direction. It is moving in the right direction because we have answered in this bill some of the questions and concerns that Senator Inhofe expressed about the economic consequences.

First, I wish to say America's Climate Security Act is for real. It achieves necessary emissions by putting a cap on America's greenhouse gas emissions over electric power, transportation, and manufacturing sources that account for 75 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and by strengthening energy efficiency standards for appliances and buildings.

I note the presence on the floor of our colleague from Tennessee, Senator Alexander. I know this was of particular interest to him. He made a significant contribution to this bill in that regard.

Now, what does this achieve? It does what we have to do. It doesn't do everything everybody wants to do. I have already heard from some who have said it doesn't go far enough. But let me set up this standard: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group of more than 2,000 scientists from around the world who just shared the Nobel Prize with our former colleague Al Gore, has said the goal should be to keep the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere below 500 parts per million, because that will avoid what they describe as the high risk of severe global warming impacts here in the United States, which obviously has to be our first concern, but also around the world.

I am pleased to say that if you take the Environmental Protection Agency's analysis of the McCain-Lieberman bill and apply it to this bill that Senator Warner and I are introducing, you will find the concentration of greenhouse gases will be well below that danger level of 500 parts per million by the end of the century.

Secondly, Senator Warner and I are as committed to promoting and sustaining American prosperity as we are to protecting America's environment and the global environment from the danger of climate change. Senator Inhofe made an interesting point. This is different from McCain-Lieberman, which had big jumps, or I should say big drops in greenhouse gas emissions. We create a steady glidepath down, and that is going to be easier for the sources of emissions to deal with.

Yes, we set a good solid goal in 2020 to make it clear that this is real, a 20-percent reduction, bringing us back down to where the 1990 levels were. So it is real, but it moves slowly. And in this cap-and- trade system, with the auctioning of credits and the opportunity to subsidize some and provide free credits to other businesses while they are in the transition, we are going to smooth the impact.

We have also created a mechanism--a carbon market efficiency board, very creative--which comes out of work Senator Warner did with Senators Graham, Landrieu, and Lincoln, a kind of Federal Reserve Board for climate change cap and trade, which can step in during times of economic stress to smooth this out so the American economy will continue to grow. And, of course, the basic premise here--cap and trade--is to set the standard: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Make sure you are reducing them.

Others have said: Why don't we pass a carbon tax? Well, I suppose a carbon tax would reduce carbon-emitting fossil fuels, but we don't know that for sure. Look how the demand for gasoline has stayed up even as the price has gone up. So you don't want to tax people without a certainty of result. Mandatory cap and trade guarantees the result: We want to protect our environment, our lives, our health, our wildlife, and our beautiful natural places. It does it in a way that will drive innovation and entrepreneurship. The market this bill creates will do what we in this country have known that markets do best--they get the job done and drive prices down.

I say finally that this legislation includes many provisions that were drafted, suggested and, in fact, in some cases introduced by colleagues in the Senate. This is an incomplete list, but I want to be certain I mention Senators Collins and Alexander, who are on the floor, Senator Coleman--and I will come back to him specifically--Senators Boxer, Lautenberg, Sanders, McCain, Bingaman, Specter, Dole, Harkin, Klobuchar, Carper, Lincoln, Casey, and Baucus.

Senator Coleman particularly has made a contribution to this legislation that responds to a statement Senator Inhofe made. What is the impact this is going to have on average working people in this country--middle income, low income? We are concerned about that, and Senator Coleman has essentially inserted a provision here that we worked on with him that will ensure that low- and middle-income Americans do not bear the brunt of paying for this program.

This bill is a synthesis of an enormous amount of work on the part of many Members of the Senate. Senator Warner and I are deeply grateful for their contributions. Let me say it specifically: We are introducing the legislation today. Our subcommittee is going to have a hearing next week. We are going to do the markup the week after that, the week of October 29. This is an ongoing process.

Our doors, Senator Warner's door and mine, are open. We are putting before the Senate today exactly what he said, a framework, a strong, detailed, politically credible bill that has a real chance of passing, but we are not claiming perfection here, and we welcome the opportunity to work with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. This is not a partisan issue and it certainly is not a partisan problem to fix it before our children and grandchildren suffer from it.

Finally, before I yield back to Senator Warner, I again want to come back to him. John Warner and I have worked together on many matters, mostly regarding America's national security, as I have served under his leadership on the Armed Services Committee. His decision to come to the leadership of this effort to stop the onward movement of climate change has made all the difference. I can't say it any better. It is the tipping point, as far as I am concerned, in this Chamber. I believe he is doing it for the same reason that has motivated him in the other work we have done in the Armed Services Committee. He feels America is threatened by this environmental problem and he wants to be part of the solution to it.

We all know our colleague is retiring, after enormous service to our country, at the end of this session. I think that together we have the opportunity, with his participation, for this to be, in a long life of great service to America both in this Chamber and in service in the military, one of the great acts of service and leadership that John Warner has done for America. I thank him from the bottom of my heart as a dear friend and a wonderful partner in this effort.

I also want to thank his extraordinarily tireless legislative assistant, Chelsea Maxwell, who has worked so well with Dave McIntosh and Joe Goffman on my staff. This is the day of a breakthrough, but it is only a beginning. We have kind of crossed the 50-yard line here, I think, my friend from Virginia, and we have some work to do before we go into the end zone, but with your help, we are going to do it.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor back to my friend from Virginia.