A bill to repeal certain sections of the Act of May 26, 1936, pertaining to the Virgin Islands.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Lieberman today, along with our co-sponsors, Senators Snowe, Obama, Collins, and Lincoln, in introducing the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007. This legislation is designed to significantly reduce the Nation's greenhouse gas emissions to prevent the dangerous impacts of climate change, enhance our national security and maintain the strength to our economy. It would be accomplished through a combination of trading markets and the deployment of advanced technologies.

As I have stated on previous occasions, the design of this legislation is an evolving process. The legislation we are introducing today represents yet another step in that effort. Since our last vote on this legislation, Senator Lieberman and I have continued work on this proposal with the goal of producing the most innovative, meaningful, and economically feasible measure that can be embraced by the Senate. We believe the changes which we have made since we first introduced climate change legislation in the 108th Congress puts us on the path to achieving this goal, and we intend to make further improvements to this comprehensive legislation in the days ahead.

We have continually worked with scientists, industry, environmentalists, as well as the faith-based community, to ensure that we are fully addressing the serious problem of global warming. We continue to learn more about the science and the impacts of climate change on a daily basis. We continue to work with economists and industry experts to ensure that our emissions goals do not hamstring our economic objectives. In particular, we continue to learn more about the power of the markets to control costs as emission credit trading continues in Europe and here in the U.S. I am confident that given the will, the Federal Government can be a lead advocate for ensuring that America is doing its part to reduce global warming, and join in the global effort that is needed to address this world-wide environmental issue.

I want to mention the efforts of States like California, which has already enacted legislation requiring mandatory reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and the Northeast States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont, which are also seeking to limit emissions from power plants. Over 300 U.S. mayors have signed an agreement to reduce emissions in their cities.

As these State plans and legislation are implemented, they will offer Congress and the Administration unique opportunities to review and incorporate lessons learned from these efforts into Federal legislation. Despite the improvements we have made in this version of our bill to be environmentally responsible and to minimize economic costs, we will continue to pursue new and innovative ideas that will further these objectives, and we will modify our bill accordingly.

The legislation we submit today is designed to protect our environment from the impacts of the climate change resulting from the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, improve our national security by reducing reliance on fossil fuels that often carry with them geopolitical costs, and position our economy to become a world leader in the expanding markets for development and deployment of new energy efficient technologies and renewable energy sources. It proposes the utilization of the ``cap and trade'' approach and promotes the commercialization of technologies that can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, mitigate the impacts of climate change, and increase the nation's energy independence. And it will help to keep America at the cutting edge of innovation where the jobs and trade opportunities of the new economy are to be found. It will also serve to protect our country and the world from the security threat posed by populations whose health, livelihood, and variability are potentially threatened by global rising temperatures and altered environments.

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

As I mentioned, we continue to learn more about the science of climate change and the dangerous precedence of not addressing this environmental problem. The science tells us that urgent and significant action is needed. Our National Academies of Sciences, along with the national academies from the other G8 nations, China, India, and Brazil, has said in a joint statement that ``there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.'' and ``[t] he scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.''

We recognize that many fear the costs of taking action. But there are costs to delay as well. Failure to implement significant reductions in net

greenhouse gas emissions in the near term will yield only more climate change and a much harder job in the future. Our comprehensive legislation is one approach to a productive, secure, and clean energy future. But it is only one approach and we welcome other proposals--let a thousand flowers bloom.

Significant reductions in greenhouse gases--well beyond those required by this bill--are feasible over the next 15-20 years using technologies available today. Also, the most important technological deployment opportunities to reduce emissions over the next two decades lie with energy efficient technologies and renewable energy sources, including nuclear, solar, wind, and bio-fuels. For example, in the electric power sector, which accounts for one-third of U.S. emissions, major pollution reductions can be achieved by improving the efficiency of existing fossil fuel plants, adding new reactors designs for nuclear power, expanding use of renewable power sources, and significantly reducing electricity demand with the use of energy-saving technologies currently available to residential and commercial consumers. These clean technologies need to be promoted and that is what spurs our action today.

Let me take a moment to address a section of our legislation that has been the target of some concerns by environmentalists and others-- concerns that I believe are entirely unwarranted. The provisions in our bill to promote nuclear energy are an important part of the comprehensive technology package.

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

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

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

As nuclear plants are decommissioned, the percentage of U.S. electricity produced by this zero-emission technology will actually decline. Therefore, at a minimum, we must make efforts to maintain nuclear energy's level of contribution, so that this capacity is not replaced with higher-emitting alternatives.

No doubt, some people will object to the idea of the Federal Government playing any role in helping demonstrate and commercialize new and beneficial energy technologies, and particularly nuclear designs. We understand the power of markets to spur innovation and our proposals is built on this fundamental lesson. But the fact remains that the market playing field has been highly uneven--fossil fuels have been subsidized for many decades at levels that can scarcely be calculated. The enormous economic costs of damage caused by air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions to the environment and human health are not factored into the price of power produced by fossil- fueled technologies. Yet, it's a cost that we all bear, too often in terms of ill-health and diminished quality of life. That is simply a matter of fact.

It is also inescapable that the ability to avoid internalizing these costs placed produces at a great advantage over clean competitors. Based on that fact, and in light of the enormous environmental and economic risk posed by global warming, I believe that providing zero and low emission technologies such as nuclear a boost into the market place so that these clean technologies can be utilized as soon as possible is responsible public policy, and a matter of simple public necessity, particularly, as we work to promote America's energy independence.

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

As Senator Lieberman and I have continued working for passage of legislation to address climate change in a meaningful way, it has become clear to us that any responsible climate change measure must contain five essential components:

First, it must have rational, mandatory emission reduction targets and timetables. It must be goal oriented, and has both environmental and economic integrity. We need policy that will produce necessary outcomes, not merely check political boxes. The goal must be feasible and based on sound science, and this is what we have tried to do in this bill.

Second, it must utilize a market-based cap and trade system. It must limit greenhouse gas emissions and allows the trading of emission credits to drive enterprise, innovation and efficiency. This is the central component of our legislation. Voluntary efforts will not change the status quo, taxes are counterproductive, and markets are more dependable than regulators in effecting sustainable change.

Third, it must include mechanisms to minimize costs and work effectively with other markets. The ``trade'' part of ``cap and trade'' is such a mechanism, but it's clear it must be bolstered by other assurances that costs will be minimized. I am as concerned as anyone about the economic impacts associated with any climate change legislation. I know that many economists are developing increasingly sophisticated ways to project future costs of compliance. Lately, we have seen the increased interest in this area of research. As we learn more from these models about additional action items to further reduce costs, we intend to incorporate them. Already, based upon earlier economic analysis, we have added ``offsets'' provisions in this bill in an effort to minimize costs and to provide for the creation of new markets. And, I assure my colleagues, we will continue to seek new and innovative ways to further minimize costs.

Fourth, it must spur the development and deployment of advanced technology. Nuclear, solar, and other alternative energy must be part of the equation and we need a dedicated national commitment to develop and bring to market the technologies of the future as a matter of good environmental and economic policy. There will be a growing global market for these technologies and the U.S. will benefit greatly from being competitive and capturing its share of these markets. This legislation includes a detailed technology title that would go a long way toward meeting this goal. Unlike the Energy bill, it would be funded using the proceeds from the auctioning of allowable emission credits, rather than from the use of taxpayers' funds or appropriations that will never materialize.

And fifth, it must facilitate international efforts to solve the problem. Global warming is an international problem requiring an international effort. The United States has an obligation to lead. Our leadership cannot replace the need for action by countries such as India and China. We must spur and facilitate it. We have added provisions that would allow U.S. companies to enter into partnerships in developing countries for the purpose of conducting projects to achieve certified emission reductions, which may be traded on the international market.

These five components represent a serious challenge that will require a great deal of effort, the concentration of substantial intellectual power, and the continued efforts of our colleagues and those in the environmental, industry, economic, and national security communities. We look forward to collaborating in this effort as we continue to shape our legislation to its most effective form.

The status quo is a strong and stubborn force. People and institutions are averse to change, even when that change is critical for their own well-being, and that of their children and grandchildren. If the scientists are right and temperatures continue to rise, we could face environmental, economic, and national security consequences far beyond our ability to imagine. If they are wrong and the Earth finds a way to compensate for the unprecedented levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, what will we have accomplished? Cleaner air; greater energy efficiency, a more diverse and secure energy mix, and U.S. leadership in the technologies of the future. There is no doubt; failure to act is the far greater risk.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer, with my colleagues Senators Lieberman, McCain, Obama, Lincoln, and Collins, S. 280, the bipartisan Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act that requires the United States to take actions to reduce manmade greenhouse gas emissions for the protection of both our environment and our economy. This legislation takes concrete steps by using a fair, market-based system to once and for all demonstrate leadership on climate change and reduce emissions in the United States. Furthermore, it will do so without weakening the economic position of the United States or otherwise imposing hardship on its citizens.

Ongoing peer-reviewed scientific and economic research demonstrates that climate change is one of the most significant environmental and economical issues of the 21st century, impacting the planet's weather patterns, resulting in more severe, sustained storm systems, floods, heat waves, and droughts. Yet, I have grave concerns that the lack of domestic climate change policy is akin to Nero's approach, fiddling as the planet warms.

With overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is adversely impacting the health of our planet, the time has come for the Congress to step up and take action. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions that enter the atmosphere today from all sectors of our society will last for generations to come threatening our oceans, our environment and the economic well-being of our country and the world. It is beyond dispute that we cannot afford the price of inaction.

The urgency is clear as climate change is no longer an abstract concept. Sea levels are rising, polar ice caps are melting. Indeed, earlier this month the Bush administration listed the polar bear a threatened species. Department of Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne stated, ``Polar bears are one of nature's ultimate survivors. They're able to live and thrive in one of the world's harshest environments, but there's concern that their habitat may literally be melting away.'' The listing document says that the polar bear's ice habitat that is used as platforms for hunting, mating and resting could vanish within half a century.

The majestic polar bear of the Arctic may well be the symbol of climate change just as the bald eagle was when Rachel Carson published her stunning book ``Silent Spring'' in 1962 that linked the DDT pesticide to the fate of our national symbol--and created an environmental conscious for the country.

It is obvious that new and longer term ideas for securing both domestic and international cooperation are necessary as we cannot get to the heart of this global problem without the world's major economies taking domestic actions. Clearly, as the causes of climate change are global and the atmosphere knows no boundaries, the challenge can only be met with all the countries of the world working together.

That is why when asked by three major independent think tanks--the Center for American Progress in the U.S., the Institute for Public Policy Research in the U.K. and the Australia Institute--I accepted the co-chairmanship of the high-level International Climate Change Taskforce--the ICCT--to chart a way forward on climate change on a parallel track with the Kyoto Protocol process. The report from this Taskforce, Meeting the Climate Challenge, recommends ways to involve the world's largest economies in the effort, including the U.S. and major developing nations, focusing on creating new agreements to achieve the deployment of clean energy technologies, and a new global policy framework that is both inclusive and fair.

The Taskforce, along with Co-chair, the Rt. Honorable Stephen Byers of the U.K., includes an international, cross-party, cross-sector collaboration of leaders from public service, science, business and civil society from both developed and developing countries. We set out a pathway to solve climate change issues in tandem--collaboratively finding common ground through recommendations that are both ambitious and realistic to engage all countries, and, critically, including those not bound by the Kyoto Protocol and major developing countries. We hope our proposals will be a prelude to the international dialogue and, ultimately, set the score for lasting change.

The Report calls for the establishment of a long-term objective of preventing global average temperature from rising more than 3.6 degree Fahrenheit, 2 degrees Centigrade, above the pre-industrial level by the end of the century.

The Taskforce arrived at the 2 degrees Centigrade--or 3.6 degree Fahrenheit--temperature increase goal on the basis of an extensive review of the relevant scientific literature that shows that, as the ICCT Report states, ``Beyond the 2 degree Centigrade level, the risks to human societies and ecosystems grow significantly. It is likely, for example, that average temperature increases larger than this will entail substantial agricultural losses, greatly increases numbers of people at risk of water shortages, and widespread adverse health impacts.''

Our Report goes on to say that, ``Climate science is not yet able to specify the trajectory of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases that corresponds precisely to any particular global temperature rise. Based on current knowledge, however, it appears that achieving a high probability of limiting global average temperature rise to 2 degrees C will require that the increase in greenhouse-gas concentrations as well as all the other warming and cooling influences on global climate in the year 2100, as compared with 1750, should add up to a net warming no greater than what would be associated with a CO2 concentration of about 400 parts per million (ppm)''.

This goal of the ICCT comports well with the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act we are introducing today because the legislation creates a domestic market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce manmade carbon dioxide emissions with specific targets to meet specific dates. The bill will also make the U.S. a partner in the vast community of developed countries who have adopted national mandatory cap-and-trade systems for carbon emissions. I believe it will also bring emerging economies to the international negotiating table, such as China, who is predicted to surpass the U.S. as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases by 2010--China who is putting on line one carbon-spewing coal- fired power plant each week.

Achieving success for climate change legislation that calls for realistic reductions of greenhouse gases by setting certain targets means disabusing skeptics and opponents alike of cherished mythologies that environmental protection and economic growth are mutually exclusive. The irony is both are actually increasingly interdependent and will only become more so as the 21st century progresses. Robust companies dedicated to reducing emissions are proof-positive ``going- green'' represents a burgeoning sector of our economy, not the drain and hindrance we've been led to believe for so many years. This bill accommodates for the early actions these companies have taken to reduce emissions.

And to their credit--the most progressive U.S. companies have reduced emissions even further than required in the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act. In an act of economic acumen, they are hedging their bets by

adopting internal targets. And, these companies are saving money by reducing their energy consumption and positioning themselves to compete in the growing global market for climate-friendly technologies. Any cost-conscious CFO--or forward-thinking CEO for that matter--should admit that to prevent pollution now will most certainly cost less than cleaning it up later.

The economics of prevention and stewardship resonate more when you consider property that erodes because of rising sea levels, farm land that fails to yield crops and becomes barren and arid, and revenue opportunities squandered because of dwindling fishing stocks caused by hotter temperatures. These represent real costs to the bottom line--not to mention irreparable damage to our health and quality of life. We procrastinate on these policy imperatives at the peril of both our country and our planet. Congress is quite facile at deferring costs to the future, often with enormous consequences. No one was more aware of this tendency than Abraham Lincoln, who--in his Message to Congress in 1862--offered this challenge to the legislative branch, ``The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.''

We have a choice between an ever more treacherous path of greater environmental damage and economic harm, or an upward path to a better future for our planet, and enhanced competitiveness for our industries. I urge my colleagues to join with those of us who believe we should move forward by taking appropriate actions now for global warming reductions so that we may leave behind a better environment that was bestowed to us.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the ``College Student Relief Act.'' In 1958, spurred on by the launch of the Russian satellite, Sputnik, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act in order to ensure that through education, the United States would stay ahead of the Soviet Union in the space race. Because of the low interest loans offered through the National Defense Education Act, countless students were able to obtain a college education and help move America forward. I could never have attended Georgetown University and law school were it not for the government loans.

It is unquestionable that higher education plays a critical role in the future of our children. Over the course of a lifetime, a college graduate will earn over $1 million more than those without college degrees. In addition to the individual benefits of a college education, investing in and producing more college-educated Americans is vital to our Nation's growth. Economists estimate that the increase in the education level of the United States labor force between 1915 and 1999 directly resulted in at least 23 percent of the overall growth in U.S. productivity. To keep America at the economic forefront in the 21st Century, we must recognize the value of investing in higher education and provide students with the assistance they need so that they can compete in the global economy.

As college costs continue to skyrocket, attaining a college education is becoming an even bigger hurdle for many American students. Millions of eligible students never even make it to college because of financial barriers. Over the last five years, tuition, fees, room and board at four-year public colleges and universities increased by 42 percent. More than two-thirds of four- year college students now borrow to pay for school, and their average debt more than doubled between 1993 and 2004. According to the Congressional Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, financial barriers will prevent 4.4 million high school graduates from attending a four-year public college over the next decade, and prevent another two million eligible students from attending college at all.

Last year, Republicans missed an opportunity to prevent higher student loan interest rates from going into effect. On July 1, 2006, student loan interest rates went from a 5.3 percent variable rate to a 6.8 percent fixed rate for student borrowers. We can address this situation and take the first step towards helping millions of college students across the Nation realize the American dream--achieving a college education.

That's why I'm introducing the College Student Relief Act of 2007. The bill cuts interest rates on subsidized student loans in half and will help lower the interest rates for 5.5 million college students. The bill phases in interest rate cuts over five years, from a 6.8 percent fixed rate to a 3.4 percent fixed

rate for undergraduate borrowers of new subsidized student loans. Once fully implemented, these cuts will save the typical borrower--with $13,800 in need-based loan debt--approximately $4,400 in interest costs over the life of his or her loan.

Smart, hard-working kids deserve a chance to go as far as their talents will take them; however, large education debt changes the future in ways that cannot be quantified. Career plans are changed. Lifestyles are restricted. Home and auto purchases are put on hold. Family plans may be delayed to accommodate debt payments.

Let me share a few stories with you that illustrate the effects of carrying large education debt. When Stacie Odhner-Sibley and her husband made the decision ten years ago that she would go back to school and obtain her Bachelor's degree in order to provide a better future for their family, she was the first in her family to go to college. Fast forward to today. Stacie now has her Bachelor's degree and a Master's degree in School Guidance and Counseling. While this is the happy part of Stacie's story, the sad part is that Stacie and her husband are considering uprooting their three children and selling their home because they can't afford both student loans and a mortgage. The saddest part of Stacie's story is that the money her family would realize from the sale of their home won't even pay off the student loans. It will only be enough to take off some of the financial pressure they otherwise would be feeling.

Katie Miller is a student at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville. Katie's story is not uncommon. She works part-time and her parents are unable to provide her with any financial assistance. She is extremely grateful for the financial aid she receives and recognizes that without it, she would not be able to go to school even though she is struggling to pay for food, insurance and other basic necessities.

Summer Boyd is an elementary teacher in Decatur, IL. She graduated from Millikin University in 2003 with $65,000 in student loans. As with Katie, Summer's parents could not afford to help pay for her college education. So, for the next 25 years, Summer will be paying over $500 each month toward her student loans. She doesn't mind paying for her education; however, the heavy burden of her student loan debt is already affecting her future plans. She and her husband want to have children, but for the time being, they must continue to scrape by each month and can only hope to someday be able to afford children.

Young people like Stacie, Katie and Summer should not face such high penalties because they had the desire and determination to pursue higher education.

An investment in our children's education is an investment in our Nation's future. We must do what we can today to ensure that America remains a global leader in the future. Our Nation will be richer--not just economically, but also culturally and socially--for having given a higher priority to making college affordable.

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

Mr. President, on October 4 of last year, the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, which houses Great Britain's leading climate scientists, projected that in the absence of prompt action to curb global warming, extreme drought will spread across one third of the Earth's land surface by the end of this century.

On October 30, the head of the United Kingdom's Government Economic Service forecasted that unchecked global warming will cost the world between five and twenty percent of gross domestic product each year.

On December 4, the director of the U.S. Center for Disease Control's National Center for Environmental Health cited global warming as ``the largest looming public health challenge we face.'' Insect-borne diseases such as malaria are expected to spike as tropical ecosystems expand; hotter air will exacerbate the air pollutants that send our children to the hospital with asthma attacks; food insecurity from shifting agricultural zones will spark border wars; and storms and coastal flooding from sea-level rise will cause mortality and dislocation.

On December 14, in fact, the journal Science published a peer- reviewed study projecting that unchecked global warming could cause sea levels to rise between a half meter and one-and-a-half meters above 1990 levels by the end of this century. A sealevel rise in the middle of that range would submerge every city on the East Coast of the United States, from Miami to Boston.

And on December 27, the Interior Department proposed to list the polar bear as threatened with extinction due to Arctic ice melt from global warming.

When even erstwhile skeptics cite melting habitat as the reason polar bears are now threatened, I say the global warming debate is over. The American people want action, and they want it now.

As you know, Senator McCain and I have brought our legislation to solve global warming to a vote in this chamber twice already, first in 2003 and then again in 2005. On the same day that the Senate failed for a second time to pass our bill, in June 2005, this body fortunately did pass Senator Bingaman's resolution that the Congress should enact ``a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of such emissions.''

Today I am reintroducing an improved version of my and Senator McCain's Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act. As the last version of the Act did, the version I introduce today carries the co-sponsorship of Senators Obama and Snowe. I am proud to say that improvements to the bill have now attracted the additional co-sponsorship of Senators Lincoln and Collins. Very shortly, I understand, Representatives Olver and Gilchrest will reintroduce this bill's companion in the House.

The 2005 version of the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act would have capped U.S. greenhouse gas emissions at year 2000 levels without mandating further reductions. The new bill will gradually lower the emissions cap, such that it reaches approximately one third of 2000 levels by 2050. Those long-term reductions will forestall catastrophic, manmade climate change, provided the world's other major economies follow suit within the next decade. Like the 2005 version, the reintroduced bill will control compliance costs by allowing companies to trade, save, and borrow emissions credits, and by allowing them to generate ``offset'' credits by inducing noncovered businesses, farms, and others to reduce their emissions or capture and store greenhouse gases. The reintroduced bill, however, will increase the availability of borrowing and offsets in order to control costs further.

This bill will be referred to the Environment and Public Works Committee, where I will chair a subcommittee on climate change. Colleagues of mine on that committee, including our esteemed chairwoman and my good friend, Senator Boxer, will have their own strong proposals for curbing global warming. I look forward to working with them to get comprehensive legislation reported favorably to the floor in a bipartisan manner. Senator Bingaman, the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has invested a great deal of work and expertise in a comprehensive climate bill of his own. I believe Senator Bingaman will be highly influential in this process, and I look forward to working with him closely to solve this problem.

With American know-how we can and will solve this problem. We will use the power of the free market to promote the rapid and widespread deployment of advanced technologies and practices for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And we will do so without weakening the economic position of the United States or otherwise imposing hardship on its citizens.

I would like to close by extending my heartfelt thanks to the distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, for placing legislation to curb global warming among his top ten priorities for this Congress, and for memorializing that commitment with the introduction, as S. 6, of the National Energy and Environmental Security Act, a bill that I was proud to co-sponsor.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the ``Rural Physicians' Relief Act of 2007.'' This important legislation will bring needed assistance to physicians who provide primary health services to rural America.

Physicians who provide health care in the most rural locations in America face challenges unlike their more urban counterparts. Often great distances, remote locations, limited transportation, and harsh climate--combine to make health care delivery extremely difficult to say the very least. Patient populations are small and spread out across extremely remote areas. As a result, many of these areas tend to be the most medically underserved areas in the Nation.

In my State of Alaska, a State that is larger than the States of California, Texas and Montana combined, nearly one-quarter of the State's population live in communities and villages that are only reachable by boat or aircraft. In fact, Alaska has fewer roads than any other State--even fewer roads than Rhode Island. And, unlike Rhode Island where over 90 percent of the roads are paved, less than 20 percent of the roads are paved in Alaska.

This means that approximately 75 percent of Alaskan communities are not connected by road to another community with a hospital. This means that all medical supplies, patients and providers must travel by air.

These remote populations tend to be among the poorest in the State. Air travel equates to excessively high health care costs--generally 70 percent higher than costs in the Lower 48 States. In short, ``rural'' takes on a new definition in Alaska.

In Alaska, patient access to health care is exacerbated because our State also faces a chilling crisis--we have 25 percent to 30 percent fewer physicians than our population needs. In fact, Alaska has one of the smallest numbers of physicians per capita in the country. We need a minimum of 500 more doctors just to be at the national average of physicians per capita. An American Medical News article recently declared Alaska's precarious situation: ``Alaska has long ranked among the worst states in terms of physician supply.''

Our physician shortage crisis will only worsen. There is an expected retirement of at least 118 physicians in Anchorage alone in the next 10 years. In the 1990s, there were 130 new doctors each year. Now that figure has dropped to only 31 new physicians since 2001. Outside of Anchorage, one in every eight physician positions is vacant.

Additionally, many physicians are forced out of the Medicare and Medicaid programs because reimbursement rates simply do not cover the cost to treat those patients. With Alaska's growing population, especially of our elderly, this shortage will lead to the severe health care access crisis for all Alaskans.

On top of harsh physical challenges, Alaska's rural population also faces significant human challenges. These rural patient populations are often in the greatest need for primary health care services. Heart disease, stroke and other cardiovascular diseases are the leading causes of death in Alaska. Women in our state have higher death rates from stroke than do women nationally; and mortality among Native

Alaskan women is dramatically on the rise, whereas, it is actually declining among Caucasian women in the Lower 48. The prevalence of chronic disease such as diabetes and even tuberculosis is increasing faster in Alaska than any other state. Each of these health concerns is magnified because access to health care--especially in rural Alaska-- remains our greatest challenge.

The legislation that I introduce today with Senator Stevens seeks to lessen this problem. It will both assist physicians who currently practice in rural America and will provide an incentive to encourage physicians to practice in these remote and underserved areas. Specifically, it would give a physician who is a primary health services provider a $1,000 tax credit for each month that he/she provides services in a designated ``frontier'' area. Furthermore, physicians who treat a high percentage of patients from frontier areas would also be eligible for the tax credit.

My hope is to encourage physicians to practice medicine in rural Alaska and throughout rural America. Creating incentives that offset the high cost of providing care in the most remote areas of nation will go far in recruiting physicians to the areas that are most in need of their services.