Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today, on the 57th anniversary of the start of the Korean war, to introduce legislation to help honor American veterans who served our Nation during that war by granting a Federal charter to the Korean War Veterans Association, KWVA, a nonprofit fraternal veterans' organization. A companion measure is being introduced in the House by the distinguished majority leader, Steny Hoyer, and Representative Sam Johnson, who have led this effort in previous Congresses along with my predecessor, Senator Paul Sarbanes.

The Korean war is sometimes referred to as the ``Forgotten War,'' because it has been overshadowed by World War II and the Vietnam war, and its importance has often been overlooked in American history. But for the nearly 1.2 million American veterans of the Korean war still alive today, the war is anything but forgotten. During the 3-year course of the war, some 5.7 million Americans were called to serve, under some of the most adverse and trying circumstances ever faced in wartime, for the cause of freedom. Alongside Korean and United Nations allies, our forces fought with extraordinary courage and valor. By the time the Korean Armistice Agreement was signed in July 1953, more than 36,000 Americans had died, 103,284 had been wounded, 7,140 were captured, and 664 were missing.

Granting a Federal charter to the Korean War Veterans Association would give our Nation an opportunity to honor veterans who served in that war, as well as those who have served subsequently in defense of the Republic of Korea. The KWVA is the only fraternal veterans' organization in the United States devoted exclusively to Korean war veterans and the only U.S. member of the International Federation of Korean War Veterans Associations.

Incorporated in 1985, the 20,000-member charitable association is also one of the few veterans' service organizations in America that has not been recognized with a Federal charter. These veterans are a source of strength and pride for our country. While we cannot repay the debt we owe them for the sacrifices they made, we can and should acknowledge and commemorate their service and help the association to expand its mission and further its charitable and benevolent causes.

This recognition for the KWVA is long overdue, and I am hopeful that this year, Congress will act swiftly to approve this measure. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today, on the 57th anniversary of the start of the Korean war, to introduce legislation to help honor American veterans who served our Nation during that war by granting a Federal charter to the Korean War Veterans Association, KWVA, a nonprofit fraternal veterans' organization. A companion measure is being introduced in the House by the distinguished majority leader, Steny Hoyer, and Representative Sam Johnson, who have led this effort in previous Congresses along with my predecessor, Senator Paul Sarbanes.

The Korean war is sometimes referred to as the ``Forgotten War,'' because it has been overshadowed by World War II and the Vietnam war, and its importance has often been overlooked in American history. But for the nearly 1.2 million American veterans of the Korean war still alive today, the war is anything but forgotten. During the 3-year course of the war, some 5.7 million Americans were called to serve, under some of the most adverse and trying circumstances ever faced in wartime, for the cause of freedom. Alongside Korean and United Nations allies, our forces fought with extraordinary courage and valor. By the time the Korean Armistice Agreement was signed in July 1953, more than 36,000 Americans had died, 103,284 had been wounded, 7,140 were captured, and 664 were missing.

Granting a Federal charter to the Korean War Veterans Association would give our Nation an opportunity to honor veterans who served in that war, as well as those who have served subsequently in defense of the Republic of Korea. The KWVA is the only fraternal veterans' organization in the United States devoted exclusively to Korean war veterans and the only U.S. member of the International Federation of Korean War Veterans Associations.

Incorporated in 1985, the 20,000-member charitable association is also one of the few veterans' service organizations in America that has not been recognized with a Federal charter. These veterans are a source of strength and pride for our country. While we cannot repay the debt we owe them for the sacrifices they made, we can and should acknowledge and commemorate their service and help the association to expand its mission and further its charitable and benevolent causes.

This recognition for the KWVA is long overdue, and I am hopeful that this year, Congress will act swiftly to approve this measure. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Monday, June 25, 2007, at 11 a.m., in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Excessive Speculation In The Natural Gas Market.''

Mr. President, today I honor the memory of the Honorable Ralph M. Burnett, a Maryland district court judge and a pioneer in the fight against prostate cancer. He was an exemplary citizen of our State, and his contributions to the Maryland judicial system and the advocacy groups he worked with will not be forgotten. On May 9, 2007, Judge Burnett died from complications related to prostate cancer at the age of 64.

Judge Burnett was born in 1943 in Seneca Falls, NY. After graduating from St. Paul's High School in 1961, he earned a bachelor's degree from Dickinson College in 1965. A Vietnam veteran, Judge Burnett was stationed in Korea as a first lieutenant in the U.S. Army until 1969. After returning to America, he enrolled in the Baltimore School of Law, where he received his law degree in 1972.

Judge Burnett began his private practice in Oakland, MD, in 1972 and he lived in the Oakland area until his passing. He served as Garrett County's State attorney from 1974 until 1978, and in December 1993, he was appointed as an associate district court judge for Garrett County by then-Maryland Governor William Donald Schaefer. Judge Burnett was a member of the executive committee of the Maryland Judicial Conference and served on the editorial board of Justice Matters until his death.

After being diagnosed with prostate cancer in 1996, Judge Burnett became a devoted advocate and tenacious leader for the prostate cancer community. In 1997, he was elected to the board of the National Prostate Cancer Coalition, NPCC, and served as chairman of the organization from 1999 until 2001. Under Judge Burnett's leadership, the National Prostate Cancer Coalition tripled in size during his tenure. After stepping down as chairman, Judge Burnett remained active as a member of the board and continued to pursue patient rights and greater treatment options for men with prostate cancer.

Judge Burnett was an advocate for Johns Hopkins University's Specialized Program of Research Excellence, SPORE, and also served on Department of Defense, DOD, research panels. As a member of the DOD Prostate Cancer Research Program Integration Panel, Judge Burnett worked to find the best ways to leverage the Department's investment in prostate cancer research. He was also a committed member of the Consortium Panel of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program, which discovered the lethal phenotype that causes prostate cancer.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending condolences to Judge Burnett's family and friends and in expressing appreciation for his life of community service and his commitment to prostate cancer research.

Mr. President, today is the 142nd anniversary of Juneteenth, a day when our Nation celebrates the complete abolition of slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves beginning January 1, 1863, and brought to an end what Abraham Lincoln called ``two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil.'' America's Civil War had ended at Appomattox, VA, in April 1865, but it was not until June 19, 1865, 2 months later, and a full 2\1/2\ years after the Emancipation Proclamation that the news finally reached Galveston, TX. That day has become known throughout our Nation as ``Juneteenth.''

In communities across the country, Juneteenth is an occasion for all Americans to reflect on a tragic period that shaped our Nation and continues to influence us yet today. For Marylanders, Juneteenth is a time to reflect upon our own history. Slavery existed in Maryland from the State's inception as an English colony. In 1664, slavery was officially sanctioned by law, and it thrived until 1864 when it was abolished with ratification of a new State constitution.

In 1820, Maryland's population was approximately 400,000, less than one-tenth our current size. The slightly more than 100,000 slaves in Maryland accounted for one-quarter of Maryland's population, while the 39,000 free Black Marylanders accounted for nearly 10 percent. By 1860, the State's overall population had grown considerably, while the number of slaves had declined to about 87,000, or 13 percent, while the number of slaves had free Blacks numbered about 83,000 or 12 percent.

Although Maryland was a slave State, it did not secede from the Union. And the contributions of Marylanders to the Union cause and the abolitionist movement did much to tilt the national balance in favor of freedom. Antislavery activists--Black and White, free and enslaved-- took tremendous risks for the cause of freedom. Harriet Tubman, who was born Araminta Ross in Dorchester County, and Frederick Douglass, who was born Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey in Talbot County, were both born into slavery, put their own lives on the line as courageous crusaders for freedom. Having escaped their own captors, they dedicated their lives to fighting for the emancipation of all slaves. They are true American heroes.

This year, the Maryland General Assembly passed a resolution that I will quote here in part:

Resolved by the General Assembly of Maryland, That the

State of Maryland expresses profound regret for the role that

Maryland played in instituting and maintaining slavery and

for the discrimination that was slavery's legacy; and be it

further

Resolved, That the State of Maryland commits itself to the

formation of a more perfect union among its citizens

regardless of color, creed, or race; and be it further

Resolved, That the State of Maryland recommits itself to

the principle that all people are equal and equally endowed

with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of

happiness.

Today, on the 142nd anniversary of Juneteenth, I wish to commend my former colleagues in the Maryland General Assembly for this resolution, and I urge all my colleagues in the Senate to join me in celebrating Juneteenth and honoring those who made that day possible.

Madam President, I yield myself 3 minutes.

The amendment I am proposing with Senators Mikulski, Snowe, Dodd, Kerry, Reed, Kennedy, Whitehouse, Boxer, and Lieberman would restore the authority of our State and local governments to protect the environment and ensure public safety with respect to the siting of liquefied natural gas--LNG--terminals within their States. This measure simply gives our States a say as to whether these kinds of facilities should be built within their boundaries and, if so, the exact location.

It amends the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Under that law, the Army Corps of Engineers, acting for the Secretary of the Army, is responsible for issuing permits to anyone who wants to build a structure in and above waters of the United States. These are often called section 10 permits because that is where the provision is found in the Rivers and Harbors Act.

I wish to clarify, we are not changing the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Their authority to site is not changed by this amendment. What we are doing is requiring the Army Corps to work with our States before they issue their permits under the Rivers and Harbors Act. This is not about stopping LNG plants from being sited. Today, there are six in our country. One is located in my State of Maryland in the right location. This amendment is about siting

LNG plants where they should be sited and having confidence in federalism and in our States. Our States will act responsibly, but they should be consulted before LNG plants are sited. That is what this amendment will do. We want to make sure they are located in the right locations.

My colleague from Rhode Island pointed out pretty vividly the concerns he has about a site up in the New England area. AES Sparrows Point LNG and Mid-Atlantic Express have proposed building a new terminal near a densely populated area of Baltimore. That is the wrong location for an LNG plant. If we had consultation and working with the States, we would be able to site these facilities without the risk that they will be located in areas where they should not be. That is what the amendment is about. In our area, our congressional delegation, Governor O'Malley, Baltimore County Executive Jim Smith, and other local officials have all come out against this particular location because of the risk to the community, because of the risk to the environment.

This amendment is very simple. It requires the Army Corps to work with our States before an LNG license could be issued under section 10 permits. It is the right way for federalism to work. We should take advantage of each State's unique understanding of the issues it faces and make sure that expertise is considered in a meaningful way. That is why the Coastal States Organization supports this amendment. They believe it is the right sharing of how LNG plants should be sited.

I urge my colleagues to respect federalism. Respect the goodwill of our States. Respect the fact that we want LNG facilities and terminals to be located, but we want them to be located in the right location.

I yield my colleague from Maryland 5 minutes.

Mr. President, let me thank both of my friends from New Mexico for their leadership on this bill. They have brought forward a good bill--a bill that I am proud to support and a bill that I hope will be strengthened by the amendment process and that will allow us to become energy independent because we need to for national security reasons, for economic reasons, and for environmental reasons.

But it is important that we get it right and that LNG facilities and terminals be placed in the right locations. My friend from New Mexico says this is a veto power by the State. It is not veto power by the State, no more so than you think FERC today has dictatorial powers on siting LNG plants. What my amendment is trying to do is to make sure our States work with the Federal Government and with our Federal agencies on appropriately siting LNG facilities. That is how federalism should work.

I have confidence in my Governor. He was elected by the people of Maryland. He is going to do the right thing. He makes tough decisions. We make tough decisions. But we should work together because that is the way we are going to be able to get the type of energy policy in this country that will achieve all three objectives, and that is security for energy independence, economic security, and environmental security for this country.

We need to engage our States. We should. This amendment does not change the law that was passed 2 years ago. FERC power remains the same. It amends the Rivers and Harbors Act dealing with the Army Corps of Engineers. That is what it should be; they should be consulting and working with the States before they issue their permits. This is a real problem. There are dozens of applications pending today. We will be able to site LNG plants, but let's site them in the right location. Let's not site them, as my friend from Rhode Island said, in a very sensitive part of Massachusetts or Rhode Island that literally would block recreational use and endanger communities. Let's not site them in a place right next to downtown Baltimore, which we know is going to present a risk--not just an accidental risk but a terrorist target. That is not where we should site LNG plants.

So we can get it right. We can get our energy policy right. I urge my colleagues to respect federalism, respect the fact that the States and the Federal Government should be working together on the energy policies of this

country so we truly become energy independent for the right reasons. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feinstein be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 1520 be made the pending amendment for the purposes of modifying it, and I send a modification to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this amendment would restore the authority of State and local governments to protect the environment and ensure public safety with respect to siting of liquefied natural gas, LNG terminals. This measure simply gives our States a say in whether these kinds of facilities, LNG facilities, should be built within their boundaries and, if so, their exact location.

The amendment does not eliminate FERC's siting authority. It doesn't amend the FERC statute at all. It amends the Army Corps' permitting statute and requires that the Army Corps work with our States in siting LNG facilities.

The amendment is common sense, one that engages our States as partners in serious decisionmaking authority as to where an LNG plant should be located. This bill is all about securing America's future through energy independence. We need to work with our States. It should be federalism. We should respect the authorities of our States and the sincerity of our Governors, and this bill restores that type of balance so that the States are involved in protecting the environment at the location of LNG facilities.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay the pending amendment aside.

I call up amendment No. 1520 and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, so many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have come to this floor to talk about the need for this Nation to become energy independent. In fact, I think each Member of this body believes this country should be energy independent and can become energy independent. We need to be independent for many reasons.

First and foremost is the issue of national security. We should not be dependent for oil upon some country halfway around the world that disagrees with our foreign policy, which affects what we can do internationally. We should be independent for national security reasons.

We should also be energy independent for economic reasons. Yesterday in the Small Business Committee we held a hearing on the impact that increased gasoline prices are having on small businesses in our communities. It is having an impact on our entire economy. Again, the OPEC countries decide what the price of oil will be and it affects gasoline prices, energy prices, and our economy. We need to become energy independent for the economic security of America.

Yes, we need to become energy independent for environment issues. Global climate change is a real danger to this country and we need to have an energy policy that will also make us friendlier toward our environment.

For all these reasons we need to become energy independent. We are not today. We import from other countries over one-third of our energy needs in this country and, of course, a significant amount of that is oil. I believe we can become energy independent in 10 years. I think, if we have the national will and the energy policies, it can be accomplished.

The amendment I sent before this body today sets as our goal producing 90 percent of our energy needs by the year 2017. Each of us has ideas as to how to achieve energy independence. There have been many good suggestions that have been brought forward by my colleagues. I have introduced legislation that would require the Federal Government to construct its buildings to LEED Silver standards. Buildings represent one-third of the energy use in this country. Mr. President, 38 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions come from buildings. That, of course, is the major greenhouse gas. Federal buildings consume 40 percent of the Federal Government's energy bill, $3.73 billion in 2002. The GSA is already using LEED standards in encouraging Federal construction, but all new Federal facilities should meet these new LEED Silver standards.

I ask my colleagues to go down the road here a couple of miles to the new NOAA facility located in Suitland, MD, and see the type of construction we should be building that gives our Federal Government the necessary facility to conduct its business but also is one that will save us a considerable amount of energy.

LEED-certified buildings use 32 percent less energy, 26 percent less natural gas, and 36 percent total less energy used. I mention that because that is just one way this Nation can move toward energy independence.

We know we will be having a debate on the Senate floor next week on the CAFE standards, on the efficiencies of our automobile and light truck engines. Yes, efficiency can save us a lot of energy and can help make us energy independent.

Let me mention another example, the automobile tires we use. If we used the right tires, we could save millions of barrels of gasoline every year. Public transit, I can tell you in my own State, the Purple Line is not only needed to get people from one place to the other in this region, it will save us considerable energy. Investment in public transit will help with efficiency in this country. We need to develop alternative and renewable energy sources. There are so many potentials.

Solar power. We invented the ability to use solar power for energy. The technologies have come from America. BP Solar, which is located in Fredrick, MD, is a leading example of what we can do. But we do not use solar energy anywhere near as much as we should in this country.

Wind is available, but we do not use that technology as much as we should. Cellulosic ethanol or gasoline is another major potential source for becoming energy independent.

Biodiesel. We have a person from the eastern shore, Berlin, MD, who has a biodiesel plant. And that county, Worcester County, uses their fleet of diesel trucks and the biodiesel saving us energy. So alternatives and renewable sources can help us.

We also need to fund new technology for developing clean-burning coal and the next generation of nuclear power and the use of hydrogen power. I mention that because these are the discussions we are having on the floor of this body, ways in which we can become energy independent by being more efficient in the use of energy, by developing alternative and renewable energy sources and putting our resources into research for the next generation of technology to meet our energy needs.

So what does my amendment do? My amendment establishes a commission to monitor our program and to keep us on track to accomplish our goal, to be energy independent by 2017. It allows for midcourse adjustments by the commission, making recommendations on a 2-year cycle, so we can make those cycles of adjustments. We keep control, the Congress keeps control of the energy policies of the country. But we have a bipartisan way in which we can make sure we live up to our commitment to be energy independent in 10 years.

If our constituents know we are going to accomplish this goal, they are going to be willing to do what is necessary so we achieve this energy independence. It maintains the responsibility of this body and the other body across the hall. It is our Apollo commitment. I have heard more Senators use that term, ``Apollo commitment.'' It is our Apollo commitment.

It took us 10 years. We made that commitment to put a person on the Moon, and we succeeded. If we make the commitment today to be energy independent in 10 years, we can achieve that goal. That is what this amendment does. I hope it will not be a controversial amendment. I hope we can get it done so we put into this legislation our commitment to truly become energy independent.

Mr. President, I have a second amendment I want to call up. I want to make sure there is--I know there is a protocol of alternating amendments. If there is no objection, I was going to ask unanimous consent--I see that the Senator from New Mexico is here.

Let me make sure. I have a second amendment I wanted to call up. I know we are alternating.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment I am introducing with Senators Mikulski, Dodd, Reed, Kennedy, Whitehouse, and Snowe would restore the authority of State and local governments to protect the environment and ensure public safety with respect to the siting of liquefied natural gas, LNG, terminals within their States.

This measure simply gives our States a say in whether these kinds of facilities should be built within their boundaries and, if so, the exact location.

The amendment adds a provision to the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Under that law, the Army Corps of Engineers, acting for the Secretary of the Army, is responsible for issuing permits to anyone who wants to build a structure in and above the waters of the United States. These are often called section 10 permits because that is where the provision is found in the Rivers and Harbors Act.

Currently, the Army Corps issues all such permits. In the narrow conditions outlined in our amendment, the Corps would have to get the concurrence of the affected State before issuing a permit to build an LNG terminal. That is all, just work with the States. It is just federalism. That is what federalism is all about, the Federal Government working with the States. The States certainly have a direct interest on the siting of LNG plants.

This amendment does not limit the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission, FERC. FERC will still be able to make its decisions regarding siting, construction, and operation of LNG facilities. FERC has that blanket authority. So be it. But the Army Corps of Engineers also has a say in whether such a facility can be built in the waters of the United States. Today we turn to the Corps for relief.

In recent years, the LNG industry has proposed building dozens of new LNG terminals throughout the United States, as LNG's share of the natural gas market continues to grow rapidly. Many of these terminals are being planned near populated areas or environmentally sensitive coastal areas. We are simply seeking an opportunity for States to have a meaningful opportunity to take those safety and environmental issues into account.

Maryland is already home of one of the six operating LNG terminals in the United States. This bill would have no effect whatsoever on that facility. In fact, that facility is generally welcomed by its host community and is supported by county and local elected officials. That is how it should be. Companies that want to build an LNG terminal should work with the local community and address all of the safety and security concerns. It can be done. We have the proof of it in the State of Maryland.

This amendment is not designed to stop LNG terminals. It is solely to make sure that such projects are sited properly. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. AES Sparrows Point

LNG and Mid-Atlantic Express have proposed building a new terminal near a densely populated area of Baltimore. Our area congressional delegation, Senator Mikulski and I, Governor O'Malley, Baltimore County Executive Jim Smith, and local officials and community leaders believe this project poses unacceptable public safety, economic and environmental risks, and does not serve the public interest.

Yet under current law, FERC now has exclusive authority to approve onshore LNG terminal siting applications. But these facilities still must obtain environmental permits, including a section 10 permit under the provisions of the Rivers and Harbors Act.

It is vital, in my opinion, that State and local authorities and the public have a meaningful opportunity to participate in the decisionmaking process about where these plants are located. An accident or a terrorist act at an LNG terminal could have a devastating impact on the communities nearby, so they should have a voice in the siting.

The amendment I am introducing today seeks to restore that authority and gives Governors some real clout. The proponents of building LNG terminals should have to negotiate in good faith with States and local communities if they want those communities to bear the risk associated with such operations.

My amendment does not prohibit the construction of LNG terminals. It merely levels the playing field with regard to determining where they will be located. It is what federalism should be all about. We should respect that. This amendment moves us in that direction.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, let me thank my friend from Colorado for his courtesy.

This Nation needs energy independence for many reasons. We need it for

our national security. We should not be making decisions on foreign policy based upon our oil needs from countries that disagree with our foreign policy objectives.

We need energy independence for economic reasons. Today, we held a hearing in the Committee on Small Business and pointed out the dangers to our economy because of the unpredictability of gasoline prices.

We need energy independence because of environmental issues. For this reason, I want to emphasize why I have great respect for my colleague from our neighboring State of Virginia, but I very much disagree with the amendment that he has submitted, and I urge my colleagues to reject the Warner amendment.

For 25 years, the Outer Continental Shelf moratorium and the long- standing Presidential OSC withdrawals have protected our coasts. There are several reasons I oppose the Warner amendment. Virginia and Maryland are neighboring States, and we share a lot. We share a coast, we share the Chesapeake Bay, and we share a special way of life because of the Chesapeake Bay.

The coast and the bay are critically important to our region because of tourism, because of commercial and recreational sports fishing, because of the real estate impacts, and because of the quality of life. Billions of dollars in our economy depend upon the health of our coasts, and many jobs are dependent upon what we do in protecting our shores.

Gas drilling presents an unacceptable risk, and we should not allow it to take place. I heard my friend say this is a Virginia issue. No, it is not a Virginia issue. It will have a direct impact, or could have a direct impact on my State of Maryland and on neighboring States. Liquid gas condensed is highly toxic to marine life. Waste discharges, mud spills, everything you can conceive of related to drilling presents a true risk to the environment in my State and surrounding States. We don't need to incur this type of a risk.

Now, we don't have to look very far to see what has happened historically with spills. In 2002, there was a spill 150 miles--not 50 miles but 150 miles--off the coast of Spain. It affected 1,000 beaches in Spain and France. If there is a spill during unpredictable weather, it can be transmitted hundreds of miles and can affect an entire region. So this is a very important decision we are making as to whether to open up drilling along the Virginia coast, which will affect our entire east coast of the United States.

The main tragedy is that we don't need to do this. We can't drill our way to energy independence. The United States has but 5 percent of the world's reserves in oil and gas. That is not the way we are going to be able to achieve energy independence. The bill that we have before us is a balanced bill. It recognizes first and foremost that we need to become energy independent through efficiency, saving energy use, using less energy in our buildings, using less energy in transportation, and conserving our energy use. That is the first way to do it.

On alternative and renewable energy sources, yes, we can achieve a lot toward energy independence, and we also should be doing a lot more in research to determine ways in which we can use energy more efficiently and produce more alternative and renewable energy sources. But we are not going to drill our way out of our energy problems.

As I said in the beginning, energy independence is important for our security, for our economy, and our environment. I believe the Warner amendment will take us a step backwards in trying to make sure as we present policies to make us energy independent that we also protect our environment. I urge my colleagues to reject the Warner amendment.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that Mike Burke, a detailee serving in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of H.R. 6.

Mr. President, Maryland is proud to honor its sons and daughters whose accomplishments touch the lives of others. We are particularly elated when an individual's talents and achievements are recognized throughout the Nation and beyond.

Chaplain Barry C. Black is one such Marylander, born and raised with five sisters and two brothers in Baltimore by a prudent and faithful mother, Pearline Black. He has penned his life story in a recent book titled, ``From the Hood to the Hill, `` stating that, ``in spite of unpromising beginnings, my siblings and I bucked the statistics and turned out fine (O)ne of the boys even became a two-star Navy admiral and the first African-American Navy chief of chaplains. Later, he was selected as the sixty-second chaplain of the United States Senate. I am that child.'' These are but a few of the stellar accomplishments in a life that serves as inspiration for us all.

Even though I have only been a Senator for 5 months, I have spent several mornings opening the Senate's sessions, and I am always inspired by Chaplain Black's serene manner, the conviction in his voice, the faith present in his life, and the ministry he has accepted. In addition to leading daily prayer before each session of the Senate, Chaplain Black and his dedicated staff conduct Bible studies and attend to the spiritual needs of our Nation's leaders and the thousands of staff members who work in the Senate. His invaluable leadership and service to our country are worthy of both recognition and celebration.

Mr. President, this afternoon the Senate Black Legislative Staff Caucus will honor the Reverend Barry C. Black, the Chaplain of the Senate, with a resolution and the presentation of a plaque honoring him for a distinguished career of leadership and service to the Senate and the larger community. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be printed in the Record.

Senate Black Legislative Staff Caucus Resolution Recognizing the Service of Chaplain Barry C. Black, the First African-American Chaplain

of the United States Senate

Whereas Chaplain Black is a spiritual leader who, through

his faith in GOD, overcame many obstacles that profoundly

impacted him, taking his humble beginnings and used them to

set his feet on higher ground;

Whereas Barry Black was born the fourth of eight children

on All Saints Day, November 1, 1948 to parents Pearline Bull

Black and Lester Clayton Black in Baltimore, Maryland;

Whereas Barry Black attended Pine Forge Academy and

furthered his education, becoming an alumnus of Oakwood

College, Andrews University, North Carolina Central

University, Eastern Baptist Seminary, Salve Regina

University, and United States International University (now

Alliant International University);

Whereas Barry Black received Master's Degrees in Divinity,

Counseling, and Management, a Doctorate degree in Ministry,

and a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Psychology;

Whereas Barry Black married Brenda Pearsall on June 17,

1973, whom he met during his junior year at Oakwood College.

They would later have three children: Barry II, Brendan, and

Bradford;-

Whereas Barry Black was commissioned in 1976 as chaplain in

the United States Navy, eventually to become the Navy

Chaplain Corps' first African-American Admiral, Deputy Chief

of chaplains in 1997, and Chief of Navy Chaplains in 2000;

Whereas Barry Black was responsible for the spiritual care

of servicemen from 190 religious traditions, advised and

provided ministry to the Chief of Naval Operations, the

Secretaries of the Navy and Defense, and the Commandants of

the Marine Corps and Coast Guard;

Whereas Barry Black served in the U.S. Navy for 27 years,

retiring on August 15, 2003;

Whereas Barry Black's personal decorations include the

Legion of Merit Medal, Defense Meritorious Service Medal,

Meritorious Service Medals (two awards), Navy and Marine

Corps Commendation Medals (two awards), and numerous unit

awards, campaign and service medals. He was also selected

from one hundred twenty-seven nominees for the 1995 NAACP

Renowned Service Award for his contribution to equal

opportunity and civil rights;

Whereas on July 7, 2003, Barry Black was appointed as the

62nd Chaplain of the United States Senate by Senate Majority

Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), becoming the first African-

American and the first Seventh-day Adventist to serve in this

position: Now, therefore be it

Resolved, That the United States Senate Black Legislative

Staff Caucus recognizes Chaplain Barry C. Black's exemplary

achievements; his leadership and personal integrity in

service to the United States Senate and the larger community;

and his altruism and commitment to public service, touching

the lives of many who bear witness to his spiritual

leadership.

Mr. President, will the Senator from New Hampshire yield for a unanimous consent request as to order of speakers following him?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the Senator from New Hampshire, I be recognized for up to 6 minutes, and then the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, be recognized for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, earlier today the other body passed S. 5, the embryonic stem cell research bill, by a vote of 247 to 176. This legislation offers hope to literally 100 million people in our own country.

I think of the individual names. Mr. President, I had a friend in law school, Larry Katz, who died of ALS. If you have ever seen someone who suffered from that disease, you know how cruel it can be. So today I think of Larry Katz and I think of those individuals who are suffering from diseases in which embryonic stem cell research holds out hope of a cure, of a way of dealing with these diseases. I think of Josh Basil. Josh was a young person who was on the beaches in Delaware. A wave hit him, picked him up, turned him upside down, and fractured his spine. He is a quadriplegic today. He has hope that he will walk again. He exercises and works out every day to keep his muscles in great shape. But he wants us to meet him halfway. He wants us to give the tools to the scientists so they can look at ways in which we can regenerate the damaged parts of his body.

Embryonic stem cell research holds out tremendous hope. It allows, we hope, for the regeneration of damaged cells. This is incredible work which is being done at research institutions in this country. I am proud of the work being done at Johns Hopkins University in my own State and the University of Maryland Medical Center and NIH looking at ALS, looking at spinal cord injuries, looking at Alzheimer's, heart disease, Parkinson's, diabetes, and looking at embryonic stem cell research as perhaps finding the answer to these diseases.

Dr. John Gearhart and Dr. Douglas Kerr at Johns Hopkins have helped me to understand what embryonic stem cell research could mean. They have taken paralyzed mice and have been able to get movement by injecting embryonic stem cells into mice.

The United States has been the leader in the world on research. We have seen incredible discoveries in this country. Yet, today, we are seeing researchers leave the United States because of the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. They are going to other countries where those restrictions do not apply, robbing this Nation and robbing the world of the collaborative research that could be taking place. The reason, frankly, dates back to August 9, 2001, when President Bush issued his Executive order.

We have a lot more information today than we did in 2001. In 2001, we thought there were 60 to 78 stem cell lines available that researchers could use. We were wrong. There were only about 22 lines available. Most are contaminated. We don't have the diversity we need in order that scientists can really look at embryonic stem cell research and get the best potential out of

that type of research. We know that today. If we knew then what we know now, we would have realized those restrictions are not workable.

S. 5 is a bipartisan bill. It deals with embryos that are currently in existence. It sets up the ethical framework to do the proper research. You cannot create an embryo for the purpose of sale for research. It has to be in existence today. It has to have the consent of the donor. You can't get financial incentives for doing it. They have to be embryos which were going to be used for in vitro fertilization which now are going to be destroyed. It allows those embryos to be used for legitimate medical research. It is the right thing to do for this country. It is the right thing to do, to give hope to 100 million people in this country. Now it has passed this body, it has passed the other body. We have a bill that provides the right balance for us to move forward as the world leader in medical research.

Dr. Elias Zerhouni, the Director of NIH, said:

From my standpoint, it is clear today that American science

will be better served and the Nation will be better served if

we let our scientists have access to more stem cell lines.

Dr. Zerhouni is our leader on this issue in this country.

We are now at another crossroads where we can take a choice and move forward so America can continue to lead the world in appropriate research to try to end the misery of suffering for those who have ALS or spinal cord injuries or Alzheimer's, heart disease, Parkinson's--so many different types of diseases in which embryonic stem cell research holds out such promise.

I urge the President of the United States, don't let your veto stand in the way. Don't do it. Move forward with a bill that is bipartisan, a bill that has been vetted properly among all communities.

This is a bill which, we understand, provides the right framework for research in this country. We have that opportunity if only the President will sign this bill and allow our scientists to do the appropriate work to help the people of this Nation and literally help the people of the world. I urge the President of the United States to sign S. 5, which will shortly be presented to him.

At this point, I have been informed that the Senator from California does not intend to use her time.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on May 16, 2007, I attended SSG Jay Edward Martin's funeral. A soldier born and raised in Baltimore, MD, Sergeant Martin lost his life in service to our country. He was 29 years old. I rise today to pay tribute to his life and his sacrifice.

Sergeant Martin and two others were killed Sunday, April 29, when an improvised explosive device detonated near their vehicle during combat operations in Baghdad.

Sergeant Martin was not new to the military. After joining the Army in November 1997, he served for nearly 2 years in Germany and Bosnia. He was then stationed at Fort Irwin in California as an Army recruiter. But as a recruiter, Sergeant Martin grew restless and chose to go to Baghdad. A childhood friend remembers Jay's explanation: ``I'm supposed to be fighting for my country; I can't sit in an office.'' An experienced soldier, Sergeant Martin knew the risks and challenges he would face, and this knowledge makes his decision to serve all the more admirable.

Sergeant Martin had been scheduled for a 2-week break from Iraq in April. But in a selfless move--one that Jay's family describes as typical of his generous spirit--he allowed a fellow soldier whose wife just had a baby to take his place.

Jay is remembered by those who knew him for his determination, bravery, and devotion to service. Jay displayed remarkable leadership, focus, and determination even as he suffered setbacks in his young life. Jay's mother died when he was only 8 years old, but Jay remained focused on his dream of becoming a pilot and joining the military. An aunt, Lori Martin-Graham, recalls that he would talk about military service for hours with her husband, who had served in the Navy.

Sergeant Martin spoke fervently about the importance of college and attended Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, FL. He

left after a year when he realized his poor vision would prevent him from becoming a pilot. Jay moved forward and joined the Army. ``Jay was always . . . positive, ambitious,'' remembered a friend. ``He was always your good conscience.''

As one of Sergeant Martin's sisters, Lark Adams, put it, ``He was just a shining star. He followed the rules. He did what he was supposed to. He was an example to everyone.''

After his death, Jay's fiance Maria Padilla, explained that he would have wanted to see those close to him ``laughing because he left us doing what he loved. He left us being the soldier he was so proud of being.''

I hope his family and all who loved Jay will find comfort in that image of the proud and selfless soldier who won several awards including the Army Commendation Medal and the Army Good Conduct Medal. But I also hope they find joy in their memories of the young man who devised hide-and-seek strategy with his friends, who was a swim and track star at Forest Park High School, who took such great pride in his Dodge Stratus RT, who played video games in his grandmother's kitchen, and who debated the future of the F-14 with his uncle.

My thoughts and prayers go out to Jay's father Dwight Martin and stepmother Penny Martin; his grandfather Harry Martin; his four sisters, Lark, Dove, Raven and Shannon; his fiance Maria, and all the other relatives and friends who are bereaved. We honor him as a hero and together mourn his loss.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 214 submitted earlier today.

Madam President, this resolution brings to the Senate's attention the ongoing plight of Dr. Haleh Esfandiari. Dr. Esfandiari is the director of the Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars here in Washington, DC. She holds dual citizenship with the United States and Iran and visits her ailing 93-year-old mother twice a year in Iran.

During her return to the United States on her last visit, Dr. Esfandiari's vehicle was robbed by three knife-wielding men. She lost her luggage and her travel documents. Later, when she requested the replacement documents, agents of Iran's Ministry of Intelligence began to question her for hours over the course of several days. The Ministry of Intelligence asked Dr. Esfandiari questions about her work and her work at the Woodrow Wilson International Center. The Woodrow Wilson International Center supplied exhaustive material about her education and information about her mission.

Dr. Esfandiari was essentially kept under house arrest for 10 weeks. On May 7 she was informed she must return to the Intelligence Ministry on May 8. Upon honoring the summons, Dr. Esfandiari was immediately taken into custody and jailed. She has been denied contact with her family, her attorneys, and the outside world. Earlier this week, news reports stated that Dr. Esfandiari is suspected of espionage and supporting the ``soft revolution'' against the regime in Iran.

Dr. Esfandiari is well known and well respected as a Middle East scholar. She has dedicated her professional career to bringing people together from the West to gain greater understanding of the Middle East and to gain common ground.

Increasingly, Iran has begun to stifle debate among different people and international exchanges.

The Department of State has called upon the Iranians to release Dr. Esfandiari. I am joined in this resolution by Senators Mikulski, Biden, Lieberman, Smith, Clinton, and Dodd, which encourages the State Department to keep up the pressure on the Iranians to do the right thing and release Dr. Esfandiari.

I also wish to recognize the solid effort of the Woodrow Wilson International Center and its staff, led by our former colleague in the House of Representatives, Lee Hamilton, for its steadfast support of Dr. Esfandiari.

Finally, I wish to express my support for Dr. Esfandiari's family during this trying time. She has a strong family and dozens of caring friends who refuse to give up her plight and refuse to let the Iranians suppress a beacon of peace and understanding.

This is outrageous. The Iranians need to do the right thing and allow her to return home here in the United States.

I can tell my colleagues that this body needs to stand in strong opposition to what the Iranians are doing, urging them to release this U.S. citizen so she can return here to her home.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating there to be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, for the sake of our security, economy and environment, America needs a comprehensive energy policy that is independent of foreign energy sources and weans America off of fossil fuels.

Last year, I introduced comprehensive energy legislation that would address the many challenges across our economy to achieving sustainable energy independence. I am very hopeful that this Congress will soon take steps to bring forward a comprehensive energy bill that will address many of the areas I believe are essential to this effort. I have cosponsored many of the individual planks of this comprehensive effort, and today I want to address how we can ensure that this energy policy does not have an expiration date or fall short of its laudable goals.

Today I am introducing the Energy Independence Act.

The Energy Independence Act will deliver energy independence to Americans by providing an energy plan that has the capacity to change with innovation. My bill will ensure that our energy policy will increase the efficiency and decrease the environmental impact of America's energy policy, and encourage our energy policy to adapt to our needs and abilities.

My bill will set a congressional goal of achieving energy independence by 2017. ``Energy independence'' is defined as meeting all but 10 percent of our energy needs from domestic energy sources. The bill will also set a congressional goal of achieving independence from fossil fuels by 2037.

My bill will also create a Blue Ribbon Energy Commission, which will meet every two years starting in 2009, to evaluate our progress in efforts to become energy independent, and to recommend changes to be made in reports to Congress.

These are achievable goals.

Petroleum, mostly used for transportation, accounts for 84 percent of our imported energy. Transportation accounts for roughly 28 percent of our energy use. I support raising CAFE standards, and have cosponsored S. 357, legislation by Senator Feinstein which would raise these standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2019. Studies show that raising CAFE standards to 40 miles per gallon would save over 36 billion gallons of gas per year, and creating efficiency standards for replacement tires would save more than 7 billion barrels of oil over the next 50 years. Creating incentives for commuting by train or bus, and funding upgrades and new starts in public transit services, such as the purple line of the DC metro, will also make a difference--in an average year, the round trip to work uses over 250 gallons of gas and creates about 5,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions.

As part of a comprehensive energy bill we should also be mindful of the long-term effects of our energy policy on the environment, our landscape, and our health. I cosponsored S. 309, legislation by Senators Sanders and Boxer that provides for an economy-wide emissions cap and trade program. Enacting an economy-wide cap and trade program will ensure that our energy policy will be truly sustainable.

America currently gets only 6.3 percent of its energy from renewable energy sources. Current ideas for addressing this problem focus on trying to make the large up-front investment in infrastructure required to produce renewable energy less daunting, by creating a long-term market for renewable energy through increasing the Federal Government's use of renewables and creating a Federal renewable portfolio standard to make utilities offer renewable energy to American consumers, and by making incentives like the renewable production tax credit permanent. I support creating Federal renewable portfolio standard, and will cosponsor legislation to be offered by Senator Bingaman to do so. I have also cosponsored S. 590, Senator Smith's legislation that would extend solar tax incentives through 2016, while expanding these incentives to cover more of the up-front investment required to use solar energy.

In order to get to energy independence we must substantially increase our investment in energy research. I cosponsored S. 761, Senator Reid's America COMPETES Act, which will increase R&D funding for the Department of Energy, increase the DOE's emphasis on advanced energy research to overcome the long-term and high-risk technological barriers to the development of energy technologies, and implement recommendations made by the National Academies of Sciences report Rising Above a Gathering Storm.

I will be advocating other areas of energy policy reform, including increasing funding for weatherization, providing incentives for telecommuting, and providing additional energy efficiency standards for appliances.

We can do better, and the one overarching theme in the quest for a sustainable, long-term energy policy is the need to be able to be flexible and change our energy policy to suit our needs, capacity, research and development. My bill will give us the ability to provide long-term, bipartisan solutions that will address our energy policy going forward, and give us the flexibility, and the considered solutions of experts, to give the American people the energy policy they deserve.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Voluntary Medicare Quality Reporting Act of 2007. I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, for joining me in this effort. This is an important bill for tens of millions of Medicare beneficiaries, for the physicians, nurse practitioners and allied health professionals who treat them, and for the future of the Medicare program.

At the end of this year, providers will again face the prospect of an across-the-board cut in their Medicare reimbursements. The scheduled cut for 2008 is the largest ever, 9.9 percent. These cuts are the result of a flawed reimbursement system created in 1997 that uses the Sustainable Growth Rate formula, or SGR, to determine an acceptable increase in the growth of provider expenditures.

Medicare reimbursements increase when the previous year's payments do not exceed a target level that is based on the growth of our economy. However, when the previous year's payments exceed that target level, reimbursements are cut. According to MedPAC, the SGR formula would reduce Medicare provider reimbursements by 40 percent over the next eight years if Congress does not act. MedPAC is also concerned that over the next several years these reductions ``would threaten beneficiary access to physician services over time, particularly those provided by primary care physicians.'' MedPAC recognizes the importance of provider participation in the Medicare program, particularly in our rural and underserved urban areas where the decision to not accept new Medicare patients can make all the difference in seniors' access to medical care.

Congress recognizes this as well, and so we have intervened to prevent scheduled cuts resulting from SGR from taking effect. For all except the newest members of this body, this process of enacting a ``physician fix'' is a familiar scenario. For the past four years, Congress has acted to prevent these cuts to providers, usually through a last-minute provision added to a must-pass bill.

In the 109th Congress, I introduced bipartisan legislation implementing MedPAC's recommendations and calling for Congress to repeal the SGR formula and update provider reimbursements by the cost of care. Replacing SGR will require a thoughtful and protracted process involving the input of lawmakers and the provider community, and it is costly, but it is something that we must do.

The most recent ``fix'' was made to the 2006 Tax Relief and Health Care Act, Public Law 109-432. That law froze payment rates, staving off an across-the-board cut of 5.1 percent. Congress also added a quality reporting system called the Physician Quality Reporting Initiative program PQRI, which made providers eligible for a bonus payment of 1.5 percent of their total allowed Medicare charges if they report to HHS on certain quality measures starting in July 2007.

This new system is also known as ``pay-for-reporting,'' and it is based on the concept that physicians should receive an increase in Medicare reimbursement only once they have participated in extensive quality reporting. Across my State, I have heard serious concerns that this will lead to a mandatory reporting system in the near future, and that we will soon see an untested ``pay-for-performance'' system in place.

Now, I think all my colleagues would agree that our seniors deserve the highest quality care. But in our quest for improved quality, we must answer two questions here: should we proceed with an untested system of reporting requirements just for the sake of reporting, and will we actually achieve better care for our seniors via the PQRI.

I am very concerned about implementing reporting requirements that have not been tested. I believe that we must have the right process in place for defining a quality reporting system for services provided to Medicare beneficiaries by health care professionals. We should not be establishing reporting requirements for health professionals just for the sake of reporting, and we should not be moving forward with this system until we have adequate time to evaluate each stage of its development.

Current law does not provide sufficient time to assess the appropriateness and effectiveness of this new system. Nor do they take into account the fact that most physicians and other health professionals have no experience in quality reporting and do not have in place the necessary health information technology and administrative infrastructures to participate in a reporting system.

The bill I am introducing today will assure that health professionals will be at the center of the process for defining areas where quality measures are needed, as well as for defining the relevant measures themselves. Why is this important? Health professionals must be actively engaged in developing and implementing an effective reporting system because they are on the front lines of health care delivery, and they best understand the nexus between care delivery and quality measurement. The development process for quality measures must be transparent and consistent for all health professionals because they are the ones who will determine its successful implementation.

Additionally, quality measures should be tested across a variety of specialties and practice settings before they are included in a reporting system because measures must be clinically valid to be relevant for defining quality, and because physicians and health professionals practice in a variety of settings, for example: small vs. large practices, urban vs. suburban vs. rural locations, office-based vs. hospital-base practices.

Most importantly, we should not be using hastily devised quality measures to justify reimbursement cuts. There are some who advocate pay-for-performance as a way to slow the growth of physician spending. They think we can accomplish lower physician expenditures by setting arbitrary standards and then cutting payments to physicians who fail to meet them. But across America, there are practices that would face tremendous obstacles in meeting such standards: they lack of the information technology necessary to document and report standards in a timely manner; they see patients with economic and language barriers that will result in higher noncompliance rates; they treat a patient population for whom ethnic and racial differences require different clinical interventions than for other patients. Ignoring these considerations will not only fail to dramatically improve quality, it will significantly penalize providers who treat traditionally underserved populations.

This bill provides an opportunity to thoughtfully and carefully develop effective quality measures that reflect differences in practice patterns, to share our findings, and to determine and encourage the most cost-effective methods of providing the highest quality care.

Rather than moving forward precipitously in 2008 with a permanent Medicare quality reporting system after a transitional 6-month period this year, as current law requires, our bill, the Voluntary Medicare Quality Reporting Act of 2007, instead would establish a more realistic timeline for quality measure reporting by health professionals. It does so by:

Requiring the Secretary first to evaluate the 6-month transitional reporting system and reporting findings to the Congress by June 1, 2008;

Requiring the Secretary to undertake demonstrations for defining appropriate mechanisms whereby health professionals may provide data on quality measures to the Secretary through an appropriate medical registry;

Allowing physicians and other eligible professionals to continue reporting to the Secretary quality measures developed for 2007, in order for the Secretary to refine systems for reporting quality measures;

After completion of the evaluation, phasing in a permanent Voluntary Medicare Quality Reporting Program, with implementation beginning January 1, 2010, based on a consistent set of rules that define an orderly and transparent process of quality measure development;

Requiring that the Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement of the American Medical Association be the beginning point for the designation of clinical areas where quality measures are needed;

Having the Consortium, in collaboration with physician specialty organizations and other eligible professional organizations, develop and propose quality measures to a consensus organization such as the National Quality Forum for endorsement; and

Prohibiting the Secretary from using any measures that have not been recommended by the Consortium and endorsed by the consensus organization.

I am confident that with all of these measures we will achieve a successful and effective quality reporting system that will truly make a difference in the quality of care that our Medicare beneficiaries receive. At the end of this year, as Congress moves forward to address the physician reimbursement issue, I urge my colleagues to support this rational approach to promoting quality and guaranteeing access to care.

Mr. President, for the sake of our security, economy and environment, America needs a comprehensive energy policy that is independent of foreign energy sources and weans America off of fossil fuels.

Last year, I introduced comprehensive energy legislation that would address the many challenges across our economy to achieving sustainable energy independence. I am very hopeful that this Congress will soon take steps to bring forward a comprehensive energy bill that will address many of the areas I believe are essential to this effort. I have cosponsored many of the individual planks of this comprehensive effort, and today I want to address how we can ensure that this energy policy does not have an expiration date or fall short of its laudable goals.

Today I am introducing the Energy Independence Act.

The Energy Independence Act will deliver energy independence to Americans by providing an energy plan that has the capacity to change with innovation. My bill will ensure that our energy policy will increase the efficiency and decrease the environmental impact of America's energy policy, and encourage our energy policy to adapt to our needs and abilities.

My bill will set a congressional goal of achieving energy independence by 2017. ``Energy independence'' is defined as meeting all but 10 percent of our energy needs from domestic energy sources. The bill will also set a congressional goal of achieving independence from fossil fuels by 2037.

My bill will also create a Blue Ribbon Energy Commission, which will meet every two years starting in 2009, to evaluate our progress in efforts to become energy independent, and to recommend changes to be made in reports to Congress.

These are achievable goals.

Petroleum, mostly used for transportation, accounts for 84 percent of our imported energy. Transportation accounts for roughly 28 percent of our energy use. I support raising CAFE standards, and have cosponsored S. 357, legislation by Senator Feinstein which would raise these standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2019. Studies show that raising CAFE standards to 40 miles per gallon would save over 36 billion gallons of gas per year, and creating efficiency standards for replacement tires would save more than 7 billion barrels of oil over the next 50 years. Creating incentives for commuting by train or bus, and funding upgrades and new starts in public transit services, such as the purple line of the DC metro, will also make a difference--in an average year, the round trip to work uses over 250 gallons of gas and creates about 5,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions.

As part of a comprehensive energy bill we should also be mindful of the long-term effects of our energy policy on the environment, our landscape, and our health. I cosponsored S. 309, legislation by Senators Sanders and Boxer that provides for an economy-wide emissions cap and trade program. Enacting an economy-wide cap and trade program will ensure that our energy policy will be truly sustainable.

America currently gets only 6.3 percent of its energy from renewable energy sources. Current ideas for addressing this problem focus on trying to make the large up-front investment in infrastructure required to produce renewable energy less daunting, by creating a long-term market for renewable energy through increasing the Federal Government's use of renewables and creating a Federal renewable portfolio standard to make utilities offer renewable energy to American consumers, and by making incentives like the renewable production tax credit permanent. I support creating Federal renewable portfolio standard, and will cosponsor legislation to be offered by Senator Bingaman to do so. I have also cosponsored S. 590, Senator Smith's legislation that would extend solar tax incentives through 2016, while expanding these incentives to cover more of the up-front investment required to use solar energy.

In order to get to energy independence we must substantially increase our investment in energy research. I cosponsored S. 761, Senator Reid's America COMPETES Act, which will increase R&D funding for the Department of Energy, increase the DOE's emphasis on advanced energy research to overcome the long-term and high-risk technological barriers to the development of energy technologies, and implement recommendations made by the National Academies of Sciences report Rising Above a Gathering Storm.

I will be advocating other areas of energy policy reform, including increasing funding for weatherization, providing incentives for telecommuting, and providing additional energy efficiency standards for appliances.

We can do better, and the one overarching theme in the quest for a sustainable, long-term energy policy is the need to be able to be flexible and change our energy policy to suit our needs, capacity, research and development. My bill will give us the ability to provide long-term, bipartisan solutions that will address our energy policy going forward, and give us the flexibility, and the considered solutions of experts, to give the American people the energy policy they deserve.

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