STOP Act

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague, Senator Grassley, and introduce an important piece of legislation that will modernize the tax incentive for domestic biodiesel production. The Biodiesel Tax Incentive Reform and Extension Act of 2009 will provide predictability to investors, to producers, and to researchers so we can move forward and continue to displace imported fossil fuels with low carbon, renewable biodiesel that is produced here in the United States.

Last year, we all saw the devastating effects that $140 per barrel oil had on our economy and our constituents. For economic reasons, national security reasons, and environmental reasons, we cannot allow ourselves to remain dependent on foreign oil. We have to redouble our efforts to deploy alternative fuels that can be produced in the United States and that can help us address the growing crisis of climate change.

Biodiesel is a diesel replacement fuel that is produced from vegetable oils, animal fats and waste oils. It is refined to meet a commercial fuel specification that is readily accepted in the marketplace. Typically biodiesel is blended with conventional diesel fuel, and it is not necessary to modify a vehicle's engine to use the fuel.

There are compelling public policy benefits associated with the production and use of biodiesel. It is an extremely efficient fuel that can be produced domestically so we do not have to rely on imported fuel. Biodiesel creates 3.2 units of energy for every unit of fuel that is required to produce the fuel and the 690 million gallons of biodiesel produced in the U.S. in 2008 displaced 38.1 million barrels of petroleum.

Replacing fossil fuel use with biodiesel also can play a constructive role in addressing the issue of climate change. When compared to conventional diesel fuel, pure biodiesel reduces direct carbon lifecycle emissions by 78 percent, which in 2008 was the equivalent of removing 980,000 passenger vehicles from the road.

Congress first enacted a tax incentive for biodiesel in 2004 and since that time, this tax credit has helped encourage the production and use of this alternative fuel. U.S. production of biodiesel increased from 25 million gallons in 2004 to 690 million gallons last year, and the industry has built the commercial scale production capacity. There currently are 176 plants in operation with the capacity to produce more than 2.61 billion gallons of biodiesel.

The 39 new plants that are either under construction or being expanded would add nearly 849.9 million gallons of production capacity. We have to be sure these plans for expansion go forward. Unfortunately, limited access to capital, uncertainty surrounding the Federal commitment to biodiesel, and the current state of the economy threaten to undermine the progress the U.S. biodiesel industry has made to build the production capacity and infrastructure needed to aggressively displace petroleum diesel fuel with renewable, low-carbon biodiesel. Right now, less than one-third of the industry's facilities are currently producing fuel.

The 51,893 jobs that are currently supported by the U.S. biodiesel industry show there is real job growth potential in this industry. Much of that job growth and economic activity will happen in our rural communities who continue to be hard hit right now.

The current law tax credit will expire at the end of this year and Congress must act or we will threaten the future of this promising domestic industry. The National Biodiesel Board estimates that if Congress does not provide some predictability to the industry, U.S. production will likely fall from 690 million gallons in 2008 to 300-350 million gallons in 2009. This could cost the U.S. economy more than 29,000 jobs. These are not jobs we can afford to lose.

In addition to the looming expiration, the current structure of the tax credit has administrative problems and is subject to abuse that makes it difficult to ensure that that only qualified fuel benefits from the incentive. We owe it to taxpayers to make sure that we are getting the results we want from the tax incentives we enact so in addition to extending the tax credit we need to make the structural changes that Sen. Grassley and I are proposing today.

The centerpiece of the bill is changing the incentive from a blender credit to a production tax credit so that we focus the benefits of the incentive on building the domestic production industry. Under current law, the credit was targeted at the blending of biodiesel with petroleum diesel. While this was helpful in getting us to the point we are now, it is time we move even farther in the direction of promoting the production of petroleum fuel alternatives.

In addition, the legislation we are introducing today will simplify administration of the incentive for both taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, and will eliminate any remaining opportunity for abuse of the tax credit through schemes like ``splash and dash'' in which oil companies add a few drops of biodiesel to their petroleum diesel just to qualify for the tax credits.

Under our bill, the $1 per gallon tax credit will be provided for the production of biodiesel, renewable diesel and aviation jet fuel that complies with established fuel standards and Clean Air Act requirements.

For small producers, those with an annual production capacity of less than 60 million gallons, we increase the $1 to $1.10 for the first 15 million gallons of biodiesel produced.

We simplify the definition of biodiesel so that we encourage production

from any biomass-based feedstock or recycled oils and fats. Hopefully this will unleash even more research and commercialization of alternative fuel sources.

The bill also simplifies the coordination between the income tax credit and the excise tax liability to, again, tighten up compliance and reduce administrative burdens on taxpayers. Most importantly, our bill would extend this tax credit for 5 years, giving needed financial predictability to the industry.

I thank Senator Grassley for joining with me on this bill and look forward to working with our colleagues on the Finance Committee to adopt this worthwhile, commonsense proposal that is consistent with sound energy and sound tax policy.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Longline Catcher Processor Subsector Single Cooperative Act.

In Washington State, our history is based on a rich maritime tradition that contributes billions of dollars to the state's economy each year. There are 3,000 vessels in Washington's fishing fleet that employ 10,000 fishermen. Seafood processors employ another 3,800 Washingtonians. And fish wholesalers employ an additional 1,000 people.

For many communities along this nation's coastlines, the economy literally ebbs and flows with the tide. It is important to remember that the ocean resources these communities depend on are a public trust and a resource to be both treasured and protected.

As guardians of the ocean and its plentiful resources, it is necessary that we examine all issues of ``ownership'' with care, transparency, and fairness. The issue of fishery cooperatives has proved to be an issue that demands nothing less.

In July of 2008, I chaired a hearing in the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard, examining the impact of fishery management regimes on fishing safety and conservation. Following that hearing and numerous meetings with stakeholders to discuss the policy, safety, economic, and environmental implications of fishing cooperatives, I am here today to introduce the Longline Catcher Processor Subsector Single Cooperative Act, legislation that would allow for the formation of a single fishing cooperative in the Pacific cod catcher processor fleet.

Instead of fishermen racing against each other and the elements to catch as much as they can, this bill would allow the fishermen to bring some sanity back to their livelihoods. Under this legislation, the Pacific cod catcher processor fishery can allocate the catch among their members, putting an end to the very dangerous ``race for fish.''

The cooperative would empower commercial fishermen with the framework and incentives to police themselves while still preserving the crucial regulatory and oversight responsibilities of the federal government and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.

By adopting this bill, we can improve fishing safety in the Pacific cod catcher processor fishery by putting an end to the ``race for fish.'' Doing so would lessen the fishery's environmental footprint, and give these fishermen the financial certainty that has worked for others across this Nation.

Fishing safety is a real concern that must be addressed at the federal level. In 2006, the Coast Guard reported that in the decade from 1994 to 2004, 1,398 fishing vessels were lost tragic--reminders of what can go wrong at sea.

Most of these fishing-related fatalities occur in the North Pacific, where the fishermen from my home state of Washington make their living. The difficult waters equate to the highest casualty rates in the nation, and highest rates of fatality and injury among fisherman.

But the North Pacific's rough waters are not the only factor these fishermen have to cope with.

It is a tough business--tough for those who work the boats and those who make the business-end decisions. It's a business that is driven by incentives and dangerous conditions that work in tandem to place countless numbers of fishermen at risk.

When things go wrong, it is usually because of failures at multiple levels. You see, it's not always about vessels. Nor is it all about inspections, safety equipment, or training. Fishing safety is closely related to how fisheries are managed and the very foundation fishing has come to be built upon: competition.

Without legislation such as this, the fisheries will continue to operate on a foundation of destructive competition, or a ``race for fish.'' And this race for fish is a very dangerous race.

According to Lieutenant Christopher Woodley, the former fishing Vessel Safety Coordinator of the 13th U.S. Coast Guard District based in Seattle:

This race encourages fishermen to operate in all weather

and sea conditions, to operate without rest, and encourages

risk-taking behaviors.

But we can change that.

By instituting a cooperative style of fishery management through this legislation, we dramatically change the incentives. And by changing the incentives to put a new premium on safety, we can change the way people fish and hopefully prevent future tragedies at sea.

Safety is not the only goal of this legislation. This legislation aims to make environmental and economic improvements to the process of fishing.

By eliminating the ``race for fish,'' as I mentioned before, we effectively slow the pace of fishing meaning commercial fishermen can optimize onboard processing facilities. The result is an increase in the product recovery rate per pound of fish caught, meaning they can use more parts of the fish and make wiser and more efficient use of our precious ocean resources. A slower pace also decreases bycatch and promotes ownership of the fishery, which will facilitate a conservation mindset in the fishermen.

We have once again shifted the incentive from reckless speed to doing things slower, better, smarter, and more environmentally conscious.

Furthermore, the Longline Catcher Processor Subsector Fisheries Cooperative Act means greater job stability for the Pacific cod freezer longliner fleet's workers.

When fishermen no longer race, the fishing season lasts longer. This means more stability and predictability for crew members, and eliminates the boom and bust cycle that often prevails today.

I want to be clear that this bill is not yet a finished product. I welcome comments, suggestions, and criticisms to help make this bill good public policy for everyone involved.

As we discuss issues like safety of our fisherman and environmental implications to our oceans, it's imperative that we commit to an open and transparent process that shines the light of accountability.

Both in fisheries management, fishing safety, and those areas where the two intersect, transparency must be the rule.

We owe it to our coastal communities, our fisherman, and the American public collectively as stewards of one of our greatest public resources--our oceans.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues Senators Vitter, Landrieu, Murray, and Martinez and introduce the American Shipping Reinvestment Act of 2009. This legislation will build on work Congress started in 2004 to strengthen the U.S. merchant marine, create needed jobs in U.S. ship building, and stimulate economic activity in our maritime sector.

Since our Nation's founding, the maritime sector has been integral to U.S. national security and economic

security. American companies own and operate both U.S. flag ships and a significant number of vessels under international registries. The U.S. flag fleets of these companies generally are built in the United States and are manned with U.S. seafarers. These U.S. flag fleets support not only the shipbuilding industrial base in this country and the pool of qualified seafarers, but they also create the shipping assets that are needed for military sealift in time of war or national emergency.

Most people understand commercial shipping and understand that we maintain a fleet of ships for military purposes. What may not be as well known is that the international ships of some American-owned companies are part of what is called the effective U.S.-controlled fleet, EUSC fleet. The EUSC is the fleet of merchant vessels registered in certain foreign nations that are available for requisition, use, or charter by the U.S. Government in the event of war or national emergency.

For example, U.S. flag commercial vessels and their American crews transported the majority of the cargo--more than 25 million measurement tons of cargo--in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom during the period of 2002-2008.

What people also may not know is that the EUSC fleet has been in decline for the past quarter century, largely because of U.S. tax policy. Following enactment of certain 1986 tax law changes, there was a precipitous decline in American-owned international shipping. To remain competitive, many American-owned shipping companies either became foreign companies or simply divested themselves of their foreign assets.

A 2002 study commissioned by the Department of Defense and performed by professors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that the EUSC fleet dropped by 38 percent in terms of numbers of ships and nearly 55 percent in terms of deadweight tonnage between 1986 and 2000. Perhaps more importantly, these declines have been largely experienced in militarily-useful vessel types. For example, the results of a 2002 DOD study found that if the EUSC fleet continues its present decline, DOD's ability to support U.S. military tanker requirements will diminish over time.

Fortunately, Congress recognized this problem in 2004 and addressed it by enacting the tonnage tax regime as part of the American Jobs Creation Act. Our legislation today builds on that policy by correcting an oversight in the 2004 act that has continued to stymie the ability of U.S. shipbuilding companies to invest in new ships in the United States.

We have very strong economic and national security reasons to support U.S. owned shipowning companies and to maintain a vibrant maritime industry in this country. We also have to continue to support needed changes in our tax code so that we provide operators of U.S. flag vessels in international trade the opportunity to be competitive with their tax-advantaged foreign competitors.

Notwithstanding the significant competitive disadvantages between 1986 and 2004 for American companies operating international ships, there continues to be several U.S. owned shipping companies with foreign operations, and our legislation is directed as helping them sustain and grow their U.S. flag fleets and to maintain their EUSC fleets. This bill will help these companies make needed investment in the U.S. economy, and create jobs in a way that also will enhance national security.

Specifically, The American Shipping Reinvestment Act of 2009 would repeal an outdated section of the Internal Revenue Code and allow U.S. shipping companies with foreign income earned prior to 1986 to reinvest it into the U.S. for the purpose of growing their U.S. flag operations.

Congress first included foreign shipping income in Subpart F in 1975, which meant that all shipping income was taxable at the full U.S. corporate tax rate no matter whether it was invested abroad or in the United States. However, a temporary rule, applicable to foreign shipping income earned from 1975 to 1986, continued to allow for deferral in cases where this income was reinvested in qualifying shipping activities. Section 955 of the Internal Revenue Code provided that this income would be included in gross income, i.e., taxed, immediately under Subpart F in the event of any net decrease in qualified shipping investments.

The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 restored for shipping income the normal tax rule under which non-Subpart F income of foreign subsidiaries is not taxed by the United States until it is repatriated, generally as a dividend. In restoring the potential for deferral for certain shipping income, Congress in 2004 returned the treatment of shipping income to where it was prior to 1975.

Unfortunately, Congress did not address the rules under IRC Section 955 that apply to income earned between 1975 and 1986, thus creating a situation that this income is permanently stranded offshore. Our bill would repeal IRC Section 955 and will allow these stranded assets to be reinvested in the United States under the favorable tax terms that were in effect for other companies and industries in 2004. Specifically, the legislation provides a one-time opportunity for American-owned shipping companies to bring foreign source income back into the United States at a discounted tax rate for the purpose of expanding and growing our domestic maritime industry. Without the commonsense change in our legislation, these old, stranded assets will never return to the United States and never be subject to U.S. taxation.

The bill is guaranteed to create jobs for American workers with the funds being brought back into the U.S. economy--on the ships, in the shipyards building the ships, and in supporting businesses. The bill contains a provision that would recapture any tax benefits if a shipping company reduces its full-time U.S. employment levels.

This bill also would enhance U.S. national security interests by supporting shipyards that are vital to our defense industrial base, by enabling new U.S. flag tanker capacity to transport our Nation's energy products, and by providing DOD with critical assets--manpower and ships--necessary to help sustain military sealift.

The bill is strongly supported by maritime labor, shipyards, and ship owners and operators and can provide a boost to the U.S. maritime industry at a time when the U.S. is struggling to find its economic footing. The jobs created by this legislation are well-paying, long- term jobs in a crucial sector of our Nation's economy. I urge my colleagues to join me and my other original cosponsors in supporting this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the U.S.-China Market Engagement and Export Promotion Act of 2009. For many small- and medium-sized businesses across this country, some of which are in my home State of Washington, getting access to the Chinese market proves difficult at best. However, to establish a foothold in the ever expanding Chinese market can prove pivotal in achieving financial success. China is a tremendous market for U.S. goods and services. According to the U.S.-China Business Council, despite the global economic downturn, 85 percent of congressional districts increased their exports to China in 2008. In addition, exports to China in almost every congressional district grew more than exports to anywhere else from 2000 to 2008.

In 2008, U.S. total exports to China equaled $71.5 billion. During the same time, however, our imports from China equaled $337.8 billion. That means our trading balance with China in 2008 was a $266.3 billion deficit. This bill would help States establish export promotion offices in China and create a new China Market Advocate Program at U.S. Export Assistance Centers around the Nation. The bill also provides assistance to small businesses for China trade missions and authorizes grants for Chinese business education programs.

I support this bill because of the enormous role that small businesses play in our economy. Small- and medium-sized businesses are a great potential engine of growth. Between 2004 and 2005, small businesses created 78.9 percent of the Nation's net new jobs, and with expanded export opportunities that number will be able to increase in the near future. Considering the huge impact that small- and medium- sized businesses have on our economy, I urge all my colleagues to support this bill and give the business owners the assistance they need to succeed in the Chinese export market.

The U.S.-China Market Engagement and Promotion Act will build the infrastructure necessary to connect American small- and medium-sized businesses with export opportunities in China.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Asia- Pacific Economic Cooperation, APEC, Business Travel Cards Act of 2009. This bill would authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security and State Department to issue APEC Business Travel Cards, ABTC's, to business leaders from APEC countries and senior government officials who are actively engaged in APEC business.

The ABTC program has 18 nations participating, including China, Japan and Australia, which are among the world's larger economies. The United States currently recognizes foreign issued ABTC travel cards. Cardholders from non-Visa Waiver Program countries need to present valid passports and those from other countries must still obtain U.S. visas as required by United States law. However, ABTC card holders are allowed to benefit from expedited visa interview scheduling at U.S. embassies and consulates, and expedited immigration processing through airline crew and diplomat immigration lanes upon arrival at U.S. international airports. However, under current law U.S. passport holders are not yet eligible to apply for the ABTC program and therefore do not enjoy these same benefits in Asia-Pacific countries. This bill would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue ABTCs to United States citizen business leaders and senior government officials actively engaged in APEC business no later than January 1, 2010.

I support the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Business Travel Cards Act because I have long supported increased free trade with the Asia- Pacific region. International business travel is an essential part of selling goods and services around the world. The 21 member economies of APEC together account for around 53 percent of world GDP and approximately 48 percent of global trade. This bill would help facilitate international cooperation and trade by allowing business leaders within the participating countries to enter countries on an expedited basis for the length of the program, currently three years.

The success of the program has been shown by the amount of applications for travel cards since inception of the program in 1997. From 1997, applications received by participating countries have grown by more than 100 percent each year. By March of last year, there were more than 34,000 cards being used by APEC countries. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Business Travel Cards Act of 2009 will help facilitate global trade within the Asia-Pacific, and create expanded export opportunities for U.S. businesses. Working to grow U.S. exports will get our economy to grow again and create and maintain U.S. jobs.

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

Mr. President, I cannot tell you how much I appreciated your remarks--I was sitting in the chair--and those of Chairman Dodd as well. The hour is late. The idea that you would be here at that hour to talk about something as important as health care is appreciated, I know, by the people in your State, but also by the people in my State as well. So I say thank you for that.

I also want to talk about health care. I want to talk about health care in the context of fiscal discipline in this country. As you know, our Nation's annual deficits are staggering, and our

national debt is absolutely unsustainable. For the future of our country and for our children's sake, as we recover from this devastating blow to our economy, we have to stand together and begin to start the difficult, but essential, work of putting our fiscal house in order.

Health care reform must help solve this Nation's fiscal problems, not make them worse. To accomplish this, effective reform must bend the cost curve in health care spending both in the private and public sectors.

In part because of years of neglect and inaction, this Congress has reached a defining moment of reckoning. Rising health care costs, especially Medicare costs, are now the largest driver of our deficits. Our Nation's health care spending, as you were just saying, is 17 percent of our Nation's gross domestic product and is expected to grow to over 20 percent of GDP in 10 years, on its way, as you said, to 35 percent.

Health care alone--just health care--will soon account for one-fifth of our economy. This represents a greater share of the GDP than our manufacturing, agricultural, forestry, mining, and construction industries combined.

As we emerge from this terrible recession, the worst since the Great Depression, we cannot commit one-fifth of our economy to health care and expect to compete effectively in the global marketplace.

Adding to the urgency of the problem, this recession has made rocketing health care costs even more painful for families and businesses in the last 15 months. Both large businesses and small businesses have cut some 5.1 million jobs, and 2.4 million of these newly unemployed workers have lost the health coverage their jobs once provided. Now the same people must try to find insurance in the individual market where they can be rejected by private insurance companies for preexisting conditions such as asthma, diabetes, or even cancer.

Health care costs are strangling opportunities for working families and small businesses all over my State and the country. As health care costs rise, families are forced to make choices no one should have to make between insuring their families or their employees and sending their kids to college, taking lower paying jobs with less responsibility just for the medical benefits and defaulting on their mortgage payments to pay for their medical bills.

Every one of these examples springs from the experiences of people in my State. And it is no mystery why people are having to make these terrible choices. Middle-class wages are not even close to keeping up with these rising insurance costs. While median family income in this country fell by $300 during the last decade--staggering, by the way; over a decade in real dollars, median family income in the United States actually declined by $300--health care costs increased over the same period by 80 percent.

The cost of health insurance is eating into family budgets faster and faster. Over the past decades, premiums for Colorado families, as this chart shows us, have more than doubled, growing four times faster than wage increases. The cost of premiums for a Colorado family is over $13,000 today. If we do nothing, by 2016, Colorado families will be spending over $25,000 on their premiums, a 90-percent increase. We have come out of a period with an 85-percent increase, and if we do nothing, we are going to end up in a period with a 90-percent increase, with no real increase in wages.

Left unaddressed, this imbalance, which is the creation of our catastrophically inefficient health care system, will destroy the middle class in this country. If we do nothing, if we continue on with the status quo, by 2016, just 7 years from now--and I believe these numbers are very similar to the ones you quoted for Rhode Island--by 2016, 40 cents of every dollar a typical Colorado family earns will be eaten up by health care costs, leaving just 60 cents for everything else.

Think about it. That is almost half an average family's income. Money spent not to educate their children, not to feed them or house them, but just to cover the cost of the family health care plan. And that is just paying for coverage. Never mind if you actually get sick.

In 2007, 62 percent of the personal bankruptcies in this country were due to medical costs. Traditionally, most people's employers help pay for cost increases. That has been the case for over many years. But I heard from employers all over Colorado having to make tough choices-- cutting back on benefits and laying off more costs to their employees.

In the coming years, copays for Coloradans will go up double digits. More Coloradans are being forced into health plans with higher deductibles, and more employers are getting out of the business of providing health insurance for their employees altogether.

Mr. President, we won't be able to completely flatten the health care cost curve in the short run, and we should be careful not to overpromise, but we have to make the rising cost of health care something our economy can plausibly absorb.

Part of the solution is reducing waste and curbing overpayments to insurance companies, and part of the answer is encouraging patients to seek preventive care. Small businesses may not see health costs go down immediately, but we sure can slow their rise. And we have to work hard to make sure they do not rise this quickly. Reforming our health care system could save over 100,000 small business jobs in the coming years that would otherwise be lost if we do nothing.

I agree with bipartisan voices saying that our first health care goal has to be to drive down costs, and we must start with Medicare. As I travel throughout Colorado, I have met countless physicians, nurses, and hospital workers who tell me about the perverse incentives in Medicare. Instead of being paid to spend time with patients and produce better quality care, doctors and nurses are paid for the number of patients they see in the shortest amount of time and the number of procedures they perform. This is no way to produce patient-centered care, and it is no way to reduce cost.

Medicare doesn't just influence, as you know, the care of the elderly and disabled. As the largest health care program in the United States, Medicare influences every level of health care. Private insurance and employer-based health care look to Medicare as they make decisions on what to pay doctors, nurses, and hospitals. Owing to the perverse incentives in Medicare, however, since 1970--since 1970--every year for almost 40 years, year-in and year-out, Medicare spending per person has risen by over 8 percent each year, and private insurance spending per person has risen by over 9 percent each year.

If we expect reform to begin to gain any traction, we must drive cost down at the Federal level first. We can start by paying doctors and nurses to actually do what they are supposed to do and what they want to do--be focused on patients. We have to reform the system so that we are paying for quality and not volume. We must improve care, produce savings, and slow down cost growth by bundling payments, paying for performance and outcomes, and providing better coordinated care for patients and providers.

The burden is on us to meet the public expectation that we will drive down costs in the health care system and make it more efficient, that we will make the health care marketplace more competitive, and that we will provide affordable, stable health care coverage to the American people that can't be taken away because they lose a job, have a preexisting condition, or have reached some arbitrary cap.

Controlling health care costs would help our fiscal situation a great deal, and that is one of the fundamental reasons health care reform is needed. But this alone will not be enough to fill the deepening hole of national debt that threatens America's prosperity. The fiscal decisions we make today matter so much because they will dictate the well-being and range of choices of the generations that follow us.

Sometimes, with the daily hail of press clippings, these issues may seem overly complex, but I like to use a pretty simple analogy. The way we run our government is not different than if you or I were to buy a house--probably a bigger one than we reasonably could afford--and then we tell the bank to please send the mortgage documents to our kids. Imagine how that burden--paying for mom and dad's house--would constrain our children's choices. What dreams would they have to defer

because their first obligation was a debt they didn't even incur.

My three daughters, ages 9, 8 and 5, have never had an economics class, but I can tell you that as much as they love their mom and dad, if asked, they would never do that deal--especially my 5-year-old, Anne. Whether we are taking her blanket away or telling her to stop sucking her thumb or putting a mountain of debt on her, she knows a raw deal when she sees one.

We in Congress owe the next generation much more than this, as the chairman, Senator Dodd, was saying. We ought to be able to build on our roles as parents and community leaders to respect our children, come together, and plan America's way back to fiscal health. The longer we wait, the more difficult the choices become. If we wait 10 years, we will face a massive gap between our spending and the revenue the government collects. If we wait 10 years to take action, we would have to increase individual income taxes by almost 90 percent to keep pace. That is an unacceptable outcome for Colorado's families. If you don't like tax increases, fine, then we would have to slash Federal spending by almost one-half. That would mean massive cuts to Medicare, our Nation's defense, and other critical initiatives that keep our country strong. No one wants to be put in a position to make those kinds of choices either. These outcomes are unacceptable, yet we can see them coming. That is why inaction is so unacceptable on health care and also on returning to policies of fiscal discipline. It is long past time to put in place the policies that will reverse this condition. And as with any deep hole, the first order of business is to stop digging.

The good news is that we have a tried-and-true way to stop making matters worse. In the 1990s, we had Pay-Go, which effectively forced the shovel from Congress's hands and made Congress stop digging. Pay-Go means that before Congress can create new spending on permanent programs, it needs to figure out how to pay for that new spending, just as every family in the States we represent.

Pay-Go helped turn 1980s deficits into 1990s surpluses, and we actually began to pay down our debt. Pay-Go is commonsense budgeting. It is not any different, as I just said, than what a family does when its spending gets out of hand. When that bad credit card statements comes in the mail, a parent knows it is time to sit down at the kitchen table and plan how to stop the spending. Pay-Go is what Congress and President Clinton did to respond to Washington's bad credit card bill.

Pay-Go was smart lawmaking because it imposed a culture of fiscal responsibility--and I would say discipline--on the Congress. Yet, for some reason, early in this decade a new administration let Pay-Go expire. That played a part in how these surpluses all of a sudden turned back into big annual deficits. This is how America incurred years of new debt.

The frustrating reality is that we are not getting enough out of borrowing all this money in the end--fighting an expensive war with tremendous unseen long-term costs to follow, ignoring the staggering costs of our health care system and entitlements, paying huge interest costs on our debt, in large part to foreign countries. These are hardly worthy uses of deficit spending.

In 2003, the Bush administration and Congress passed a new entitlement program called Medicare Part D. It is very popular, but we never paid a dime for it. They also chose two tax cuts for people who needed them least over fiscal discipline. They ignored skyrocketing mandatory spending. They created a brandnew bureaucracy and just saddled all of this heavy new weight on America's national debt.

In short, Washington was unwilling to ask the American people to pay for any of its investments--they put it on our children's shoulders instead.

And the tragedy of this incredible mismanagement is, it didn't work. Our economy plunged into its deepest hole since the Great Depression.

Fortunately, earlier this year, the House rightly passed new statutory Pay-Go. The Senate should pass Pay-Go too. That's why today, Senator McCaskill and I introduced Pay-Go. We believe that Pay-Go is one important way to make sure that our fiscal situation doesn't get any worse. Pay-Go is not a magic bullet, but it is part of the answer to our fiscal woes.

Once Pay-Go is in place though, we cannot stop there. Pay-Go will help us stop digging. But we also need to budget for the future, stop running large deficits and fill this fiscal hole completely. I am optimistic that this can be done, and it will take bipartisan commitment and discipline.

One place to start is with the growth of our yearly spending. Like Pay-Go, the yearly spending of Congress has also been done before, and it has worked.

That is why today I am introducing separate legislation, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2009, that would create yearly limits on discretionary spending. By pairing these discretionary spending limits with Pay-Go, we can start to make a substantial change in how Washington does business.

But it is not enough just to limit new spending across the board. Much of the reason that we are running such large deficits, is that we have made long-term spending commitments, called mandatory spending. To truly reverse the totality of our disastrous fiscal course, we must be willing to address rapidly expanding mandatory commitments too.

The best way--you know, it is funny, when you use the word ``mandatory.'' It is the word that should be used to express what this debt burden is we are putting on our kids. It will be mandatory that they pay that back before they make decisions about how to educate their own children; before they make decisions about how to provide individual health care in this country or make other kinds of investments all across the United States, in transportation or in new economies. What will be mandatory as we fall farther and farther behind in this global economy--what will be mandatory for them is to pay the bill left behind by their mothers and fathers.

The best way to get Congress to take a hard look at mandatory spending, is to place a flexible cap on our annual deficits. That's the other main component of what my new legislation would do. The cap in the Deficit Reduction Act is realistic--it would impose limits that are consistent with what economists believe we can sustain. This deficit limit is flexible--providing an exception when we are in a recession.

Here is how the deficit limit would work. Whatever the gross domestic product is in a given year, Congress must limit the deficit to 3 percent of the GDP or less. Economists tell us that this 3 percent number is sustainable over time, and that is a reasonably healthy ceiling. Now of course we should push to do better than running a deficit that is 3 percent of GDP. But this is a good starting point at setting and adhering to a budget. We would all clap if the deficits of today--12 or 13 percent of GDP--were 3 percent, and no one would clap louder than our children.

Under my legislation, if Congress failed to meet these deficit control requirements, the government would have to impose an across the board cut called a sequestration. Certain programs such as Social Security and veterans programs would not be subject to cuts. Yet most of the government's functions would be. The goal, of course, is to avoid this drastic measure by forcing Congress to plan ahead, and forcing Congress to pay attention to the deficit when it makes its spending choices.

Deficit limits make perfect sense during most years. But, as we have learned during this recession, an infusion of public funds can jolt a frozen economy and help turn that economy around. Running temporary deficits can kickstart a stagnant economy. But this only works if during healthy economic times, you also reduce government spending. The deficit limits I am proposing in this legislation would put Congress on a gradual track back to solid fiscal footing.

We should immediately enact budget reform proposals like Pay-Go discretionary spending limits and deficit limits. The CBO has concluded that after 2019, the rate at which we accumulate debt will continue to accelerate due to the aging of the population and increased health care costs. As angry as we all are with the excessive leverage in the private marketplace over the past decade that contributed to the market crashing, it is also obvious that Washington set a very bad example.

Let's put an end to these unsound fiscal practices. Let's not put our kids in the kind of situation we have inherited. Let's not make matters even worse, and the policy decisions regarding the national debt even harder for our kids.

What we need now is leadership and cooperation; not more shifting costs to our kids. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if we remain on our current course, the total debt owed by the public will stand at over $17 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2019--only 10 years from today.

The point is that linked with our growing debt are the dreams and the plans of millions of American families. There is nothing fun about tightening our belt and cutting popular programs. I don't like it any more than anyone else who is here. Yet there are plenty of encouraging signs that this Congress and this President can stand together and do exactly that. Recently, just a couple of weeks ago, the Senate stood with the President for fiscal discipline and slashed nearly $2 billion from an outdated weapons system. That is a good start that I gladly supported. But so much more is left to do.

Coloradans already know we are in a bad way. People in my State are well aware that the excesses in recent years are catching up to us, and they know that Congress and the President have to make hard fiscal choices, reform health care before it eats up our entire budget, and pay for our reform efforts.

This challenging outlook may be just what it takes to bring both political parties to the negotiating table. Paired with Pay-Go, it is my hope that this new legislation can be a real starting point for meaningful fiscal negotiations. It is time we come up with an intelligent framework of fiscal management, that keeps Congress thinking ahead each time it makes a decision, and each time it puts together an annual budget, and each time it is faced with America's long-term fiscal trajectory.

Washington's fiscal mess was created over many years, and we won't solve the problem overnight. But this bill would give Congress and the President a guidepost to make the decisions necessary to get our budget under control. It would set a strong and binding standard for us to act responsibly.

We must start with what unites us. When I worry about what type of country we will leave my daughters and all of our young people, I know that others who vote differently than I do have the same worries. We owe more to our kids than to leave them a huge national debt and no plan to get out of it.

If we don't start making difficult decisions soon, we will be limiting our children's ability to make our country a better place, before they even get started. We will be limiting their ability to invest in education, life-saving scientific research, or new technologies that form the foundation of economic growth. We will be limiting their ability to defend the Nation during future times of war that we can't even think of today. And we will be limiting their chances of having a quality of life even better than what our parents and grandparents left to us.

If we fail to confront the tough issues so we can control the cost of health care, we will have squandered this narrow window of opportunity. If we fail to step up to the plate and pass a fiscally sound health care reform bill, this Congress will be remembered for years to come as having let down the country. If we fail--not just to stop digging this deep fiscal hole, but to put a process in place for climbing back up to solid fiscal footing--we will have failed to perform as the stewards of our children's dreams.

Let's stand together, with our President and with American families. Let's get health care reform done responsibly, let's take action to reduce the deficit and debt, and let's put this economy back on track.

Mr. President, as the success of the Cash for Clunkers Program that we are working to extend today makes clear, there is substantial interest among consumers in upgrading the fuel efficiency of their vehicles. In fact, maybe the most surprising thing about the program thus far has been the higher-than-expected appetite by consumers for the most fuel-efficient vehicles.

It is an encouraging sign, but it remains surprising because it is extraordinarily difficult for a consumer to take into account the real benefits, or costs, of fuel economy. The value of fuel efficiency depends on the unknowable fact of what the price of gasoline is likely to be in future years as well as requiring a calculation to make and apples-to-apples comparison of the costs of ownership at different efficiency levels. This explains why study after study demonstrates that consumers don't fully account for the fuel costs of ownership when they make buying decisions. Decisions that many people regretted making only a few years earlier as gas prices climbed near $4 per gallon last fall.

This isn't only a problem for consumers. Improving the fuel economy of a vehicle requires significant engineering and new technologies, often adding hundreds or thousands to the manufacturer price of a vehicle; costs consumers have proved unwilling to bear. Faced with this reality, and the uncertainty of recovering their costs from consumers who are unsure of the value of fuel efficiency, car makers have generally thought it is in their best business interests to meet the fuel economy requirements of CAFE but go no further. Even when manufacturers want to go further than the CAFE requirements and produce more efficient vehicles, they are faced with giving up a cost advantage to their competitors by putting on expensive new technologies. For this reason, and to attempt to take into account the very real costs in oil and climate insecurity by our undervaluation of efficiency, Congress has put in a series of incentives for specific technologies such as hybrids, electric-drive, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. We have also recently made significant investments in battery manufacturing and vehicle electrification to try and close the significant gap with our global competitors in these technologies.

Although I support those investments to increase our competitiveness in the clean energy technology manufacturing race, unless the domestic marketplace will support them over the long term, they simply won't be enough. I believe the best path to both support our climate and energy goals and enhance our economic competitiveness is to create a set of clear, technology-neutral incentives that can achieve our goals and then let the market and consumers sort out the best technologies.

The Efficient Vehicle Leadership Act of 2009 that I am introducing today with Senators Snowe, Kerry, and Lugar provides a long-term pathway forward that will allow consumers to afford the most fuel efficient vehicles and a clear signal to the manufacturers that they can succeed in the marketplace by incorporating the most advanced fuel efficiency technologies into their new offerings. The bill would provide for fuel performance rebates that would decrease the cost of efficient cars and pay for it by assessing a fuel performance fee to manufacturers for inefficient vehicles to pay for the program.

The rebates and fees would be calculated based on how much more or

less fuel-efficient a vehicle is relative to the CAFE standard. The CAFE standard is based on the size, or ``footprint''--the interior dimensions of the four wheels of the motor vehicle, so each vehicle would compete with other vehicles of a similar size. The CAFE standard itself becomes more stringent over time, based on the ``maximum feasible'' fuel efficiency as determined by NHTSA, so the incentives are recast yearly against a higher target. Calculating the rebates and fees based on the CAFE standard allows them to net out, making the overall system revenue neutral and providing a continuing incentive each subsequent year. Thus, the purchasers of fuel efficiency laggards for each size pay to make the most fuel-efficient equivalent vehicles more affordable. The rebate amount must appear on the fuel efficiency sticker and consumers can choose if they want to receive their rebate directly in their tax returns or they can transfer the credit to dealer, as long as the dealer certifies they have given the rebate to the consumer at the point of purchase.

In sum, this bill provides a long-term structure for the automotive sector that provides certainty to manufacturers that the technologies that they must employ to meet the new fuel efficiency requirements will be valued by consumers and, beyond that, rewards and incentivizes innovation in vehicle efficiency to go beyond the CAFE requirements. The technological acumen of the auto industry will be harnessed, with no net impact on safety or comfort, and without distorting the marketplace. Consumers would benefit for years to come from a smaller hit on their wallet at the pump. The United States would benefit overall as we began to curb our appetite for oil.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Expanding Industrial Energy Efficiency Incentives Act of 2009. I am pleased to be joined by my Finance Committee colleague, Senator Snowe, in introducing the Act, which creates the first direct tax-based incentives for industrial energy efficiency. As such, the Act helps our industrial sector adopt advanced energy technologies and processes, enabling American industry to reduce fuel dependency, cut costs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, add jobs, and enhance global competitiveness.

Even though the industrial sector represents 32 percent of our domestic energy consumption, there are currently no significant tax credits that directly promote industrial energy efficiency. But as a recent study by McKinsey & Company found, the industrial sector represents the largest potential for end-use energy efficiency in the U.S. and could save $47 billion per year on energy costs through efficiency improvements. The time to make this investment is now.

The act creates incentives in the three critical areas: water reuse, advanced motors, and CFC chillers. It also enhances incentives for combined heat and power systems. Energy efficiency organizations estimate that these incentives together will save over 92 terawatt hours of energy--the equivalent of four months' worth of total U.S. energy consumption.

First, the act adds a new investment tax credit for reuse, recycling, and/or efficiency measures related to process, sanitary, and cooling water, as well as for blowdown from cooling towers and steam systems used by utility-scale thermo-electric generators. The U.S. currently reuses only 6 percent of its water, and there is significant potential for gains in this area. The industrial sector, which is responsible for 45 percent of domestic freshwater withdrawals, is an ideal place to introduce transformative water reuse and water saving technologies. Approximately 3 percent of U.S. electricity use is for pumping, treating and transporting water. The ``water-watts connection'' is well-recognized. For instance, the California Energy Commission estimates that 95 percent of the energy savings of proposed energy- efficiency programs could be achieved through water-efficiency programs, at 58 percent of the cost. Water conservation is therefore a cost-effective way to achieve significant energy savings.

Second, the bill establishes a $120-per-horsepower tax credit for efficient motor systems with adjustable speed capability. On average, motors account for 65 percent of an industrial energy user's electricity use, a percentage that is even higher in certain industries, such as water supply, mining, and oil and gas extraction. In fact, industrial motors are expected to be responsible for 7 percent of total global carbon emissions by 2020.

New advances in power electronics and controls over the past five years have advanced the potential for new smart motor technologies to provide a significant energy savings potential if these new motors are placed widely into service. By reducing the initial design and added component costs, this new credit will accelerate the adoption of advanced motor technologies into higher volume production, helping to make the technology available economy-wide.

Third, the bill adds a new incentive for replacing CFC chillers. Large water-cooled chillers are the engines of air-conditioning systems for almost all large buildings. The bill establishes a credit of $150 per ton, plus an additional incentive of $100 for each ton downsized during replacement. The incentive extends only to pre-1993, post-1980 water-cooled chillers that use the refrigerants CFC-11 and CFC-12. While chillers that use CFC-11 and CFC-12 refrigerants have been banned for new installations because their refrigerant breakdown products attack the ozone layer, some 30,000 chillers that still use these refrigerants remain in both public and private facilities across the country. Replacing these obsolete systems would allow for the recovery of 37 million pounds of ozone depleting CFCs--or 64 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents. Additionally, the improvement in new chiller efficiency that would be achieved by replacing these old systems would save 17.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from reduced electricity consumption--the equivalent of taking 3.3 million cars off the road.

While CFC chiller replacement is cost-effective over the long-term, the high up-front costs mean that many building owners do not make these investments. This moderate tax incentive improves the economics and reduces the up-front cost, substantially increasing the number of systems replaced.

Collaterally, but just as significantly, this bill is a jobs bill. For instance, if all CFC chillers are replaced, we expect that approximately 10,500 American jobs can be directly created or preserved in the manufacturing, removal and installation of new chillers. Additional jobs will be created by the engineering services required to take advantage of these incentives, adding up to a potential 60,000 jobs.

Finally, the bill improves the combined heat and power incentive, which was enacted last October as part of the tax extenders package. The package added a 10 percent investment tax credit for combined heat and power systems. The expansion of the combined heat and power tax credit would increase the credit's applicability from the first 15 megawatts to the first 25 megawatts of system capacity and remove the overall system size cap of 50 megawatts, allowing a greater number

of combined heat and power projects to be financially viable and move forward. A recent Department of Energy study estimates that ramping up total U.S. combined heat and power to account for twenty percent of electricity capacity, a percentage that is within our reach, would eliminate over sixty percent of the expected increase in carbon dioxide emissions from today to 2030--the equivalent of taking more than half of current passenger vehicles in the U.S. off the road.

Together, these four industrial energy efficiency incentives capture a large portion of the energy efficiency potential in the industrial sector. These incentives will catalyze the deployment of new technologies that will decrease carbon emissions and protect our natural resources, all while saving money on energy costs and creating jobs.

I look forward to working with Senator Snowe to see these provisions enacted into law.

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

Mr. President, addressing our Nation's dependence on imported oil and our greenhouse gas emissions will require policies that extend across the economy, as well as policies that are more narrowly tailored to specific sectors. Today, I rise with my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, to offer a bill that would enhance energy security and reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with heating our nation's homes and buildings. Our bill, the Cleaner, Secure and Affordable Thermal Energy Act, creates significant incentives for consumers, businesses, and tax-exempt entities that now rely on heating oil to convert to energy-efficient natural gas or biomass heating systems.

Across the country, and particularly in the Northeast and Midwest, many homes and buildings still derive heat from oil-burning furnaces. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2007, our Nation consumed nearly 160 million barrels of oil for heating fuel. This use of heating oil continues despite the existence of widely available alternatives that are cleaner, more secure, and more affordable.

On April 22, I held a hearing in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on the Energy Efficiency Resource Standards. The Committee heard from several witnesses about the advantages of and efforts to convert residential, business, and public users from fuel oil to natural gas and biomass heating systems. For each household that converts from fuel oil to a natural gas heating system, we avoid 2.1 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions. For each commercial building, we avoid 9.9 metric tons, and for each industrial facility, we avoid as much as 2,984 metric tons. These emission reductions are even more significant for conversions to heating systems that are fired by biomass resources.

Besides being cleaner, natural gas and biomass are far more secure resources. Ninety-eight percent of domestically consumed natural gas is produced in North America, and domestic reserves of natural gas are estimated at 100 years based on current consumption.

Finally, since the price of natural gas and biomass is lower and less volatile than the price oil, converting offers significant short- and long-term cost savings to consumers. For instance, while the average annual cost of using fuel oil for home heating averages $1,734, the average annual cost of operating a natural gas furnace is $1,004.

But significant up-front costs prevent many families and businesses from converting their heating systems.

The Cleaner, Secure and Affordable Thermal Energy Act will make these conversions more affordable for American families, businesses, and tax- exempt entities.

First, for residential consumers, the Act establishes a 30 percent tax credit for costs associated with converting from a fuel oil to natural gas or biomass heating system. The credit is capped at $3,500, $4,000 in the case of biomass stoves. To qualify, the replacement equipment must be energy efficient; a natural gas boiler must have an AFUE rating of at least 85 percent, a replacement natural gas furnace must have an AFUE rating of at least 92 percent, and a replacement biomass appliance must have a thermal efficiency rating of more than 75 percent.

For business taxpayers, the act authorizes bonus depreciation for property installed before 2012. This would enable business taxpayers to expense--that is, immediately write-off--half of the cost of qualifying property, and depreciate the remaining balance over the typical cost- recovery period.

Many of the Nation's heating oil systems are used by public entities, particularly school systems. To help public entities finance their conversions to natural gas and biomass heating, the Act adds conversion programs as an activity eligible for Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds.

Finally, to encourage expansion of natural gas service capabilities, the act includes a two-year extension of the 15-year depreciation schedule created for distribution facilities under the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

The act would move us significantly in the direction of a low-carbon economy while enhancing energy security and reducing heating costs. I look forward to working with Senator Snowe to enacting our bill into law.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Livable Communities Act.

Our communities are growing and changing. And the way we plan for their futures needs to evolve, as well. At stake is whether or not we will be able to enjoy the places where we live and work without excessive traffic, skyrocketing fuel costs, and sprawling development patterns that eat up our open space.

As our communities grow, people are living farther from jobs, commuting longer distances on more crowded roadways, paying more at the pump at a time when family budgets are stretched thin and putting more greenhouse gases into the air at a time when climate change has emerged as an urgent threat.

We are losing our rural land and open spaces. Transportation costs are making housing less affordable. Even though our communities are growing in size, we are losing the community spirit that makes American towns and cities so great.

It is clear that current trends simply cannot continue.

Sustainable development will cut down on the traffic that has long plagued my home State of Connecticut and connect people with good- paying jobs. Done right, it will protect the environment and help us meet energy goals; protect rural areas and green spaces; revitalize our Main Streets and urban centers; create and preserve affordable housing; and make our communities better places to live, work, and raise families.

But does that mean sustainable development is a transportation issue? An energy issue? A housing issue? An environmental issue?

The answer, of course, is ``all of the above,'' and unfortunately, that tends to short some circuits here in Washington. Our policy has long been stovepiped within the various agencies responsible for each of the issues affected by planning and development.

In February, I wrote a letter to President Obama urging him to establish a White House Office of Sustainable Development to coordinate housing, transportation, energy, and environmental policies.

I felt confident I would find a partner in the White House. The President has been a strong leader on these issues, and he has shown a willingness to shake up a Federal Government that hasn't always succeeded when it comes to thinking outside the box and addressing related issues in a comprehensive, effective way.

Sure enough, last month I brought together Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan, and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson at a Banking Committee hearing--three public servants who don't often find themselves in the same hearing room at the same time.

They brought with them a pledge that the administration would work across agency lines to take a holistic look at development policy--and a firm commitment to livability principles that would serve as the foundation for that policy going forward.

The administration's principles demonstrate a true understanding of the best way forward.

Sustainable development, as grounded in these principles, provides more transportation choices for families, expands access to affordable housing, enhances economic competitiveness by

connecting families with jobs and services, targets funding towards existing communities to spur revitalization and protect our open spaces, values the unique character of both our cities and our small towns, and improves collaboration between different government agencies to better leverage our investments.

As Secretary LaHood said at the hearing, we are now all working off the same playbook. But now it is time to snap the ball and move down the field.

Last month the White House announced the selection of Shelley Poticha to head up these efforts. If the Livable Communities Act becomes law, as I hope it will, Ms. Poticha will head a new HUD Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities.

This new office will serve as a clearinghouse for best practices, so that successful initiatives can be easily replicated. And it will give HUD Secretary Donovan, Deputy Secretary Ron Simms, and Ms. Poticha the tools and authority they need to really dig in and become a partner to our communities in creating a sustainable future.

One successful play from our playbook could be modeled after a project in my home State of Connecticut. It links housing and transportation policy, encourages smart land use, generates economic growth, and will reduce our carbon footprint around what's known as the Tri-City Corridor in Connecticut. This proposal would provide commuter and 110-mile-per-hour intercity rail service between New Haven, Hartford, and Springfield, MA, and feature 12 stops, creating ``transit villages'' and revitalizing local economies.

Already, we are seeing how this proposed service is serving as a catalyst: attracting new business, commuters, and residents, and transforming struggling local economies.

Along the corridor is Meriden, a small city of nearly 60,000 residents located roughly halfway between New Haven and Hartford. In anticipation of a commuter stop on the rail line, the city would like to transform 15 acres of brownfields into new commercial and residential developments, including a public green that doubles as a flood buffer.

Immediately north of that site is the Mills Memorial public housing complex, providing 140 units of affordable housing to low income residents.

By linking transit, housing, and commercial planning, the city of Meriden will be able to transform its downtown into a bustling economic center ready to support a wide range of residents.

The vision of Meriden and so many communities throughout the country needs the support and planning tools to take these initiatives from idea to action.

So, today, I offer for your consideration legislation that encourages communities across the country to begin planning for more prosperous and livable futures.

In addition to creating the new HUD Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities I mentioned earlier, this bill creates a competitive grant program that States and localities can use to better integrate transportation, housing, land use, and economic development when making long-term planning decisions.

In addition, it provides funding for communities to implement these comprehensive regional plans through a challenge grant program. This program will help communities invest in public transportation, affordable housing, complete streets, transit-oriented development, and redeveloping brownfields.

Finally, this bill creates an Interagency Council on Sustainable Communities to break down the ``stovepiping'' that exists within the Federal Government and coordinate Federal policies to encourage sustainable development.

In my home State of Connecticut, integrated planning and sustainable development is critical to growing stronger communities.

We have a state-level program called HOMEConnecticut that provides grants to plan Incentive Housing Zones. In these zones, mixed-income housing is built near jobs and transit centers, in downtowns and in redeveloped brownfields. More than 50 cities and towns have either applied for grants or already received them. The investment will pay off in affordable homes, good jobs, and more livable communities.

Like bragging on Connecticut, but I would love to see this success replicated in communities around the Nation. The Obama administration has indicated its commitment to encouraging sustainable development and helping local authorities build a better future. It is time for us to do the same.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation.

Mr. President, I wish to speak about poverty and, specifically, how we measure it and its influence on millions of Americans.

When we return from the August recess, the Census Bureau will release its

annual report documenting the number of Americans living in poverty. But these numbers will provide a flawed picture of poverty in America since they are based almost exclusively on 50-year-old food prices. The bill I am introducing today, the Measuring American Poverty, or MAP, Act, directs the Census to develop a new poverty measure that is based on a more comprehensive definition of need. Improving the poverty measure is not just an academic exercise for statisticians, it is essential in helping us identify and implement effective policies that address this crisis.

Even with an inaccurate measurement, the picture of poverty in America is startling. In 2007, the year for which we have the most recent data, one in eight Americans--and nearly one in five children-- didn't have the resources to meet their basic needs: food, clothing, and shelter. Think about that. One in five children in America in 2007 went to bed without even the most basic elements that we take for granted. In my home State of Connecticut, more than 85,000 kids lived in poverty. And that was before the economic downturn in which we now find ourselves. The Center for American Progress estimates that the cost to our Nation of persistent child poverty is $\1/2\ trillion each year. Every year a child stays in poverty reduces future productivity over the course of his or her working life by nearly $12,000.

But the cost is more than just financial--it is moral. We are judged, Hubert Humphrey famously said, by how we treat those in the shadows of life. And every child who goes to bed hungry, every American who lacks the basic necessities of life, is a mark on our national conscience. As we struggle with the great challenges of our time, the crisis of poverty is growing. More and more Americans find that shadow creeping toward them. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that if unemployment were to rise to 9 percent--our current unemployment rate is 9.5 percent, the highest rate in 26 years--the number of Americans in poverty would increase by as many as 10.3 million, and the number of children in poverty would rise by as many as 3.3 million.

To put those numbers in perspective, this recession will add a number of Americans equivalent to the population of Michigan to the current number who live in poverty, which is already equivalent to the population of California. In my home State of Connecticut and across this country, people who have long worked hard to get ahead are falling further behind. Folks who have worked two jobs with an eye toward sending their kids to college are having to choose between purchasing food and medications. They are hoping that a child's hacking cough doesn't turn into something more serious because they can't afford to see a doctor. They are staying up late staring at unpaid bills, wondering how to pay their mortgage when their only incomes from their meager savings and unemployment insurance, wondering what happened to their America dream.

The vast majority of people who are poor do not lack the desire for a better life for themselves and their family. They are not poor in their work ethic, their love for their country and their communities. They are in poverty, but they are not poor in the qualities that we so admire in America. The truth is, many are unlucky and face insurmountable hurdles. For some that hurdle is their inability to pay for higher education. For others it is that they work two jobs and can't read to their kids at night like they want to. And far too many others are struggling to pay their mortgage and are spending all their retirement savings just to keep a roof over their heads.

As many hard-working Americans are engulfed by the shadow of poverty, we remember Hubert Humphrey's admonition, but too often we can't even see into those shadows because the way we measure poverty in America is badly outdated. It is that challenge to which I today urge this body to rise.

Currently, we measure poverty by comparing two numbers: the money a family has, which the census refers to as an ``income measure,'' and the money a family needs to meet its basic needs, which experts call the ``poverty threshold.'' If a family's income measure is less than the threshold, they are counted as poor. It is a simple calculation. But unfortunately both elements--the income measure and the threshold-- are flawed.

The poverty threshold was created using data from the 1950s and 1960s. Currently, it is calculated by taking the 1950s cost of emergency foodstuffs--food only for temporary use when funds are low-- and multiplying that number by three because in the 1960s, food represented one-third of a family budget. But today, food represents one-sixth or one-seventh of a family's budget. Similarly, a family's cash income before taxes was once an accurate and straightforward way to measure a family's resources. But today, many Americans are subject to both State and Federal income taxes and may face exorbitant health costs or other critical needs which drain their resources. In addition, many women now work outside the home, meaning they now need pay for childcare and for getting to and from work.

And on the other side of the ledger, we now provide many benefits to low income workers that are not cash payments--they are provided through our Tax Code, or like energy assistance programs, paid directly to providers. I have fought throughout my career for programs that lift people out of poverty. Think of the earned-income tax credit, food assistance, housing assistance, home energy assistance, child care assistance--hundreds of billions of dollars spent to help Americans that aren't accounted for when we calculate whether our efforts are working. So, we need a new way to measure both what a family needs and what a family has.

When Mayor Bloomberg decided to tackle poverty in New York City, he started by doing what any successful businessman would--he surveyed the problem. But he discovered that our outdated system of measuring poverty simply didn't allow him to see what was really happening. So the mayor charged his Center for Economic Opportunity with creating a system that would better represent that threshold, as well as a family's resources. They followed the recommendation of the National Academy of Sciences 1995 panel described in ``Measuring Poverty: An Improved Approach.'' The legislation I offer today also follows these guidelines.

Specifically, this bill--the Measuring American Poverty Act--updates the calculations for both threshold and resources in the Federal poverty measure. The poverty threshold would be based on the current prices of food, clothing, shelter, utilities, and a few basic household expenses. And it would revise the current measurement of income to better reflect the reality that Americans not only must pay taxes but also certain unavoidable expenses like transportation to and from work, childcare, and medical expenses. This revised measure would also include the value of near-cash benefits like energy assistance, food stamps, section 8 housing vouchers, and tax credits such as the earned- income tax credit.

Let me be very clear: this isn't a bill to change eligibility for programs or the allocation of Federal funds. In fact, the bill's text is explicit about that. The MAP Act creates a new measurement. It does not replace the Federal Poverty Line. It does not change eligibility for programs. It will not lead to an unprecedented automatic increase in spending.

What the MAP Act will do is help us to understand the scope of the poverty crisis in America, and to better evaluate the effectiveness of our solutions to it. We have a difficult job ahead of us, as we look to lift Americans out of poverty, provide middle-class families with a strong safety net, and restore the American Dream for working men and women. But we must begin by facing unafraid the true nature and scope of the poverty crisis. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing along with my friend and colleague, Senator Bennet, the Ruedi Reservoir Water Allocation for Recovery of Endangered Fish Act. This bill will help address endangered fish issues in the Colorado River on Colorado's western slope by allowing the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to release the remaining un-marketed water in Ruedi Reservoir for recovery purposes.

The Ruedi Reservoir is a component of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation project, located on the Fryingpan River in western Colorado. The primary purposes of Ruedi are to provide storage of replacement water that allows out-of-priority diversions by the project to Colorado's east slope, and to provide marketable water for Colorado's west slope uses. A little more than one-third of Ruedi's marketable yield is currently under contract with limited prospects for foreseeable future contracting.

In 1999, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS, issued a programmatic biological opinion, PBO, for a critical reach of the Colorado River in Colorado related to recovery efforts for four fish species listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act, ESA. The PBO provides ESA compliance for five Reclamation projects: the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, including Ruedi Reservoir, the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, the Colbran Project, the Grand Valley Project, and the Silt Project.

The PBO also provides ESA compliance for all existing non-federal water projects and water users of the Colorado River upstream of the Gunnison River depleting approximately 1 million acre-feet per year and for 120,000 acre-feet per year of new depletions. As part of the PBO, Colorado water users agreed to provide 10,825 acre-feet per year for fish recovery from interim water sources until 2010, by which time permanent sources of water must be identified and agreements completed between water users and the FWS to provide the permanent source or sources of water.

Water users have identified the required permanent sources of water for endangered fish. Half of the 10,825 acre-feet per year requirement will be met from converting a historical agricultural water right and half from uncontracted, unobligated Ruedi Reservoir water. Reclamation has initiated NEPA compliance on Federal actions related to providing 10,825 acre-feet per year for endangered fish. This bill provides that the NEPA process be completed before authorizing Reclamation to apply the marketable yield to ESA benefits.

In regards to costs, the reimbursable capital costs for the Ruedi Reservoir were assigned separately in the authorizing legislation to east and west slope beneficiaries of the project. The east slope's obligation of $7.6 million was assigned to Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District under a conventional Reclamation master contract for the 28,000 acre-feet replacement pool. The obligation to repay Ruedi Reservoir's $9.3 million cost was assigned to the marketable yield for the west slope's benefit, and this was to be re-paid by water contracts from this pool for west slope uses. There is no traditional, master contract with a west slope project ``sponsor'' for this portion of the project's cost recovery. A little more than one-third of the available marketable yield pool is currently under contract. Given that there are limited prospects for foreseeable future contracting, permanent assignment of 5,412.5 acre-feet of water for endangered fish recovery is prudent and appropriate.

To effectuate this new arrangement, the bill would amend Public Law 106-392 to permanently assign 5,412.5 acre-feet of water in Ruedi Reservoir from the west slope's marketable yield pool to endangered fish recovery and associated cost reallocation to non-reimbursable purposes. In so doing, the bill would accomplish a number of goals such as ensure continued ESA compliance for all east and west slope Colorado River main stem water users upstream of the Gunnison River, provide water from Ruedi Reservoir at affordable rates for potential future contracting, and provide consistency with long-standing Congressional policy and Reclamation law that water dedicated to fish and wildlife purposes from Reclamation projects is a non-reimbursable cost. The bill would also ensure compliance with Colorado law regarding the purposes of Ruedi Reservoir, namely that the marketable yield pool is available for the benefit of west slope water users by providing ESA compliance for uses of this water.

As with most issues related to water in the west, and especially in Colorado, one facility like the Ruedi Reservoir can affect many interests and values. This bill would provide mutual benefits to water users throughout the Colorado River. It is an example where we can reach consensus to continue to provide needed water to communities while also preserving fish species.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing a revised version of the Naval Oil Shale Reserve Mineral Royalty Revenue Allocation Act that I previously introduced on August 4, 2009. This bill is the same as the one I previously introduced, but it corrects an error regarding the allocation of outstanding mineral royalties to four counties in Colorado instead of two--those four counties being Garfield, Rio Blanco, Mesa and Moffat. This revised version also makes it clear that the mineral royalty allocated to these four counties would not affect the normal allocations to those counties under the ``payment in lieu of taxes'' program. In all other respects, the bill and its purposes remain the same. It is a bill designed to release mineral royalty receipts to Colorado where the receipts were generated from gas development within this reserve on the western slope near Rifle, Colorado.

By way of background, in 1997, Congress transferred the federal Naval Oil Shale Reserve lands in western Colorado from the U.S. Department of Energy, DOE, to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, BLM, and directed the BLM to begin leasing the oil and gas resources under these lands. The Transfer Act also directed that the royalties recouped from this leasing program be set aside and the state portion not disbursed to Colorado until the Interior Department and the DOE certified that enough money from the royalty receipts accrued to satisfy two purposes.

The first was to provide funding to clean up the Anvil Points site on these lands. Anvil Points was an oil shale research facility that operated within the Naval Oil Shale Reserve for about 40 years. The facility was operated by DOE at one point, and private industry performed research there under contract. Waste material was produced at this facility from oil shale mining and processing. That waste accumulated in a pile of about 300,000 cubic yards of spent oil shale and other material--including arsenic and other heavy metals--which rests on slopes below the facility.

The second purpose was for the reimbursement of certain costs related to the transfer.

Following the transfer to the BLM, this area experienced significant natural gas leasing and, as a result, significant royalty revenue was generated.

On August 8, 2008, the DOI and DOE certified that adequate funds had accrued to accomplish the goals of cleanup and cost reimbursement and subsequently allocated all royalty revenue generated after this date according to the Mineral Leasing Act, which establishes that Colorado receive a proportionate share.

However, considerably more revenue accrued than was necessary to accomplish the cleanup and cost reimbursement goals. This bill would direct that this additional royalty revenue be allocated to Colorado according to the formulas and processes established for the disbursement of federal mineral royalties under the Mineral Leasing Act.

The bill also directs that the Colorado share of this remaining royalty revenue be allocated to the four Counties directly impacted by oil and gas leasing on the Naval Oil Shale Reserve lands--specifically, Garfield, Rio Blanco, Mesa, and Moffat Counties. Finally, this bill makes it clear that these royalty payments shall not affect the funds that these Counties normally receive under the ``payment in lieu of taxes''--or PILT--program.

Based on figures provided by the BLM, there remains approximately $17 million in these accounts for Colorado's royalty revenue share. This bill would make Colorado whole and provide it with its rightful share of the remaining royalty revenue to address critical local needs and impacts from the very leasing that produced the royalty revenue.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important piece of legislation on behalf of myself and Senator Kay Hagan of North Carolina, the Rural Physician Pipeline Act of 2009.

In making my way across my home State, I have listened to rural constituents from all over Colorado, and their message is clear: rural communities are being hit hard by America's health care crisis.

The life expectancy for women in many rural counties across the Nation has declined significantly over the past several decades, and health outcomes for Hispanic, Native American, and other minority populations are at unacceptable levels. Low-income rural Americans in these areas have very few options for affordable access to health care, if they have any at all.

Just over 2 weeks ago, I reached out to health care providers and professionals in rural regions of Colorado that have been most impacted by our ailing health system to hear directly from those on health care's front lines. While there are many factors contributing to the lower health outcomes we are seeing in these regions, including regulatory hurdles and low reimbursement rates for rural clinics and hospitals, the physicians and health professionals I spoke with were pretty clear about the overwhelming culprit: lack of primary care doctors.

Invoking imagery of the black bag toting doctor from decades ago making house calls to treat all that ailed you and your family, primary care physicians are still the lynchpin of our health care system. These physicians are the most familiar to Americans--they are the family doctor, general practitioner, and pediatrician, and they are many times the only point of contact that people have with the health care system. They are the first line of defense for keeping our families healthy.

Unfortunately, as the entire Nation suffers from a shortage of primary care doctors, our rural areas are hit the hardest. For a variety of socioeconomic and resource-related reasons, rural communities struggle to compete with big cities in recruiting from an already scarce pool of doctors. Some of these barriers are inherent to these areas--lack of job opportunities for spouses or a general lack of desire to live the lifestyle offered by our rural communities. But some barriers can be overcome if we use our resources wisely and work toward solutions to break them down, particularly with respect to how we as a nation train and compensate our front line doctors.

Medical school is where we develop and educate our new doctors, yet the 4 years of training they provide more often than not nudge students into more lucrative specialty care or toward practice in higher paying cities. While we certainly rely on our cardiologists, orthopedists, neurologists, and the many other medical specialists to provide the top-notch care that only they are trained to provide, we cannot continue to push students into these areas to the detriment of primary care. A balance needs to be found.

Today, I am proud to introduce, along with Senator Kay Hagan of North Carolina, the Rural Physician Pipeline Act of 2009, a bill that I hope can be part of the solution to our rural physician shortage. This legislation would make grants available to medical schools across the country for establishing programs designed to recruit students from rural areas who have a desire to practice in their hometowns. These programs would cultivate and strengthen the rural commitment of these future ``homegrown'' doctors, provide them the specialized training necessary to excel in the unique environment of sparsely populated regions, and assist them in finding postgraduate training programs that specialize in training doctors for practice in underserved rural communities.

Primary care doctors in rural areas face challenges that urban doctors do not. When a physician is the only health care provider for an entire county, he or she cannot refer patients down the hall to a specialist. The rural training programs encouraged by this bill would give students additional training in pediatrics, emergency medicine, obstetrics, and behavioral health, among other areas, which will allow them to better serve their communities and hopefully lower the disturbing disparities of health outcomes we have seen over the years.

I was prompted to write this bill after seeing the promising results of a similar program at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. Faculty like associate dean for rural health, Dr. Jack Westfall, and rural health track director, Dr. Mark Deutchman, have found that reaching out to rural communities for student recruitment and reinforcing their rural commitment throughout their training is the best way to get them back into the communities that need them most.

My hope is that an expansion of similar programs nationwide will provide a ``one, two punch'' for the rural physician workforce--it will train more rural doctors, and it will train them better.

I recognize that this legislation would play only a modest role in tackling the immense workforce challenges our health care system faces. We need more equitable payments for low-paid primary care doctors, loan-forgiveness programs must be expanded to allow medical graduates to practice primary care without going into budget-crushing debt, and graduate medical education dollars need to be more flexible so that rural residency programs can be established to train graduates.

Health care reform needs to address these areas.

As my fellow Senators and I depart Washington for our home States to listen to the ideas, needs, and concerns of our constituents over the remainder of the month, We do so with the knowledge that there is much to accomplish

upon our return. And as Congress continues working toward a health reform bill that puts the patient in charge of his or her health care choices, brings costs down, ensures financial sustainability, and brings security and stability for all Americans, there is one other thing we must also insist: health reform will not leave rural America behind.

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