Electric Utility Cap and Trade Act of 2007

Mr. President, I rise today with the senior Senator from Hawaii to introduce the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007. This bill, which is of great importance to the people of Hawaii, establishes a process to extend the Federal policy of self- governance and self-determination to Hawaii's indigenous people. The bill provides parity in Federal policies that empower our country's other indigenous people--merican Indians and Alaska Natives--to participate in a government-to-government relationship with the United States.

January 17, 2007, commemorates the 114th anniversary of Hawaii's beloved Queen Liliuokalani being deposed. Although this event may seem like a distant memory, it is a poignant event that expedited the decline of a proud and self-governing people. The overthrow facilitated Native Hawaiians being disenfranchised from not only their culture and land, but from their way of life. Native Hawaiians had to endure the forced imprisonment of their Queen and witness the deterioration and near eradication of their culture and tradition in their own homeland, at the hands of foreigners committed exclusively to propagating Western values and conventions.

While Congress has traditionally treated Native Hawaiians in a manner parallel to American Indians and Alaska Natives, the Federal policy of self-governance and self-determination has not been formally extended to Native Hawaiians. The bill itself does not extend Federal recognition--it authorizes the process for Federal recognition.

The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007 does three things: (1) It authorizes an office in the Department of the Interior to serve as a liaison between Native Hawaiians and the United States; (2) It forms an interagency coordinating group composed of officials from Federal agencies who currently administer programs and services impacting Native Hawaiians; and (3) It authorizes a process for the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity for the purposes of a federally recognized government-to-government relationship.

Once the Native Hawaiian governing entity is recognized, the bill establishes an inclusive, democratic negotiations process representing both Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians. Negotiations between the Native Hawaiian entity and the Federal and State governments may address issues such as the transfer of lands, assets, and natural resources and jurisdiction over such lands, assets, and natural resources, as well as other longstanding issues resulting from the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Any transfers of governmental authority or power will require implementing legislation at the State and Federal levels.

The Hawaii congressional delegation has devoted much time and careful consideration into crafting this legislation. When I first started this process in 1999, our congressional delegation created five working groups to assist with the drafting of this legislation. The working groups were composed of individuals from the Native Hawaiian community, the State of Hawaii, Federal Government, Indian country, Members of Congress, and experts in constitutional law. Collectively, more than 100 people worked together on the initial draft of this legislation. The meetings held with the Native Hawaiian community were open to the public and a number of individuals who had differing views attended the meetings and provided their alternative views on the legislation.

In August 2000, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the House Committee on Resources held joint field hearings on the legislation in Hawaii for 5 days. While the bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives in the 106th Congress, the Senate failed to take action. The bill was subsequently considered by the 107th, l08th, and 109th Congresses. In each Congress, the bill has been favorably reported by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and its companion measure has been favorably reported by the House Committee on Resources in the 106th through the 108th Congress.

Most recently in the 109th Congress clarifications were made to the bill. I want to inform my colleagues to the fact that this bill is identical to legislative language negotiated between Senator Inouye and myself, and officials from the Department of Justice, Office of Management and Budget, and the White House. The language satisfactorily addresses concerns expressed in July 2005 by the Bush administration regarding the liability of the United States in land claims, the impact of the bill on military readiness, gaming, and civil and criminal jurisdiction in Hawaii.

With respect to liability of the United States as it relates to land claims, as the author of the Apology Resolution, P.L. 103-150, as well as the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, I have always maintained that this legislation is not intended to serve as a settlement of any claims nor as a cause of action for any claims. The negotiated language makes clear that any grievances regarding historical wrongs committed against Native Hawaiians by the United States or by the State of Hawaii are to be addressed in the negotiations process between the Native Hawaiian governing entity and Federal and State governments.

As a senior member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, as well as the incoming Chairman on the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, military readiness for our Armed Forces is of great importance to me. Due to concerns raised by the Department of Defense to the consultation requirements expected to be facilitated by the Office of Native Hawaiian Relations in the Department of the Interior and the Native Hawaiian Interagency Coordinating Group; negotiated language exempts the Department from these consultation requirements. However, these exemptions do not alter nor terminate requirements of the DoD to consult with Native Hawaiians under the Native Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, NAGPRA, National Historic Preservation Act, NHPA, and other existing statutes.

The bill does not authorize gaming by the Native Hawaiian governing entity. Negotiated language clarifies that gaming may not be conducted by Native Hawaiians or the Native Hawaiian governing entity as a matter of

claimed inherent authority or under the authority of any Federal laws or regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior or the National Indian Gaming Commission. The bill also makes clear that the prohibition applies to any efforts to establish gaming by Native Hawaiians and the Native Hawaiian governing entity in Hawaii and in any other State or Territory. This language only applies to efforts to establish gaming operations as a matter of inherent authority as indigenous peoples or under federal laws pertaining to gaming by native peoples.

The bill makes clear that civil and criminal jurisdiction currently held by the Federal and State governments will remain with the Federal and State governments unless otherwise negotiated and implementing legislation is enacted.

I have described the clarifications that have been made so my colleagues know that our negotiations with the administration have been successful. This language has been publicly available since September 2005 and has been widely distributed. Although such clarifications have been made, I am proud to report that the bill remains true to its intent and purpose--to clarify the existing legal and political relationship between Hawaii's indigenous people, Native Hawaiians and the United States.

Along with our efforts to work with the Bush administration, during the past 4 years, we have worked closely with Hawaii's first Republican governor in 40 years, Governor Linda Lingle to enact this legislation. We have also worked closely with the Hawaii State legislature which has passed three resolutions unanimously in support of federal recognition for Native Hawaiians. I am pleased to announce today that I am again joined by members from both sides of the aisle to introduce this important measure. I mention this, to underscore the fact that this is bipartisan legislation.

In addition to its widespread support by both Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians in Hawaii, in resolutions adopted by the oldest and largest national Indian organization, the National Congress of American Indians, and the largest organization representing the Native people of Alaska, the Alaska Federation of Natives, the members of both groups have consistently expressed their strong support for enactment of a bill to provide for recognition by the United States of a Native Hawaiian governing entity. Organizations such as the American Bar Association, Japanese American Citizen League, and the National Indian Education Association have also passed resolutions in support of federal recognition for Hawaii's indigenous peoples.

Today I provide my colleagues with a framework to understand the need for this legislation by briefly reviewing (1) Hawaii's past, ancient Hawaiian society prior to Western contact, (2) Hawaii's present, the far reaching consequences of the overthrow, and (3) Hawaii's future.

Hawaii was originally settled by Polynesian voyagers arriving as early as 300 A.D, 1200 years before Europe's great explorers Magellan and Columbus. The Hawaiians braved immense distances guided by their extensive knowledge of navigation and understanding of the marine environment. Isolation followed the era of long voyages, enabling Native Hawaiians to develop distinct political, economic, and social structures which were mutually supportive. As stewards of the land and sea, Native Hawaiians were intimately linked to the environment and they developed innovative methods of agriculture, aquaculture, navigation and irrigation.

With an influx of foreigners into Hawaii, Native Hawaiian populations plummeted due to death from common Western diseases. Those that survived witnessed foreign interest and involvement in their government grow until Queen Liliuokalani was forced by American citizens to abdicate her right to the throne. This devastated the Native Hawaiian people, forever tainting the waters of their identity and tattering the very fabric of their society. For some this injustice, this wound has never healed, manifesting itself in a sense of inferiority and hopelessness leaving many Native Hawaiians at the lowest levels of achievement by all social and economic measures.

Mr. President, 14 years ago the United States enacted the Apology Resolution, 103-150, which acknowledged the 100th anniversary of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in which the United States offered an apology to Native Hawaiians and declared its policy to support reconciliation efforts. This is a landmark declaration for it recognizes not only are Native Hawaiians the indigenous people of Hawaii, but of the urgent need for the U.S. to actively engage in reconciliation efforts. This acknowledgment played a crucial role in initiating a healing process and although progress has been made, the path ahead is uncertain.

Frustration has led to anger and festered in the hearts of Hawaii's younger generations, with each child that is taught about this period of Hawaiian history, a loss is relived. It is a burden that Native Hawaiians since the overthrow continue to carry, to know that they were violated in their own homeland and their governance was ripped away unjustly. Despite the perceived harmony, it is the generation of my grandchildren that is growing impatient and frustrated with the lack of progress being made. Influenced by a deep sadness and growing intolerance, an active minority within this generation seeks independence from the United States.

It is for this generation that I work to enact this bill so that there is the structured process to deal with these emotional issues. It is important that discussions are held and that there is a framework to guide appropriate action. For Hawaii is the homeland of the Native Hawaiian people.

A lack of action by the U.S. will only incite and fuel us down a path to a divided Hawaii. A Hawaii where lines and boundaries are drawn and unity severed. However, the legislation I introduce today seeks to build upon the foundation of reconciliation. It provides a structured process to bring together the people of Hawaii, along a path of healing to a Hawaii where its indigenous people are respected and culture is embraced.

Respecting the rights of America's first people--American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians is not un-American. Through enactment of this legislation, we have the opportunity to demonstrate that our country does not just preach its ideas, but lives according to its founding principles. That the United States will admit when it has trespassed against a people and remain resolute to make amends. We demonstrate our character to ourselves and to the world by respecting the rights of our country's indigenous people. As it has for America's other indigenous peoples, I believe the United States must fulfill its responsibility to Native Hawaiians.

I am proud of the fact that this bill respects the rights of Hawaii's indigenous peoples through a process that is consistent with Federal law, and it provides the structured process for the people of Hawaii to address the longstanding issues which have plagued both Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians since the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. We have an established record of the United States' commitment to the reconciliation with Native Hawaiians. This legislation is another step building upon that foundation and honoring that commitment.

I ask my colleagues to join me in enacting this legislation which is of great importance to all the people of Hawaii.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today along with my distinguished colleagues, Senator Wyden, Senator Bunning, Senator Inouye, and Senator Durbin, to introduce the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act in order to protect and preserve the Nation's important fossil record for the benefit of our citizens. Vertebrate fossils are rare and important natural resources that have become increasingly endangered due to an increase in the illegal collection of fossil specimens for commercial sale. However, at this time there is no unified policy regarding the treatment of fossils by Federal land management agencies which would help protect and conserve fossil specimens. Consequently, we risk the deterioration or loss of these valuable scientific resources. This Act will correct that omission by providing uniformity to the patchwork of statutes and regulations that currently exist. By creating a comprehensive national policy for preserving and managing paleontological resources found on Federal land, this Act will also be instrumental in curtailing and preventing future illegal trade thereby ensuring that many generations to come will have access to these invaluable records of our past. I would like to emphasize that this bill covers only paleontological remains on Federal lands and in no way affects archaeological or cultural resources under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 or the Native American Graves Protection and Rehabilitation Act.

I would also mention that this bill is exactly the same bill that I introduced

in the 109th Congress. This bill was heard and marked up by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and was passed by the Senate.

As a senior member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Chair of the Subcommittee on National Parks, I am very concerned about the preservation of fossils as records of earth's past upheavals and struggles. While I recognize the value of amateur collecting--and casual collecting--of fossils is protected in this bill--fossil theft has become an increasing problem. New fossil fields and insights into the earth's past are discovered nearly every month. Paleontological resources can be sold on the market for a hefty price. For example, the complete skeleton of a T-Rex was sold for $8.6 million at auction to the Field Museum of Chicago. Consequently, they are being stolen from public lands without regard to science and education. The protections I offer in this Act are not new. Federal and management agencies have individual regulations prohibiting theft of government property. However, Congress has not provided a clear statute stating the value of paleontological resources to our Nation, as we have for archeological resources. We need to work together to make sure that we fulfill our responsibility as stewards of public lands, and as protectors of our Nation's natural resources.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation with Senator Voinovich entitled the ``Health Partnership Act of 2007,'' which along with a companion House bill introduced by Representatives Tammy Baldwin, John Tierney, and Tom Price, intends to set us on a path toward affordable, quality health care for all Americans. The Health Partnership Act creates partnerships between the Federal Government, State and local governments, tribes and tribal organizations, private payers, and health care providers to seek innovation in health care systems.

Under this Act, States, local governments, and tribes and tribal governments would be invited to submit applications to the Federal Government for funding to implement expansion and improvements to current health programs for review by a bipartisan ``State Health Innovation Commission.'' Based on funding available through the Federal budget process, the Commission would approve a variety of reform options and innovative approaches.

This federalist approach to health reform would encourage a broad array of reform options subject to monitoring, to determine what is and is not successful. As Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote in 1932, ``It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.''

Our bipartisan legislation, the ``Health Partnership Act,'' encourages

this type of State-based innovation and will help the Nation better address both the policy and the politics of health care reform. Currently, we do not have a ``one-size-fits-all'' model of reform, so encouraging States, local governments, and tribes to adopt a variety of approaches will help us better understand what may or may not work.

Inaction on the growing and related problems of the uninsured and increasing health care costs is unacceptable and unconscionable.

In fact, while spending on health care in our country has reached $2 trillion annually, the number of uninsured has increased to nearly 47 million people, seven million more than in 2000. The consequences are staggering, as uninsured citizens get about half the medical care they need compared to those with health insurance and, according to the Institute of Medicine, about 18,000 unnecessary deaths occur each year in the U.S. because of lack of health insurance.

While gridlock continues to permeate Washington, DC, in regards to this issue, a number of States and local governments are moving ahead with health reform. The ``Health Partnership Act'' would provide support, in the form of grants, to States, groups of States, local governments, and Indian tribes and tribal organizations to carry out any of a broad range of strategies intended to reduce the number of uninsured, reduce costs, and improve the quality of care.

Responding to urgent needs, State and local governments have not been able to wait for Federal action. We observed this in the early 1990s as States such as New Mexico, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Florida, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Maryland, Tennessee, Vermont, and Washington led the way to expanding coverage to children through the enactment of a variety of health reforms. Evaluation proved that some of these programs worked better than others, so the Federal Government took note and responded in 1997 with passage of the ``State Children's Health Insurance Program'' or SCHIP. This legislation, built upon experiences of the States, enjoyed broad bipartisan support. SCHIP is a popular and successful State-based model that covers millions of children and continues to have broad-based bipartisan support across this Nation.

So, why not use that successful model and build upon it? In fact, State and local governments are already taking up that challenge and the Federal Government should, through the enactment of the ``Health Partnership Act,'' do what it can to be helpful with those efforts. For example--

On November 15, 2005, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich signed into law the ``Covering All Kids Health Insurance Act'' which, beginning in July 2006, intended to make insurance coverage available to all uninsured children.

In April, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney signed into law legislation that requires all Bay State residents to have health insurance. Their State experiment involves partnerships between the State Medicaid, employer groups, and insurance companies.

Now California's Governor Schwarzenegger proposes health reform to include health promotion and wellness services for all, insurance coverage, and cost containment measures.

Other States, including New Mexico, Vermont, Tennessee, Maine, West Virginia, Oklahoma, and New York have enacted other health reforms that have had mixed success.

All of these efforts add importantly to our knowledge base, and can then lead to a national solution to our uninsured and affordability crisis. We can learn from each and every one of these efforts, including those which failed.

Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis said it well by noting that State-based reforms, such as that passed in Massachusetts, are very good news. As she notes, ``First, any substantive effort to expand access to coverage is worthwhile, given the growing number of uninsured in this country and the large body of evidence showing the dangerous health implications of lacking coverage.''

She adds, ``But something more important is at work here. While we urgently need a national solution so that all Americans have insurance, it doesn't appear that we'll be getting one at the Federal level any time soon. So what Massachusetts has done potentially holds lessons for every State.'' I would add that it holds lessons for the Federal Government as well and not just for the mechanics of implementing health reform policy but also to the politics of health reform.

As she concludes, ``One particularly cogent lesson is the manner in which the measure was crafted--via a civil process that successfully brought together numerous players from across the political business, health care delivery, and policy sectors.''

Senator Voinovich and I have worked together and reached out to like minded colleagues in the House of Representatives via a process much like that described by Karen Davis. The legislation stems from past legislative efforts by Senators such as Bob Graham, Mark Hatfield, and Paul Wellstone, but also from work across ideological lines by Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution and Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation.

The legislation also benefits from advice and support from health care providers. Dr. Tim Garson who, as Dean of the University of Virginia, brought a much needed provider perspective, ensuring support from the House of Medicine. Supporters include the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, the American College of Cardiology, American Gastroenterological Association, the Visiting Nurses Association, the National Association of Community Health Centers, and from state-based health providers such as the New Mexico Medical Society and Ohio Association of Community Health Centers.

The Health Partnership Act supports providers.

The Health Partnership Act received much comment and support from consumer-based groups advocating for national health reform, including that by Dr. Ken Frisof of the Universal Health Care Action Network, Bill Vaughan at Consumers Union, and from numerous health care advocates in New Mexico, including Community Action New Mexico, Health Action New Mexico, Health Care for All Campaign of New Mexico, New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty, New Mexico Health Choices Initiative, New Mexico POZ Coalition, New Mexico Public Health Association, New Mexico Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, New Mexico Progressive Alliance for Community Empowerment, and the Health Security for New Mexicans Campaign, which includes 115 State-based organizations.

The Health Partnership Act supports consumers.

Support from stakeholders throughout our Nation's health care system has been sought and I would like to thank the many organizations from New Mexico for their support and input to this legislation. There is great urgency in New Mexico because our State, like all of those along the U.S.-Mexico border, faces a severe health care crisis. Over one in five New Mexicans does not have insurance coverage. In fact, only one State, Texas, has more uninsured. New Mexico is also the only State in the country with greater than half of its population covered by State or federally funded health programs.

A rather shocking statistic, which also continues to worsen, is that one out of every three Hispanic citizens are uninsured. In fact, less than 41 percent of the Hispanic population now has employer-based coverage nationwide, which is in sharp comparison to the 66 percent of non-Hispanic whites who have employer-based coverage.

Because so few New Mexicans have employer-based health insurance, the State of New Mexico has enacted its own health reform plan called the State Coverage Initiative, or SCI, in July 2005. SCI is a public/ private partnership intended to expand employer-sponsored insurance, developed in part with grant funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. As of December 2006, there were 4,256 people covered by this initiative and there are efforts to expand this effort to cover over 20,000 individuals. With Federal support for my State, the hope would be to further expand coverage to as many New Mexicans as possible.

The Health Partnership Act encourages reforms at both the state and local levels of government. Senator Voinovich, as former mayor of Cleveland, suggested language that would capture community-based efforts as well. Illinois, Georgia, Michigan, and

Oregon have all initiated efforts at the local level for reform, including so-called ``three-share'' programs in Illinois and Michigan. Under these initiatives, employers, employees, and the community each pick up about one-third of the cost of programs.

Jeaneane Smith, deputy administrator in the Office of Oregon Health Policy and Research was recently quoted by an Academy Health publication stating, ``In recent years it has become apparent that there is a need to consider both state- and community-level approaches to improved access. We want to learn how best to support communities as they play an integral part in addressing the gaps in coverage.''

The Health Partnership Act supports communities.

Our hope is to spawn innovation. Brookings Institution senior health fellow Henry Aaron and Heritage Foundation vice president Stuart Butler wrote a Health Affairs article in March 2004 that lays out the foundation for this legislative effort. They argue that while we remain unable to reconcile how best to expand coverage at the Federal level, we can agree to support states in their efforts to try widely differing solutions to health coverage, cost containment, and quality improvement. As they write, ``this approach offers both a way to improve knowledge about how to reform health care and a practical way to initiate a process of reform. Such a pluralist approach respects the real, abiding differences in politics, preferences, traditions, and institutions across the nation. It also implies a willingness to accept differences over an extended period in order to make progress. And it recognizes that permitting wide diversity can foster consensus by revealing the strengths and exposing the weaknesses of rival approaches.''

In addition to Dr. Garson, Mr. Aaron, Mr. Butler, and Dr. Frisof, I would like to express my appreciation to Dan Hawkins at the National Association of Community Health Centers, Bill Vaughan at Consumers Union, and both Jack Meyer and Stan Dorn at ESRI for their counsel and guidance on health reform and this legislation.

I would also like to commend the American College of Physicians, or ACP, for their outstanding leadership on the issue of the uninsured and for their willingness to support a variety of efforts to expand health coverage. ACP has been a longstanding advocate for expanding health coverage and has authored landmark reports on the important role that health insurance has in reducing people's morbidity and mortality. In fact, to cite the conclusion of one of those studies, ``Lack of insurance contributes to the endangerment of the health of each uninsured American as well as the collective health of the Nation.''

And finally, I would also thank the many people at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation on their forethought and knowledge on all the issues confronting the uninsured. Their efforts to continue the dialogue on the uninsured has successfully kept the issue alive for many years.

I urge my colleagues to break the gridlock and support this legislation, which offers financial support to states, communities, providers, and consumers, as they adopt important innovations in healthcare coverage and expansion.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Carper to introduce the Electric Utility Cap and Trade Act.

Today, we are introducing the first of five bills to address the number one environmental issue facing this planet--global warming.

This bill establishes a national cap and trade system over the electricity sector. It will reduce emissions from this sector by 25 percent by 2020.

What distinguishes this bill is that it has the support of 6 major energy companies.

Together, these companies operate in 42 States and produce approximately 150,000 megawatts of energy. This is greater than 15 percent of the U.S. electricity market.

These companies include, first, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) Corporation, which is the parent of Pacific Gas and Electric Company. PG&E is California's largest utility and serves approximately 1 in every 20 Americans. PG&E Corporation currently owns approximately 6,500 megawatts of generation.

Second, Calpine, which operates in 20 States and Canada, generating 26,000 megawatts of energy.

Third, Florida Power & Light, which operates in 26 States, generating more than 30,000 megawatts.

Fourth, Entergy, which operates in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, generating approximately 30,000 megawatts.

Fifth, Exelon, which operates in Illinois and Pennsylvania, generating 38,000 megawatts of energy.

Sixth, Public Service Enterprise Group, which is the largest provider of energy in New Jersey, generating approximately 15,000 megawatts.

These companies' support is greatly appreciated, and I think it signals a new willingness in the energy industry to seriously tackle global warming.

This bill is just the beginning of a major program. Over the next weeks and months, we will also be introducing a cap and trade bill for the industrial sector; a bill that increases fuel economy standards by ten miles per gallon over the next ten years; a bill to promote bio- diesel and E-85; and other low carbon fuels and an energy efficiency bill modeled after California's program.

This is an ambitious agenda, but I believe it is the right way to go if we are to slow global warming.

A great debate has raged in the halls of Congress, in academia, and in the field over the past two decades.

At issue were three fundamental questions: First, is the earth warming? Second, if so, is the warming caused by human activity? And third, can it be stopped?

Over the past few years, a consensus has been forged. An overwhelming body of evidence has been gathered. And, an inescapable conclusion has been reached: The earth is warming. The warming is caused by human activity, namely the combustion of fossil fuels.

It cannot be stopped, because carbon dioxide does not dissipate. It stays in the atmosphere for 30, 40, or 50 years or more.

When we pick up the newspaper each day we see the results. We read about ice sheets the size of small nations breaking off the ice shelves in the Arctic and Antarctic. We read about polar bears committing acts of cannibalism, something unknown in recent memory. We read about species disappearing, seas rising, coral reefs dying, and glaciers melting.

But, all this dire news does not mean we should throw up our hands and do nothing. If we act now, and if we act with purpose, the most serious consequences can be averted. Global warming can be contained to 1-2 degrees Fahrenheit.

But if we do not act, and temperatures spike by 5 degrees or more, the world around us will change forever. There's no going back.

The question becomes what can we do? I've spent the last year trying to answer this question. And the conclusion I've reached is that there is no single answer, no silver bullet, no one thing to turn the tide. But rather, we need many answers in many different areas.

And more importantly, we need people of common purpose, working together, to find innovative solutions. And that's why we're here today.

As I was searching for answers, I picked up the phone and called PG&E Corporation's CEO, Peter Darbee. I said, ``Peter, would you help me out on Global Warming legislation?''

To his immense credit, Peter went back, studied the issue, and said ``You're right. Something must be done.'' And he's been terrific. He's helped at every step of the way.

It means so much to me that PG&E, Calpine, Florida Power and Light, and all the companies that comprise the Clean Energy Group's Clean Air Policy Initiative have endorsed the legislation we are introducing today.

This is the most aggressive global warming bill that industry has supported to date. And I want to thank the CEOs of these companies today for their courage and leadership in taking this step.

Here's what the bill would do. The bill would establish a cap and trade program for the electricity sector, which is the single largest piece of the global warming puzzle, accounting for 33 percent of all U.S. emissions.

First, the bill would a cap at 2006 levels in 2011--a 6 percent reduction from anticipated levels of greenhouse gases from the electric sector.

In 2015, it would ratchet the cap down to 2001 levels--a 16 percent reduction from anticipated levels.

In 2016, the bill would reduce the cap further to 1 percent below 2001 levels. And, from 2017 to 2019 it would require additional annual 1 percent reductions.

By 2020, emissions would be reduced 25 percent below anticipated levels.

And after that, emissions will be reduced even further--by an additional 1.5 percent a year and potentially more, if the EPA, based on scientific evidence, believes that more needs to be done to avert the most dire consequences of global warming.

That's the cap.

The trade part of the bill gives companies flexibility to embrace new technologies, encourage innovation, and promote green practices--not just in this area, but across the economy.

As I said, this bill is only one part of the answer. One piece of the puzzle.

Congress has a window of opportunity to act. If we act boldly and quickly, then perhaps we can make a difference.

But if we resort to the feuding which has characterized past Congresses, our world will be the poorer for it. I think there is but one choice.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Carper to introduce the Electric Utility Cap and Trade Act.

Today, we are introducing the first of five bills to address the number one environmental issue facing this planet--global warming.

This bill establishes a national cap and trade system over the electricity sector. It will reduce emissions from this sector by 25 percent by 2020.

What distinguishes this bill is that it has the support of 6 major energy companies.

Together, these companies operate in 42 States and produce approximately 150,000 megawatts of energy. This is greater than 15 percent of the U.S. electricity market.

These companies include, first, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) Corporation, which is the parent of Pacific Gas and Electric Company. PG&E is California's largest utility and serves approximately 1 in every 20 Americans. PG&E Corporation currently owns approximately 6,500 megawatts of generation.

Second, Calpine, which operates in 20 States and Canada, generating 26,000 megawatts of energy.

Third, Florida Power & Light, which operates in 26 States, generating more than 30,000 megawatts.

Fourth, Entergy, which operates in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, generating approximately 30,000 megawatts.

Fifth, Exelon, which operates in Illinois and Pennsylvania, generating 38,000 megawatts of energy.

Sixth, Public Service Enterprise Group, which is the largest provider of energy in New Jersey, generating approximately 15,000 megawatts.

These companies' support is greatly appreciated, and I think it signals a new willingness in the energy industry to seriously tackle global warming.

This bill is just the beginning of a major program. Over the next weeks and months, we will also be introducing a cap and trade bill for the industrial sector; a bill that increases fuel economy standards by ten miles per gallon over the next ten years; a bill to promote bio- diesel and E-85; and other low carbon fuels and an energy efficiency bill modeled after California's program.

This is an ambitious agenda, but I believe it is the right way to go if we are to slow global warming.

A great debate has raged in the halls of Congress, in academia, and in the field over the past two decades.

At issue were three fundamental questions: First, is the earth warming? Second, if so, is the warming caused by human activity? And third, can it be stopped?

Over the past few years, a consensus has been forged. An overwhelming body of evidence has been gathered. And, an inescapable conclusion has been reached: The earth is warming. The warming is caused by human activity, namely the combustion of fossil fuels.

It cannot be stopped, because carbon dioxide does not dissipate. It stays in the atmosphere for 30, 40, or 50 years or more.

When we pick up the newspaper each day we see the results. We read about ice sheets the size of small nations breaking off the ice shelves in the Arctic and Antarctic. We read about polar bears committing acts of cannibalism, something unknown in recent memory. We read about species disappearing, seas rising, coral reefs dying, and glaciers melting.

But, all this dire news does not mean we should throw up our hands and do nothing. If we act now, and if we act with purpose, the most serious consequences can be averted. Global warming can be contained to 1-2 degrees Fahrenheit.

But if we do not act, and temperatures spike by 5 degrees or more, the world around us will change forever. There's no going back.

The question becomes what can we do? I've spent the last year trying to answer this question. And the conclusion I've reached is that there is no single answer, no silver bullet, no one thing to turn the tide. But rather, we need many answers in many different areas.

And more importantly, we need people of common purpose, working together, to find innovative solutions. And that's why we're here today.

As I was searching for answers, I picked up the phone and called PG&E Corporation's CEO, Peter Darbee. I said, ``Peter, would you help me out on Global Warming legislation?''

To his immense credit, Peter went back, studied the issue, and said ``You're right. Something must be done.'' And he's been terrific. He's helped at every step of the way.

It means so much to me that PG&E, Calpine, Florida Power and Light, and all the companies that comprise the Clean Energy Group's Clean Air Policy Initiative have endorsed the legislation we are introducing today.

This is the most aggressive global warming bill that industry has supported to date. And I want to thank the CEOs of these companies today for their courage and leadership in taking this step.

Here's what the bill would do. The bill would establish a cap and trade program for the electricity sector, which is the single largest piece of the global warming puzzle, accounting for 33 percent of all U.S. emissions.

First, the bill would a cap at 2006 levels in 2011--a 6 percent reduction from anticipated levels of greenhouse gases from the electric sector.

In 2015, it would ratchet the cap down to 2001 levels--a 16 percent reduction from anticipated levels.

In 2016, the bill would reduce the cap further to 1 percent below 2001 levels. And, from 2017 to 2019 it would require additional annual 1 percent reductions.

By 2020, emissions would be reduced 25 percent below anticipated levels.

And after that, emissions will be reduced even further--by an additional 1.5 percent a year and potentially more, if the EPA, based on scientific evidence, believes that more needs to be done to avert the most dire consequences of global warming.

That's the cap.

The trade part of the bill gives companies flexibility to embrace new technologies, encourage innovation, and promote green practices--not just in this area, but across the economy.

As I said, this bill is only one part of the answer. One piece of the puzzle.

Congress has a window of opportunity to act. If we act boldly and quickly, then perhaps we can make a difference.

But if we resort to the feuding which has characterized past Congresses, our world will be the poorer for it. I think there is but one choice.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, above-average rainfall in New Mexico last summer and recent snow fall have led many to turn a blind eye to the grim water situation faced by our State only months ago. New Mexico was fast approaching a disaster due to drought. Many of our municipalities' wells were running dry and reservoirs were at dangerously low levels. Providence intervened, narrowly averting a crisis resulting from water scarcity.

The development of the centrifugal pump was an event of great significance in the history of the West. Windmill driven pumps provided enough water for a family and several livestock. The centrifugal pump, on the other hand, was capable of pumping eight hundred gallons of water a minute, making possible the habitation of what was previously barren desert. To a large extent, this invention provided the water for growing towns and agricultural industry. However, it also resulted in a great dependence on groundwater. As such, we need to fully understand the nature and extent of our groundwater resources. This bill will provide us with the information necessary to ensure that the water on which we have come to rely is available for years to come.

During times of drought, when surface water is scarce, we must be able to reliably turn to groundwater reserves. Approximately 90 percent of New Mexicans depend on groundwater for drinking water and 77 percent of New Mexicans obtain water exclusively from groundwater sources. While groundwater supplies throughout the State are coming under increasing competition, not enough is known about these resources in order to make sound decisions regarding their use.

Nearly 40 percent of the State's population resides in the Middle Rio Grande Basin. Once thought to contain vast quantities of water, we are now faced with the reality the Middle Rio Grande Basin contains far less water than originally thought. Between 1995 and 2001, the United States Geological Survey undertook a study of the Basin which added greatly to our knowledge regarding the primary source of water for our largest population center. Had we proceeded with our water planning without the information provided by this study, I have little doubt that we would ultimately find ourselves in a dire situation. However, there is much more to be learned about this Basin.

Roughly 65 percent of the State's population lives along the Rio Grande. Also located along the river are the four largest cities in New Mexico: Santa Fe, Albuquerque, Rio Rancho and Las Cruces. While the completion of the San Juan-Chama Diversion by the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority will allow the County of Bernalillo and City of Albuquerque to take advantage of their allocation of San JuanChama water, the remainder of the cities and counties located along the Rio Grande will continue to receive the majority of their water from aquifers beneath the Rio Grande. Aside from the Middle Rio Grande Basin, we have limited knowledge of the amount of water contained in the aquifers below the Rio Grande, the rate at which they recharge, aquifer contamination, and the interaction between surface flows and ground water.

Elsewhere in the State, even less is understood regarding groundwater resources. While there is limited unallocated surface water in the State, there are significant quantities of untapped underground water in the Tularosa and Salt Basins. The Tularosa Basin is approximately 60 miles wide and 200 miles long. Making the conservative estimate that 10 percent of the water contained in that aquifer is available for use through desalination, it would provide 100 years of water for a city the size of Albuquerque. With the development of desalination technology, I anticipate that even a greater amount of the brackish water contained in the Tularosa Basin will be available for human use.

Another untapped water supply is the Salt Basin located in southern New Mexico. The Basin lies in a geologically complex area and our understanding of the total resource is incomplete. However, initial estimates predict sustainable withdrawals on the order of 100,000 acre- feet per year of potable water from the New Mexico portion of the aquifer. This is enough water to support a city the size of our largest municipal area. Additional brackish resources in that Basin are highly likely. Because the Basin is located near expanding metropolitan areas near the U.S.-Mexico Border, it is a resource of critical importance.

The bill I introduce today would direct the United States Geological Survey, in collaboration with the State of New Mexico, to undertake a groundwater resources study in the State of New Mexico. A comprehensive study of the State's water resources is critical to effective water planning. Absent such a study, I fear that there is a significant likelihood that we may be depleting aquifers at an unsustainable rate.

I thank Senator Bingaman for being an original co-sponsor of this legislation. I look forward to working with him to ensure the bill's passage.

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