Geothermal Heat Pump Development Act of 2007

Mr. President, as recent events in neighboring Virginia have made all too clear, this country faces a number of troubling questions about whether we are prepared to address the growing problem of drug-resistant, bacterial infections. Indeed, while recent media reports have raised the visibility of this issue, infectious disease doctors have been sounding the alarm for years.

Now, Senator Brown and I are sounding the alarm as well.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that resistant strains of infections have spread rapidly. This alarming trend continues to grow and treatment options are sorely lacking.

Senator Brown and I have collaborated to develop legislation that takes a science-based approach to this problem. This legislation, the Strategies to Address Antimicrobial Resistance Act or STAAR Act S. 2313, should be seen as a measure to catalyze a greater Government focus on a frightening, growing, public health problem which should be of concern to each and every one of us in this Nation.

One of the things that Senator Brown and I have found in our considerable study of this issue is that there is not adequate infrastructure developed within the Government to collect the data, to coordinate the research, and to conduct the surveillance necessary to stop drug-resistant infections in their tracks.

We believe that jump-starting a greater, stronger, organizational focus at the Department of Health and Human Services will help our Government and our scientists develop an infrastructure that can grow as science develops.

At the same time, we make perfectly clear that our bill is not the sole answer to the complex, vexing problem of antibiotic resistance. At a minimum we need better testing, better hospital controls, better medications, and better funding to support these efforts, particularly the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Institute of Medicine, the Resources for the Future, the Centers for Disease Control, and many others have been sounding the alarm about the growing threat from resistant microorganisms.

Congress must listen.

In fact, it its seminal report, ``Bad Bugs, No Drugs'', the Infectious Diseases Society, IDSA, said:

Drug-resistant bacterial infections kill tens of thousands

of Americans every year and a growing number of individuals

are succumbing to community-acquired infections. An epidemic

may harm millions. Unless Congress and the Administration

move with urgency to address these infections now, there is a

very good chance that U.S. patients will suffer greatly in

the future.

Indeed, the seminal IDSA report points out a number of compelling facts.

As the report notes, infections caused by resistant bacteria can strike anyone, young and old, rich or poor, healthy or ill. However, the problem of antibiotic resistance is especially acute for patients with compromised immune systems, such as persons living with HIV/AIDS.

The scope of the problem is equally of note. As IDSA has calculated, about 2 million people acquire bacterial infections in U.S. hospitals each year and as many as 90,000 die as a result. More and more, public health experts are finding infections developed in the home or community as well. Infections in both settings are increasing, and the resultant drug resistance shows no sign of lessening.

This is a costly problem, costly for patients, for society, and potentially threatening to our global security.

And, in fact, health care providers are running out of treatments as the resistance problem grows.

Nobel Laureate Joshua Lederberg said it well: ``We are running out of bullets for dealing with a number of bacterial, infections. Patients are dying because we no longer in many cases have antibiotics that work.''

Indeed, last week, noted Utah infectious disease expert Dr. Andy Pavia told me about a 14-year-old boy he had treated who had bone, muscle and lung infections from MRSA, an aggressive, difficult to treat, form of staph that has spread rapidly within communities. Half of the children he sees with severe MRSA infections acquired their infection at home.

This young man, Dr. Pavia relates, was forced to undergo multiple surgeries and 6 weeks of intravenous antibiotics. MRSA infections are steadily increasing in Utah, as well as across all other States.

Fortunately, that young man is on the road to recovery. But the statistics indicate it is just as likely that he would not be.

We are not only talking about MRSA. Dr. Pavia also cites the real crisis growing with resistant gram-negative bacteria, which he calls the ``Rodney Dangerfield of the infectious disease world''--in other words, ``it don't get no respect.''

We are also seeing increases in extensively drug-resistant, XDR, tuberculosis. There are numerous reports of soldiers returning home from Iraq with Acinetobactor--a resistant infection that is especially difficult to treat, and the only option is a very toxic antibiotic.

Senator Brown and I have worked on this issue for many months, starting with our collaboration on provisions in the Food and Drug Act Amendments recently signed into law by the President. We are also working with our colleagues in the House, foremost among them Utah Congressman Jim Matheson, author of the House STAAR Act.

Our conclusion is that the solutions to this problem are manifold, but they must start with a stronger Government effort. That is the genesis of the STAAR Act.

Let me review briefly what our legislation does.

The bill makes a series of congressional findings which layout the problem and the need to address it.

In particular, we note that while the advent of the antibiotic era has saved millions of lives and allowed for incredible medical progress, the increased use and overuse of antimicrobial drugs have correlated with an increase in the rates of antimicrobial resistance.

An important component to this problem is the fact that scientific evidence suggests the source of antimicrobial resistance in people is not only the overuse of human drugs, but also it may be from food- producing animals, which are exposed to antimicrobial drugs.

As scientists have found, nearly 70 percent of hospital-acquired bacterial infections in the U.S. are resistant to at least one drug; in some cases, the rate is much higher. In fact, each year nearly 2 million people contract bacterial infections in the hospital, and it is estimated that 90,000 of them die from the infections.

There seem to be no recent data on the costs associated with this problem, but a 1995 report by the Office of Technology Assessment found that six different antimicrobial-resistant strains of bacteria accounted for $1.3 billion in nationwide hospital costs--almost $1.9 billion in 2006 dollars!

Here is how our bill attempts to address the problems I have just laid out.

First, the bill establishes a new Office of Antimicrobial Resistance in the Department of Health and Human Services. That Office will work with the Task Force to issue biennial updates to the Public Health Action Plan to Combat Antimicrobial Resistance, including enhanced plans for addressing the problem here and abroad. As appropriate, the Office's Director will establish benchmarks for achieving the plan's goals, assess patterns of antimicrobial resistance emergence and their impact on clinical outcomes, determine how antimicrobial products are being used in humans, animals and plants, and recommend where additional federally-supported studies may be beneficial.

Second, we renew the Antimicrobial Resistance Task Force authorized in section 319E of the Public Health Service Act. The Task Force, whose authorization lapsed last year, is comprised of representatives from the following Federal agencies and offices, plus any others the Secretary deems necessary: the new Office of Antimicrobial Resistance established in the bill; the Assistant Secretary of Preparedness and Response; the Centers for Disease Control; the Food and Drug Administration; the National Institutes of Health; the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; the Health Resources and Services Administration; the Environmental Protection Agency; and the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Defense, Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, and State.

It is important to note that Senator Brown and I gave careful consideration to the location of this new Office.

We considered locating it at the CDC, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH), and in the Office of the Secretary, OS. There are benefits and drawbacks to each. Indeed, had OASH its previous organizational structure, that is, line authority over the Public Health Service agencies, that decision would have been easy. But since a change was made many years ago to devolve most of the OASH functions to the separate PHS agencies, OASH was not the natural locus for the new Office, we decided. Our final conclusion was that it was most appropriate to locate the new office in OS, both for reasons of prominence and flexibility.

Third, S. 2313 establishes a Public Health Antimicrobial Advisory Board, a panel of outside experts who will advise the Secretary on ways to encourage an adequate supply of antimicrobial products that are both safe

and effective; help determine what research priorities should be, what data and surveillance are necessary to be collected, and assess how the action plan can be updated and strengthened.

It is very important to Senator Brown, if I may speak for him, and to me that our measure be seen as a collaborative effort that draws on the strengths of existing organizations and catalyzes their efforts for greater good.

So, fourth, our bill requires the Secretary--working through the new Office, the CDC and the NIH, in consultation with other appropriate agencies--to develop a antimicrobial resistance strategic research plan that strengthens existing epidemiological, interventional, clinical, behavioral, translational and basic research efforts to advance our understanding of the emergence of resistance and how best to address it.

Fifth, the bill authorizes establishment of at least 10 Antimicrobial Resistance Clinical Research and Public Health Network sites, geographically dispersed across the U.S. The sites will monitor the emergence of resistant pathogens in individuals, study the epidemiology of such pathogens and evaluate the efficacy of interventions, and study problems associated with antimicrobial use. In addition, we are asking the network to assess the feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and appropriateness of surveillance and screening programs in differing health care and institutional settings, such as schools, and evaluate current treatment protocols and make appropriate recommendations on best practices for treating drug resistant infections. It is my hope the network will be able to take into account successful models for surveillance and screening such as inpatient programs of the Veterans Health Administration, work done in States such as Illinois, New York and the Utah Aware program, and experience overseas in countries such as the Netherlands, Denmark and Finland. Our bill authorizes $45 million for these networks in fiscal year 2008, $65 million next year, and $120 million in fiscal year 2010.

Finally, I would like to speak about data collection activities in S. 2313.

It has become obvious to me that there is a pressing need for better surveillance of antibiotic resistance and better data collection that is shared both within States and across States. From my long work on public health issues, it is equally clear to me that there is a need for the government to give guidance--guidance, not a mandate--on uniform ways in which those data should be collected so that all of the agencies are talking the same talk, so speak.

Our bill asks the Office of Antimicrobial Research to work with the Task Force and member agencies to develop those uniform standards for data collection. In drafting S. 2313, Senator Brown and I were very sensitive to the jurisdictional needs of other Committees. At the same time, it is clear that any serious effort to address antimicrobial resistance must be spread across the many agencies of Government, each of which has a role to play in our collaborative effort. It is for that reason that our bill asks the Office and Task Force to work with the other agencies, some of which do not fall within the jurisdiction of the HELP Committee. If this language needs to be strengthened as consideration of S. 2313 progresses, it is our hope to work with the other committees which have an interest in the bill.

A second issue related to data collection is the fact that there is a pressing need for epidemiologists and other public health experts to begin to see data showing how many antibiotics are being distributed and used by patients so that they can evaluate the amount of resistance that is emerging. In writing our bill, we were sensitive to the need to provide scientists with these data, while at the same time working to make any new reporting provisions the least burdensome possible, while protecting both the national security and propriety aspects of those data. For that reason, our bill builds on current reporting to the FDA of pharmaceutical distribution data. Those data are currently submitted by manufacturers on the anniversary date of the product's approval. Our bill would move that reporting date to 60 days after the beginning of each calendar year, thus allowing epidemiologists to compare data from year to year. Our second concern, that of potentially harmful release of data, was addressed in the following way. Our bill precludes the release of data which are proprietary in nature and whose release could have the perverse result of providing a disincentive to antibiotic development. This strong section, section 7 of the bill, also precludes release of data which could be harmful to our national defense.

In closing, I wish to commend S. 2313 to my colleagues and ask for their serious consideration of this measure. For those who doubt the need for this legislation, if there are any doubters among us, I ask the following questions:

Where do we begin to get serious to address this concern?

Where do we begin to recognize that it will take literally years to develop an effective response?

What are we doing to develop the collaboration across agencies to assure the American public we are developing an action plan to combat the problem?

It is our hope that STAAR Act will begin to catalyze that response.

That is the motive behind our introduction of this legislation.

We look forward to working with our colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee as consideration of this legislation begins and we remain available to our colleagues to answer any questions or concerns they may have about this legislation.

Mr. President, Senators Kennedy and Enzi have recently said that early in 2008 the Senate will consider whether to authorize No Child Left Behind.

That law, which was enacted in 2001 as a part of the regular 5-year reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, required every State to set standards for math and reading and to test each child once a year in grades 3 through 8, and once in high school, in order to measure their progress toward meeting these State standards. In addition, the law requires States to report the results in a disaggregated way, meaning according to racial, ethnic, socioeconomic status, disability, and limited English proficiency, report the status of the children so it would be clearer whether groups of children are being left behind in their academic progress.

So my purpose today is, first, to announce my support for the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act but ask that we find a better way to do the job of reporting results. We should be trying to catch schools doing things right rather than seeming to penalize them for doing things wrong.

Second, to introduce legislation providing for greater flexibility in administering the law for up to a dozen States, if those States agree to maintain a high level or increase the rigor of the program, their standard-setting process, and reporting requirements.

Third, to express my concerns about early drafts and proposals of reauthorizing legislation that seem to require more Federal control and less State responsibility for results--the reverse of what we should be seeking to achieve.

Finally, I wish to call attention to several parts of the legislation that need to be strengthened and expanded: Support for teaching American history; the Teacher Incentive Fund; charter schools, which I know the Presiding Officer has been very interested in for a long time; and State collection of data to aid States in measuring student progress.

First, support for reauthorization. I have decided to cosponsor the No Child Left Behind Act of 2007, which has been authored by Senators Burr and Gregg, because I believe it represents a sound foundation for eventual reauthorization of the legislation. This legislative draft leaves in place the framework of the 2001 law: high goals, State standards, and disaggregated reporting of results, and it addresses some obvious deficiencies in the existing legislation, including more flexibility in helping children learn English, in measuring the progress of children with disabilities, and in how to report the progress of children who make great progress but still fall behind their goals. This bill--the Burr-Gregg bill--does not retreat from the bold goal that all children will be proficient in reading and math according to each State's standards by the 2013-2014 school year. Some have argued that sets schools up for failure. I would argue it is the American way to set high goals and then to

attempt to reach them. Our Declaration of Independence does not say ``life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'' for 80 percent of us. Our national character is not that some things are possible. Rightly or wrongly, we Americans uniquely believe that anything is possible for all of us, and much of our politics and debates in this body are about dealing with the disappointment of not reaching high goals that we set for ourselves, and then, of course, we set out and try again to achieve them.

I do think we would be wise to find a different way to talk about the progress of schools in reaching those high goals. Most schools, at least today, are succeeding in reaching their State's No Child Left Behind standards. There are more than 100,000 schools in the United States. According to the U.S. Department of Education, over 20 percent of those--21,000--did not make adequate yearly progress. Of those 21,000 schools, about one-fourth missed their goals by one subgroup of students.

The same is true in Tennessee. According to our Department of Education, there are 1,710 public schools. There were 245--or 15 percent--which did not make adequate yearly progress. Of those, 127 didn't do it because of one subgroup.

Therefore, I suggest we find a different way to talk about progress. Schools that reach their goals might be called ``high-achieving schools.'' Schools that do so for more than 1 year in a row might be called the ``highest achieving schools.'' Schools that, on the other hand, miss their goal by only one subgroup might be called ``achieving schools,'' and those that do not do as well might be called priority schools.

Second: A new State contract for flexibility. I am introducing today the State Student Achievement Contract which I will work to make a part of No Child Left Behind. The idea is simple: Now that we have 5 years of experience with No Child Left Behind, we should toss the ball back to at least some States and see whether those States can implement the law with at least as much rigor in reporting, more flexibility, and more innovation.

I know if the Presiding Officer and I were still Governors of our respective States, we would want to try that over the next 5 years.

This proposal would allow up to 12 States to negotiate with the U.S. Secretary of Education to enter into a State student achievement contract, which would permit States to improve their own systems of accountability, and in exchange, receive the necessary flexibility to innovate on finding ways to close the achievement gap.

In other words, instead of saying: ``Do it exactly this way'' to the States, the Federal Government would be saying: ``Give us results, and we will give you more flexibility.''

In determining which States would be eligible for this new contract, the Secretary would expect States to increase their standards, assessments, and expectations of students.

Washington, DC, itself is not going to make schools better in Wilmington, Maryville, Kansas City, and Sacramento. This can only happen locally, when parents, teachers, communities, and State officials take charge. In fact, No Child Left Behind is simply an extension of the State standards movement that began in the 1980s in most States. While it requires the setting of standards and requires public reporting, the solution to the problem of low-achieving students is left in the hands of communities, where it must be left. In fact, only 8 percent of funding of public schools comes from the Federal Government.

So this proposal seeks to recognize that solutions are local, to encourage those States that are trying the boldest programs, and to permit the flexibility needed to achieve those results.

Third, creeping Federal control. One reason I have introduced the State contract proposal is I don't want the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind to become a vehicle for increased Federal control of local schools. In fact, now that the first 5 years of confusion and learning the new law are completed, there ought to be fewer Federal requirements, not more. After all, the law is essentially a requirement for State standards and reporting disaggregated results.

But, unfortunately, Washington doesn't work that way. Our motto seems to be: Once we have stuck our noses into something, we will meddle with it forever. In some of the early drafts of No Child Left Behind, I have seen examples of increased Federal regulation that in my view offer the prospect of more Federal control and less local accountability. It ought to be the other way around.

Finally, there are three special provisions of No Child Left Behind that, based upon the first 5 years' experience, need to be expanded.

One, teaching American history. The late Albert Shanker, president of the American Federation of Teachers, once said the rationale for a public school is to teach immigrant children the three Rs and what it means to be an American, with the hope they would go home and teach their parents. Yet the lowest test scores for American high school seniors is not math or reading or science, it is U.S. history. Senators Kennedy, Enzi, and I have worked to create some new provisions for this reauthorization which would encourage putting the teaching of American history back in its rightful place in our schools so our children can grow up learning what it means to be an American. These provisions include: The teaching traditional American history provision. That was put in 5 years ago. It is a program of grants to school districts to encourage professional development and teaching of American history. It has been very successful. Senator Kennedy and Senator Byrd have had a major part in this law.

Next, Presidential and congressional academies. The pilot programs for these summer academies for outstanding teachers and students of American history have been low cost and very successful. It is my hope that in a partnership with States and the private sector, these can be expanded to a total of 100 each summer. They are very much similar to the Governors' schools many States have for students and for teachers. David McCullough has suggested perhaps we can match up the 10-year centennial program for national parks with these summer programs for students and teachers of U.S. history. Imagine what it would be like for a group of U.S. history teachers to spend a week with David McCullough at the Adams House in Quincy, MA.

Finally, a 10-State pilot program in U.S. history NAEP. Currently, the National Assessment of Education Progress--the Nation's report card--only measures student achievement in history every 4 years. We don't get State-level data; only a national sample of student achievement. Senator Kennedy and I have offered legislation to create a 10-State pilot program so there can be State-level data for 10 States, which will reflect the importance of this subject to our Nation and call attention to student progress or lack thereof in American history.

A second area of special emphasis that ought to be considered when we reauthorize No Child Left Behind is the Teacher Incentive Fund. After parents, nothing is more important to a child's success than the classroom teacher. In every hearing we have in the Senate, a witness emphasizes the need to attract specially equipped teachers for math, for science, for children with disabilities, for inner-city schools, for gifted students, and other special needs. Yet we struggle in this country with an across-the-board pay mentality that will not allow schools to lift themselves up when it comes to attracting and keeping outstanding classroom teachers.

Finding fair ways to pay teachers more for teaching well is not easy. I have tried it. But during the last 5 years, the Teacher Incentive Fund has helped at least three dozen cities, usually working with local teachers' unions, to find new ways to train and reward outstanding teachers and principals. We need to do as much of this as we possibly can. I wish to thank and acknowledge Senator Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic whip, for working with me to make certain that appropriations for this program continue.

Then, charter schools. I mentioned earlier the Presiding Officer was a national leader on charter schools when he was Governor of Delaware. Last year, I visited a charter school in Memphis. It was the Easter holiday, except those ninth graders weren't on vacation, they were in class. To be specific, they were in a ninth grade advanced

placement biology class. What was special was these children had come from so-called low-performing schools. To be blunt, they were labeled the least likely to succeed, except they were succeeding. This was because they were getting extra help during holidays, longer school days, Saturdays, and from special teachers.

The idea of a public charter school is simply to give teachers the freedom to use their common sense and their skills to help the children who are presented to them--freedom from Federal, State, and union rules so they can do it. It is nonsensical to me that we don't encourage, rather than discourage, such public charter schools.

Most of our children are learning, but for the 15 percent or so who are having genuinely special challenges in learning, it will take different kinds of schools, even better teachers and different methods. In this reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, we must do all of these things to cause that to happen.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter addressed to Senator Kennedy be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the proposed Compensation for Combat Veterans Act. This legislation would remove a barrier to the fair adjudication of claims for VA benefits filed by veterans who have disabilities incurred or aggravated by their military service in combat areas. Under existing law, veterans who can establish that they served in combat do not have to produce official military records to support their claim for disabilities related to that service.

At present, some veterans, disabled by their service in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as those who served earlier in Korea and Vietnam, are unable to benefit from this liberalizing evidentiary requirement because they have difficulty proving personal participation in combat by official military documents.

Under an opinion of the Department of Veterans Affairs General Counsel, VA GC Opinion 12-99, veterans must establish by official military records or decorations that they ``personally participated in events constituting an actual fight or encounter with a military foe or hostile unit or instrumentality.'' Oversight visits by Committee staff to VA regional offices have found claims denied as a result of this policy because those who served in combat zones were not able to produce official military documentation of their personal participation in an actual fight.

Some of these cases include a Marine Combat Engineer serving in Iraq who encountered IEDs, an Army veteran accidently shot in Iraq by a fellow servicemember, and an Army Infantryman whose records showed participation in the Tet offensive of 1968, but not ``personal participation in an actual fight.'' In other cases, extensive delays in claims processing occur while VA adjudicators attempt to obtain official military documents showing that a Marine who served in Bagdad or Fallujah was personally exposed to IEDs.

The legislation I am introducing would overturn the General Counsel precedent opinion. I believe that the requirement in that opinion is inconsistent with the original intent of Congress in liberalizing the requirements for proof of service-connection in cases involving veterans who served in combat areas. As the Senate noted in 1941, in the report on the original bill providing special consideration for combat veterans:

The absence of an official record of care or treatment in

many of such cases is readily explained by the conditions

surrounding the service of combat veterans. It was emphasized

in the hearings that the establishment of records of care or

treatment of veterans in other than combat areas, and

particularly in the States, was a comparatively simple matter

as compared with the veteran who served in combat. Either the

veteran attempted to carry on despite his disability to avoid

having a record made lest he might be separated from his

organization or, as in many cases, the records themselves

were lost.

S. Rep. 77-902 to H.R. 4905 at 2.

While some improvements have been made since 1941 in obtaining and maintaining records in combat areas, record keeping and transmittal of records in combat areas remains problematic.

This bill would require that, in cases in which the veteran can demonstrate service in a recognized combat area and alleges disabilities related to that service the relaxed evidentiary principles intended by the Congress would apply, with no requirement for further evidence from the veteran regarding his or her specific activity.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure, so that combat veterans of the current conflicts, as well as those who served in earlier conflicts, can receive the benefits they deserve in a timely manner.

Mr. President, today I am joining my colleague Senator Inhofe in introducing the bipartisan Geothermal Heat Pump Development Act of 2007, which would provide American homes and businesses with tax credits to promote greater use of geothermal heat pumps, GHPs. Geothermal heat pumps are electrically-powered devices that use the earth's natural heat storage ability to heat and cool homes and meet energy demands.

Buildings account for 39 percent of the primary energy consumption in the U.S. and 71 percent of U.S. electricity consumption. The lion's share of this energy usage is for heating, cooling, and hot water. Making our buildings more energy efficient will therefore pay large energy dividends. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, GHPs are the most energy-efficient and environmentally clean space- conditioning systems currently in use. GHPs can reduce site energy consumption for climate control and water heating by as much as 40 percent compared to air-source heat pumps and as much as 70 percent compared to a fossil fuel heating system and air-conditioner.

However, in the absence of Federal tax credits to help mitigate the comparatively high installation costs associated with geothermal heat pump systems, American homeowners and businesses are reluctant to tap into this reliable technology. The Salazar-Inhofe bill would help overcome these cost barriers by amending current tax code to make geothermal heat pump systems eligible for the energy tax credit and the residential energy efficient property tax credit, for businesses and consumers, respectively.

Specifically, businesses could claim an investment tax credit in the amount of 10 percent of the installed cost of a new geothermal heat pump system, and could claim an accelerated 3-year depreciation on such equipment. For example, a business owner that spends $30,000 on a new GHP system would get a $3,000 tax credit and the accelerated depreciation provision would allow that business greater flexibility in reporting this capital expense. Consumers could claim a credit in the amount of 30 percent of the installed cost of a new geothermal heat pump system up to a maximum credit of $2,000, so that, for example, a home owner who purchases a $15,000 GHP system would receive a $2,000 tax credit. This consumer tax credit would be allowable against the alternative minimum tax.

Geothermal heat pumps are proven renewable energy technologies with significant energy efficiency gains and

long-term cost-savings potential compared to conventional climate control systems. Geothermal heat pumps typically cost more than twice as much as a conventional fossil fuel furnace, but GHPs' impressive efficiency gains allow a home or business owner to recoup their up- front costs within about ten years.

Since their introduction in the 1980s, over 1 million GHPs have been installed in a wide variety of buildings, and in a diverse range of climates, across the U.S. Senator Inhofe and I are optimistic that the widespread adoption of geothermal heat pumps will not only save energy, but also create good local jobs. Because GHP systems can be deployed virtually anywhere, the demand for qualified engineers who can install and maintain these systems would surely expand.

Geothermal heat pumps should be an important element of our efforts to enhance our buildings' energy efficiency. By making it easier for American homes and business to embrace these extremely effective energy technologies, we will help develop a more secure, efficient and sustainable domestic energy program founded on clean, renewable and reliable energy alternatives.

Mr. President, today I am joining my colleague Senator Inhofe in introducing the bipartisan Geothermal Heat Pump Development Act of 2007, which would provide American homes and businesses with tax credits to promote greater use of geothermal heat pumps, GHPs. Geothermal heat pumps are electrically-powered devices that use the earth's natural heat storage ability to heat and cool homes and meet energy demands.

Buildings account for 39 percent of the primary energy consumption in the U.S. and 71 percent of U.S. electricity consumption. The lion's share of this energy usage is for heating, cooling, and hot water. Making our buildings more energy efficient will therefore pay large energy dividends. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, GHPs are the most energy-efficient and environmentally clean space- conditioning systems currently in use. GHPs can reduce site energy consumption for climate control and water heating by as much as 40 percent compared to air-source heat pumps and as much as 70 percent compared to a fossil fuel heating system and air-conditioner.

However, in the absence of Federal tax credits to help mitigate the comparatively high installation costs associated with geothermal heat pump systems, American homeowners and businesses are reluctant to tap into this reliable technology. The Salazar-Inhofe bill would help overcome these cost barriers by amending current tax code to make geothermal heat pump systems eligible for the energy tax credit and the residential energy efficient property tax credit, for businesses and consumers, respectively.

Specifically, businesses could claim an investment tax credit in the amount of 10 percent of the installed cost of a new geothermal heat pump system, and could claim an accelerated 3-year depreciation on such equipment. For example, a business owner that spends $30,000 on a new GHP system would get a $3,000 tax credit and the accelerated depreciation provision would allow that business greater flexibility in reporting this capital expense. Consumers could claim a credit in the amount of 30 percent of the installed cost of a new geothermal heat pump system up to a maximum credit of $2,000, so that, for example, a home owner who purchases a $15,000 GHP system would receive a $2,000 tax credit. This consumer tax credit would be allowable against the alternative minimum tax.

Geothermal heat pumps are proven renewable energy technologies with significant energy efficiency gains and

long-term cost-savings potential compared to conventional climate control systems. Geothermal heat pumps typically cost more than twice as much as a conventional fossil fuel furnace, but GHPs' impressive efficiency gains allow a home or business owner to recoup their up- front costs within about ten years.

Since their introduction in the 1980s, over 1 million GHPs have been installed in a wide variety of buildings, and in a diverse range of climates, across the U.S. Senator Inhofe and I are optimistic that the widespread adoption of geothermal heat pumps will not only save energy, but also create good local jobs. Because GHP systems can be deployed virtually anywhere, the demand for qualified engineers who can install and maintain these systems would surely expand.

Geothermal heat pumps should be an important element of our efforts to enhance our buildings' energy efficiency. By making it easier for American homes and business to embrace these extremely effective energy technologies, we will help develop a more secure, efficient and sustainable domestic energy program founded on clean, renewable and reliable energy alternatives.