Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Jana Davis, an AAAS science fellow in Senator Lautenberg's office, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of H.R. 6.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment to strike the Outer Continental Shelf inventory provision. During committee consideration of the bill, I supported adding this provision which requires a comprehensive survey of OCS oil and gas resources. I continue to support the provision. These resources belong to the entire Nation. I believe it is useful for us to know the extent of the oil and gas resources underlying the OCS.

It is important to note what the underlying provision does not do. The provision does not modify or rescind any moratorium. The provision does not allow drilling in any area that is covered by a moratorium. The provision does, however, provide for the development of important data and information about our energy resources. The language in the bill is identical to a provision that was approved in the Energy Committee during the last Congress, and the Senate rejected efforts to strike the language then. I hope we will have the same outcome on this issue in this Congress.

I oppose the amendment. I encourage my colleagues to oppose it as well.

I yield the floor.

Senator Domenici may have my 30 seconds.

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Oregon for his comments and his amendment.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I don't think that is going to be any major obstacle to the progress we are making on the Senate floor this afternoon. I have no objection.

Mr. President, could I ask the Senator from Ohio a question about his amendment?

Mr. President, if we could get copies of the amendment, Senator Domenici would be anxious to review it. I would, as well. It sounds very meritorious as described, but before actually agreeing to a unanimous consent as to the timing of the vote and the amount of time needed in anticipation of a vote, it would be better to get a copy at this point, if we could. That is just a suggestion.

That will be very good. I appreciate that opportunity. We will be back in touch with the Senator.

I yield the floor.

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

Yes.

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

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

Mr. President, this is a proposal that has been offered before in the Senate. This is a proposal that was included in the comprehensive Energy bill we passed in the 107th Congress, again in the bill that was passed in the 108th Congress. It sets a standard referred to, generally, as a renewable portfolio standard. It is essentially a requirement that those producing electricity in the country produce 10 percent of that electricity that they sell by 2020 from renewable sources.

The Senate has approved this proposition again and again. As I indicated, in the 107th Congress, we included such a portfolio standard as part of an Energy bill. We had various votes in the Senate that affirmed the Senate's determination that the standard should not be weakened. In the 108th Congress, there was a letter signed by 53 Senators that went to the chairs of the conference on the Energy bill, H.R. 6. Senate conferees went on to approve the portfolio standard and pass it on to the House as part of the Senate action.

Now we have the opportunity to renew our support for this proposal to place it in this bill where we can, hopefully, get broad bipartisan support and get it to the President's desk.

There are good reasons for the strong support that we have seen in the Senate. A strong renewable portfolio standard is an essential component of any comprehensive national energy policy--not just an important part of such a strategy but an essential component.

The benefits are clear and they are many. Let me cite the major benefits: This provision would reduce our dependence on traditional, polluting sources of electricity. It would reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources. It would reduce the growing pressure on natural gas as a fuel for the generation of electricity. It would reduce the price of natural gas. It would create new jobs. It would make a start on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It would increase our energy security and enhance the reliability of the electricity grid.

The renewable portfolio standard that we are offering--and I have various cosponsors--and I hope we have additional cosponsors before this amendment is dealt with--Senator Coleman, Senator Jeffords, Senator Collins, Senator Dorgan, Senator Cantwell, Senator Feinstein, Senator Reid, Senator Salazar. I believe many other Members in the Senate strongly support this effort.

The RPS we have offered is a flexible and market-driven approach to achieving the various goals I have mentioned at a negligible cost to consumers in this country. According to the Energy Information Administration, the amendment would result in over 350 billion kilowatt hours or 68,000 megawatts of renewable generation between 2008 and 2025. That is enough power generation to supply 56 million U.S. homes. The cost to consumers would be about .18 of a percent or less than one- fifth of 1 percent increase in overall energy prices.

This proposal would require retail sellers of electricity that sell more than 4 million megawatt hours per year to provide 10 percent of that electricity from renewable resources by the year 2020. The requirement would be ramped up in 3-year increments to allow for planning flexibility. The Secretary of Energy would be required to develop a system of credits for renewable generation that could be traded or sold; again, making the program easier to comply with. Utilities could use existing renewable generation to comply with the program or they could comply with the program by buying credits from someone else who is producing renewable energy. New renewable producers could receive the credits to trade or to sell.

The cost of the program to the utilities would be capped by allowing the

Secretary to sell credit at 1.5 cents per kilowatt, adjusted for inflation. As long as the difference between the cost of the renewable generation is less than 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour, the utility could buy or generate renewables. When it reaches or exceeds that price, obviously the cap would kick in, and it would become more cost effective for the utility to go ahead and buy the credits. We also would create a program for the sale of the credits to fund State programs for the development of renewables.

Congress has tried before to spur the development of renewables. In 1978, we passed the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, PURPA. That bill required utilities to buy renewables if the generators could meet the avoided cost of the utilities. Cogeneration--that is, the combined use of heat for industrial processes and for generation of electricity--was also eligible. That program resulted in a huge growth of cogeneration. Over half of the new generation that came online in the country during the 1980s and 1990s was from that resource.

It did not, however, do much for renewable generation. These technologies have remained at about 2 percent of total electricity supply for decades now. In other words, PURPA did not work to stimulate development of renewables as we had hoped it might.

Let me put up a chart to make the point of this 2 percent figure to give people an idea of what we are dealing with today.

This shows electricity generation by fuel for the period of 1970 through 2025. Of course, some of that is anticipated. This is from the Energy Information Agency which is part of the administration.

You can see that by far the largest percentage of the electricity we produce in this country is produced from coal. That is the case today, in 2005, as shown by this white line on the chart. That has been the case ever since 1970, and that will be the case in the future. That is true regardless of whether this amendment is adopted or is not adopted.

The next source of power, the next fuel for electricity generation is soon to be--right now it is nuclear but it is very soon to be natural gas. You can see a green line there. It is probably a little hard to see against that blue background on the chart, but there is a green line which goes up pretty dramatically in the future. That is a concern I know all of us who have looked at this issue share. We see the price of natural gas going up a significant degree, because we have more and more of our electricity being produced from natural gas. That puts pressure on the price of natural gas. People who are buying natural gas to heat their homes or their businesses see the cost of their utilities going up because of the increased pressure on that price of natural gas coming from the increased demand for natural gas to produce electricity.

You can see the renewables number down here. The renewables is next to the bottom line, and it is bumping along at less than 5 percent. It is down around 2 percent today. It will increase very modestly.

This chart is a chart of how the Energy Information Agency would expect production to occur absent a renewable portfolio standard. What this amendment will try to do is increase somewhat the amount of electricity we are producing from renewables and, by doing so, decrease the amount of electricity we have to produce from natural gas. This is a way to keep down the increasing cost of natural gas, and it is a way to keep down the increasing price of natural gas as well.

Let me talk about some of the criticism that has been made of this amendment and this approach. Critics of the proposal point to a number of concerns they have. The No. 1 criticism I have heard is it costs too much; also, that States are already requiring development of renewables; and, third, some areas do not have readily available renewable resources. Those are the three major criticisms we hear, so let me respond to each of those.

In response to the argument that it costs too much, I will point to a number of studies of this proposal that have been done over the last several years.

In 2003, I asked the Energy Information Agency at the Department of Energy to look at the effect the standard would have. They found our standard would result in 350 billion kilowatt hours of new renewable generation between 2008 and 2025. That would not happen absent the adoption of this provision. They found the cost would be minimal. The report indicated there would be an increase in the cost of electricity of only one-tenth of a cent in 2025 over projected costs. When combined with the reduction in natural gas prices that would be caused by the RPS, total aggregate cost to the consumer on that consumer's energy bill was projected to be less than one-twentieth of 1 percent.

I have asked the EIA to update this analysis with current conditions, and we have their update. They have sent me a letter which I can put in the Record. Let me cite the most important parts of it. It says:

Cumulative residential expenditures on electricity from

2005 through 2025 are $2.5 billion lower while cumulative

residential expenditures on natural gas are reduced by $2.9

billion, or 0.5 percent. Cumulative expenditures for natural

gas and electricity by all end-use sectors taken together

would decrease by $22.6 billion.

Now, that is their current estimate of what the effect of this provision would be.

The report also indicates the generation of electricity from natural gas would be 5 percent lower if we adopt this RPS than it would be otherwise. It also projects that total electricity-sector carbon dioxide emissions are reduced by 7.5 percent relative to the status quo. They are reduced by 249 million metric tons.

A number of other studies have found positive results, even to the point of reducing overall energy costs. Earlier this year we held a hearing in the Energy Committee on generation portfolios. Dr. Ryan Wiser of Lawrence-Berkeley National Laboratory presented a report that summarized the results of some 15 studies of renewable portfolio standards much like the one we are offering today. All of these studies found that a portfolio standard would reduce natural gas prices. Twelve of the 15 studies projected a net reduction in overall energy bills as a result of the RPS.

The Energy Information Agency report projected that the RPS would lead to a 32-percent lower allowance cost for sulfur dioxide emissions. The cost is not great. So the argument we have heard that this is too expensive a proposition I think does not hold water.

Many have argued that States are implementing renewable portfolio standards and there is no need for a Federal program. It is true that States have taken the lead in pushing for more renewable generation. Eighteen States currently have developed renewable requirements. Three more are soon to begin implementing renewable requirements.

Almost all of these standards are more aggressive than the Federal standard in the amendment I am proposing today. My home State of New Mexico requires 10 percent of electricity produced by utilities in that State to be from renewable sources by the year 2011--not 2020. Mr. President, 2020 is what our amendment calls for. But New Mexico says 2011. California says 20 percent by 2017. Maine requires 30 percent by 2000; Minnesota, 19 percent by 2015.

This will spur the growth of renewables in these regions. There is one thing, however, a State standard will not do. It will not drive a national market for these technologies. If some States have renewable standards and others do not, or if the technologies and requirements vary from State to State, it is impossible for a national market to develop for renewable credits.

This credit trading system is the piece of our proposal that gives the greatest flexibility for compliance. A credit trading system also helps to reduce the cost of compliance by allowing credits for lower cost renewables from one region to be bought by utilities in another region.

Some argue this is a cost shift from the regions without renewable resources to those with renewable resources. I would argue it is a way to spread the cost to all who are seeing the benefits. If States do not have or choose not to develop renewable resources, they still realize the benefits of lower natural gas prices, of lower SO2 allowances, of lower cost carbon

reductions. It is only fair they share the slight increase in cost for generation of electricity that has created these savings.

The argument that many regions do not have renewable generation resources has also been made. While it is true that the best wind, geothermal, and solar resources are concentrated in Western States, the entire country has extensive biomass potential. We have another chart I want to put up here for people to look at.

As Maine and other States have shown, paper production and agricultural processes are available everywhere. If Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland can implement aggressive standards, then other States can as well.

This chart makes the case very strongly about where these renewable energy resources are available. You can see that solar, of course, is available everywhere but more prominently in the Southwest. That is shown in the upper right-hand part of this chart. Wind resources are not available everywhere but clearly are in many States, and particularly in the West and the Midwest. That is shown on the lower right-hand part of the chart. Geothermal resources are primarily concentrated in the West, but biomass and biofuel resources are everywhere in the country, and are particularly concentrated in the eastern part of the country. So as these technologies develop, as the markets for these technologies develop, there is an ability to produce energy from renewable sources everywhere.

The environmental benefits are clear. The renewable portfolio standard would result, according to the Energy Information Agency, in a 3.6-percent reduction in carbon emissions in the year 2025. This is a reduction of 31 million tons in that year alone. That reduction is the equivalent to planting 27.5 million acres of trees, an area about the size of Pennsylvania. And this is in one single year.

The RPS also benefits the economy by driving job growth. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, wind turbine construction alone would result in 43,000 new jobs per year on average. An additional 11,200 cumulative long-term jobs would result from the subsequent operations and maintenance of these renewable facilities.

The Regional Economics Applications Laboratory for the Environmental Law and Policy Center found that 68,400 jobs and $6.7 billion in economic output are a result of renewable energy; wind power creates 22 direct and indirect construction and manufacturing jobs for each megawatt of installed capacity; wind power creates one operation and maintenance job for every 10 megawatts of installed capacity.

A study by the State of Wisconsin found that increased use of renewable energy sources would create three times as many jobs as increased use of traditional fuels for electricity production. U.S. PIRG reports that building 5,900 megawatts of renewable energy capacity in California would lead to 28,000 yearlong construction jobs and 3,000 operations and maintenance jobs. Over 30 years, these new plants would create 120,000 person hours of employment, four times as many person hours as building 5,900 megawatts of natural gas capacity.

According to the AFL-CIO, an estimated 8,092 jobs would be created over a 10-year period for installation and operations and maintenance of wind power in Nevada, and another 19,000 manufacturing jobs.

Support for this concept and this proposal is strong throughout the country. Recent polls have shown that support. A poll by Mellman Associates found that 70 percent of those surveyed nationwide supported a 20-percent portfolio standard. We are not proposing that aggressive a standard. We are proposing 10 percent by the year 2020, which I pointed out is substantially more modest than most of the States have embraced that have gone this route. These results held about the same in States as diverse as North Dakota, Georgia, Missouri, and Arizona.

Environmental groups from throughout the Nation, from the Sierra Club to the Natural Resources Defense Council, from industrial associations to the renewable trade groups and utilities, have all supported the

Mr. President, I will take a very few minutes to respond to some of the points that the Senator from Tennessee was making. We are back on the amendment that I have offered for purposes of debate.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Obama be added as a cosponsor to the Bingaman amendment.

The first point I would make, in response to the comments of the Senator and my colleague from Tennessee, who has contributed greatly to the development of this overall Energy bill and whose contribution has been very substantial and I very much respect his views, obviously we are in disagreement on this issue, and I will explain some of the reasons why.

First, much of what he said related to big windmills and the fact that this, in his view, is essentially a program that would cause the establishment of more big windmills. He pointed out the reasons why that was unwise.

This amendment is technology neutral. We have been very specific about this. We have said that qualifying renewables include wind, solar, ocean, geothermal, biomass, landfill gas, and incremental hydro power. We have tried to talk about all of the different renewables and make it clear we are not specifying which of these renewables are used by particular utilities to meet this requirement.

It would be up to them, and it would be up to them based on how the various technologies develop. In fact, many utilities have chosen to pursue wind generation because they have found that that was the least costly way to produce energy from renewable sources. Clearly, advances are being made in solar power, advances are being made in biomass, and in various others of these technologies. The purpose of this legislation is to accelerate that.

There is a chart which my colleague from Tennessee put up indicating the other ways in which we are trying to deal with our energy needs in this overall legislation and the other ways in which we are trying to reduce emissions into our atmosphere in this legislation. I agree with all of that. We do have provisions in this legislation to encourage the development of this gas-combined cycle technology and the use of that in our coal-fired powerplants.

I will put up the chart that we had earlier that shows the different sources for our electricity generation as they exist today and as the Energy Information Agency would expect them to exist in the year 2025.

You can see that by far the most significant source of our energy, our electricity generation in this country, is

coal. It has been in the past; it is today; it is going to be in the future. The only question is to what extent does that number, that top line, go up. And, more importantly, to what extent do we see pressure put on natural gas as a source for electricity generation in the future.

But we have provisions in this bill that try to encourage the use of IGCC technology. That is very much in the public interest and I very strongly support that.

We also have provisions in here to encourage more use of nuclear power, more production of electricity from nuclear power. You can see the nuclear line is largely flat coming from today, 2005, out to 2025. It is my hope, just as it is the hope of Senator Domenici and I am sure of many on our committee, you will see that line go up somewhat, as companies are able to see the benefits that are provided in this legislation and look at the cost comparisons, that they will choose to put more resources into production of energy from nuclear sources as well. That is very much to be desired.

But to accomplish our goals, our overall goals for this country and our overall goals for our energy legislation, we need to pursue all available resources. That is why I believe it is important we adopt this amendment, to give that extra push for renewables. The chart from the Energy Information Agency projects very little increase in this line down here, this blue line for renewables, without this renewable portfolio standard in place.

I saw the map of the United States the Senator from Tennessee put up, showing the different States that are doing this. All of that is taken into account by the Energy Information Agency. All of those State renewable portfolio standards are taken into account in their determination that there will still be only very modest, if any, increases in the use of renewables over the next 20 years.

What we are trying to do through this renewable portfolio standard is to increase the contribution from renewables somewhat. I am the first to admit we are not going to solve our energy problems with the use of renewables alone. We have to depend on nuclear power. We have to depend on clean coal technologies. We have to depend on progress in all these areas. But the effect of this amendment I have offered is to give some additional impetus to use of renewables.

Let me make a couple of other points which I think bear mentioning at the same time. I think the Senator from Tennessee suggested that--maybe not the amendment that is currently before the Senate but an earlier version, I believe he indicated, would say you don't get credit for what you do to meet your State standard in order to meet this national standard. Let me be clear. That is not the case. I don't think that has ever been the case in any version I have seen of this amendment, but it is certainly not the case in what we are talking about here. In States where there is a renewable portfolio standard in place--and in almost more cases that is a much more aggressive and demanding requirement than anything we are contemplating here--clearly this standard would be met without any difficulty. This is not an incremental standard above what the State requires. This is an effort to require some effort to be made nationwide and hopefully get us to a nationwide market and demand for these technologies that we are promoting as part of this.

The other big point the Senator from Tennessee was making is this $18 billion cost. He is referring to this letter from the EIA. It does say the cumulative cost to the electric power sector is about $18 billion.

Three bullet points down in that same summary page, it says the cumulative expenditure for natural gas and electricity by end-use sectors, taken together, decreases by $22.6 billion.

What it is saying is the effect would be to decrease what they spend on natural gas and electricity by $22.6 billion at the same time there is the $18 billion to be shifted over in this area. So clearly the whole idea behind this legislation is that the people who are producing, the companies that are generating electricity in this country, will do less of that through use of natural gas, will invest less in natural gas production facilities, or generating facilities, and will invest more in these other areas. That is the purpose of it. We believe that is a good public purpose, a good purpose for us to be promoting in this legislation.

The final point the Senator was making is this is an unnecessary cost to consumers. That is not what I understand the EIA to be saying. The Energy Information Agency says, in a quote out of their letter to me dated the 15th of June:

Cumulative residential expenditures on electricity from

2005 to 2025 are $2.7 billion lower, while cumulative

residential expenditures on natural gas are reduced by $2.9

billion.

That is if this amendment is adopted. So the cumulative expenditures for natural gas and electricity by all end users, taken together, will decrease by $22.6 billion. It is saying, for this 20-year period we are talking about, if we adopt this amendment we will be saving consumers. They, the people who are producing the electricity the consumers are buying, will, in fact, be shifting resources to produce some additional increment of that electricity from these renewable sources rather than from natural gas plants as they otherwise would. But clearly there is a savings here for the consumer, according to the Energy Information Agency, and I think that is clearly to be desired and something we all are hoping will result from this legislation.

Before I yield the floor, let me ask unanimous consent that Senator Clinton be added as a cosponsor. She is available to speak.

Let me ask Senator Domenici, did you want to go back to your side to speak now, or Senator Clinton would like to speak on our side.

We will yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Jeffords.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Salazar.

Mr. President, I will defer to Senator Domenici if he wants to do something at this point.

Mr. President, we would like 2 minutes equally divided prior to the vote on the Bingaman amendment. I guess there is no need for 2 minutes before Cantwell because they have a period of time before theirs, but 2 minutes equally divided would be appreciated.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to Senator Dorgan from North Dakota.

I appreciate the concerns of my colleague from Florida. As you know, I continue to push for a renewable portfolio standard because the increased use of renewables can ease natural gas price volatility and

decrease our dependence on fossil fuels and foreign imports. Having said that, differences do exist from region to region and State to State with regard to renewable energy potential. I would like to extend an offer to Senator Nelson of Florida to work in conference to find a method that will enable a renewable standard to accomplish the goal of increasing renewables while recognizing the legitimate differences among States. I acknowledge that municipal solid waste plays a large role in Florida's renewable potential and I would be willing to recognize that potential as part of our discussions in the conference. I believe we can find a way to help each State include a renewable standard as part of their overall energy production, and I am committed to working with Senator Nelson to accomplish this.

Mr. President, I am informed that the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Washington want to interrupt the remainder of our debate on the Bingaman amendment in order to discuss and do a modification of the Cantwell amendment. I ask unanimous consent that they be yielded whatever time they need to accomplish that and it not count against the Bingaman amendment.

Mr. President, I ask how much time remains on the Bingaman amendment.

Mr. President, I will take part of the time remaining for me to respond to a few of the points made by my good friend from Tennessee and clarify the effect of this amendment as best we understand it. Contrary to what a person might believe by listening to a lot of the debate today, this is not an amendment just about windmills. This is an amendment about trying to stimulate the development of a range of technologies, solar technologies, biomass technologies, wind technologies, clearly, and get the cost of producing electricity from those different technologies down to a more reasonable level. That is the purpose of the legislation.

My good friend from Tennessee says that in his opinion, based on his understanding of the position the Energy Information Agency has taken, this would result in an increase in electricity rates, or electric rates. He reads their analysis and their recent report in a totally different way than I do. It is very clear this does not cause an increase in electricity rates. It causes a decrease. It is clear it does not cause an increase in gas prices. It causes a decrease. It is clear it does not cost the electric power sector more. It costs the electric power sector less than it otherwise would be spending.

Let me talk about this $18 billion he continues to refer to. It does say in

their report that from 2005 to 2025, the renewable portfolio standard has a cumulative total cost to the electric power sector of about $18 billion. Now, that is true. Then it goes down a couple of sentences further on. It says, the cumulative expenditures for natural gas and electricity by all end user sectors taken together will decrease by $22.6 billion. So what it is basically saying is if this amendment is adopted, which I hope very much it will be, there will, in fact, have to be more investment by the utility sector, by the electric power generation companies, in these alternative fuel generation technologies, these alternative energy sources. But it will be more than offset by what they save in fossil fuels and what they save in investment in those other areas.

As far as rates are concerned, it is very clear in this language, and I will read this again. It says: ``Compared to the reference case.'' That means with the amendment. It says: ``The cumulative residential expenditures on electricity from 2005 to 2025 are $2.7 billion lower''--that is with the amendment--``while the cumulative residential expenditures on natural gas are $2.9 billion lower with the amendment.''

Residential expenditures it is talking about. These are the ratepayers that we all represent in our individual States. They are saying that, if this amendment is adopted, it is going to be cheaper for them to pay their gas bills, cheaper for them to pay their electricity bills in the future because, frankly, this will take some of the pressure off the price of natural gas. That is very much to be desired.

Let me read further from their report. They say: ``The increase in renewable generation''--which is contemplated by this amendment--``will lead to lower coal and natural gas generation. By 2025, coal generation is reduced by almost 9 percent, natural gas generation reduced by over 5 percent from their respective reference case levels.'' That is from the level that it would be if we didn't adopt this amendment.

So in my view, this is a very substantial improvement. This legislation, this amendment will be a substantial improvement to the underlying bill which I think is a very good bill. I do not disagree with anything the Senator from Tennessee said about the advisability and desirability of seeing more nuclear power generated in our country, the advisability and desirability of seeing cleaner technologies used in coal production. All of that is in the underlying bill. What this amendment says is let's give an extra impetus to renewable power so that we can get all of the benefit from renewable power that it is reasonable for us to achieve over the next couple of decades.

That is exactly the purpose of the amendment. I think that is what the effect of the amendment will be. We have had the good fortune of passing this amendment before in the Senate. I hope very much we can pass it again this time. It will strengthen the bill, it will persuade the American people that we are trying to move this country in a different direction, as far as its energy future is concerned.

We are not satisfied with just saying that current technologies are adequate. We are not satisfied with saying the current mix of energy sources is adequate. We are trying to get back to more use of American ingenuity and creativeness to produce energy that we do not have to import from somewhere else in the world.

I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. We will have a chance to summarize very briefly the reasons for the amendment. I will have a chance, and my colleague from Tennessee will have a chance, to argue the other side of that argument before we have the vote. As I understand our agreement now, the Senator from Washington is going to have an opportunity to once again argue the merits of her amendment. That vote will occur, I believe, at 2:15. Then, after that, we will have the vote on this RPS.

With that, I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Washington.

Amendment No. 784

Mr. President, this is an amendment which says utilities that produce electricity in this country by the year 2020 should ensure that up to 10 percent of their electricity comes from renewable sources. It doesn't specify which renewable sources. It gives them a variety of choices. According to the Energy Information Agency, the $18 billion is more than offset by the savings these utilities will get by not having to invest in additional traditional sources of generation. This will result in a reduction in electricity rates and a reduction in gas rates, according to our own Department of Energy. I believe this is good legislation. I hope my colleagues will support it. It will strengthen this bill and give us a much better energy bill to take to conference.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Snowe of Maine be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, our country is facing a crisis. Too many of our young people leave high school without the skills necessary to meet the demands of a global economy. According to a recent U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey, 75 percent of employers report severe difficulties when trying to hire qualified workers, with 40 percent of job applicants having poor skills. As many as 3.3 million jobs may be sent overseas in the next 15 years, causing American workers to lose $136 billion in wages. The strength of our economy, and the future of our nation, largely rests on our ability to improve educational opportunities for all of our citizens.

An educated, skilled, and flexible workforce is essential to building a strong and dynamic economy, and, if we are going to maintain our country's ability to compete in a global economy, we must help prepare young people to meet the demands of the 21st century workforce. I introduce legislation that will ensure more students graduate high school ready for college and the workforce.

Only 68 percent of all students in the U.S. graduate high school on time with a regular diploma. And, the numbers are worse if the student is Hispanic, African American, Native American, has a disability, or is male. Sadly, a recent report indicates that students are dropping out at a younger age, resulting in an even less educated workforce.

For students who graduate with a high school diploma, too few go on directly to college. Astonishingly, only 38 percent of high school freshmen will earn a high school diploma and make the immediate transition to college directly after graduation. In New Mexico, the statistics are pretty staggering. For every 50 ninth graders in New Mexico, only 30 will graduate high school; 18 will enter college; 11 are still enrolled in their sophomore year; and 5.5 graduate from college within 6 years. We must do better.

We also know, unfortunately, that as many as 40 percent of this country's high school graduates are not prepared to meet the demands of college or a

competitive workforce. A survey of college professors reveals that half of all public school graduates are not adequately prepared to do college-level math or writing.

There is some good news, however; we know what works. Research conducted by the Department of Education shows that the single best predictor of college success is the quality and level of a student's high school classes. Students who take a solid college prep curriculum are less likely to need remedial classes, and are more likely to earn a college degree. In fact, evidence shows that the intensity and quality of high school curriculum is the greatest measure of completion of a bachelor's degree. Importantly, studies also show that not only do college-bound students benefit from rigorous courses, but that all students benefit from more rigorous coursework. Accordingly, it is critical that all of our young people have access to rigorous coursework in secondary school in order to meet the demands of postsecondary education and a competitive workforce.

Therefore, I introduce legislation that builds on this research and works toward a goal of ensuring that all secondary school students are enrolled in classes that prepare them to excel in college and in the workplace.

The GEAR UP program, Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, was first authorized in 1998 and was designed to promote student achievement and access to postsecondary education among low-income students. Since that time, GEAR UP grants have served over a million students per year. In my home State of New Mexico, there are six GEAR UP programs that serve thousands of students in many different ways, including by instituting reading and math programs, taking students to colleges so they can begin to imagine themselves on a college campus, creating science fairs and technology training seminars, providing career and financial counseling, and many other vital services. And, the individuals who work with GEAR UP programs are some of the most dedicated professionals I have met.

I believe we can build on the successes of GEAR UP to ensure more students leave high school prepared for the academic rigor of college and a competitive workforce. My legislation, called Gearing Up for Academic Success, will support and strengthen GEAR UP so that it promotes lasting and systemic change in the schools served by the GEAR UP grant.

The legislation places a particular focus on encouraging more students to take college preparation courses, especially those who are at risk for dropping out of school. But, it also builds capacity within the school so that activities funded with a GEAR UP grant benefit not only the students who receive the services, but also future cohorts of students who enter GEAR UP schools after the initial grants have ended.

My legislation does not change the fundamental structure of GEAR UP; it maintains States and partnerships as eligible entities. The legislation, however, changes the focus and the types of activities the eligible entities must engage in. Eligible entities will now be required to provide activities that ensure more students participate in college preparation coursework. Further, my legislation requires the activities to be designed so as to benefit both current students as well as future cohorts of students.

As in current law, partnerships are comprised of school districts, institutions of higher education, and community organizations. The legislation also retains the focus on cohorts of students that exists in current law by requiring grantees to serve one grade level of students, beginning not later than the 7th grade, through the 12th grade. Unlike current law, however, partnerships will now be required to provide activities designed to ensure the secondary school completion and college enrollment of this cohort of students. The legislation will also require the partnership to focus on developing a more rigorous curriculum and on professional development opportunities for teachers of college prep courses. Consequently, future cohorts of students would benefit from the more rigorous curriculum and the professional development available to the teachers.

Partnerships may also engage in a wide variety of other activities permissible under current law, including providing mentoring and advising, creating summer programs at institutions of higher education, providing skills assessment, personal and family counseling, financial aid counseling, and activities designed to foster parent involvement in issues surrounding completion of high school and the attainment of a college education.

The State can play a more effective role in ensuring students graduate high school prepared for college, and accordingly, my legislation requires State grantees to focus on two types of activities. First, the State would be required to provide policy leadership to promote college readiness of students in the State, particularly those who are at risk of dropping out of school and those who are economically disadvantaged. And, second, the State will be responsible for promoting coordination and information sharing among all GEAR UP grantees in the state, providing technical assistance and training, disseminating information about best practices, and providing opportunities for eligible partnerships to coordinate their efforts.

This program is so worthwhile, and leadership at the State level is absolutely critical, and accordingly, propose changing the formula to make funds available to every State. When appropriations for GEAR UP exceed $400,000,000 per year, one third of the funds will be made available to each State by formula. The remainder of the allocation will go to eligible partnerships on a competitive basis.

We all can agree that it is in our national interest to ensure that all of our students leave high school prepared to meet the demands of the 21st century workforce. This legislation provides an opportunity to systemically change the way our secondary schools prepare all students for college and a competitive workforce. I ask unanimous consent the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, our country is facing a crisis. Too many of our young people leave high school without the skills necessary to meet the demands of a global economy. According to a recent U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey, 75 percent of employers report severe difficulties when trying to hire qualified workers, with 40 percent of job applicants having poor skills. As many as 3.3 million jobs may be sent overseas in the next 15 years, causing American workers to lose $136 billion in wages. The strength of our economy, and the future of our nation, largely rests on our ability to improve educational opportunities for all of our citizens.

An educated, skilled, and flexible workforce is essential to building a strong and dynamic economy, and, if we are going to maintain our country's ability to compete in a global economy, we must help prepare young people to meet the demands of the 21st century workforce. I introduce legislation that will ensure more students graduate high school ready for college and the workforce.

Only 68 percent of all students in the U.S. graduate high school on time with a regular diploma. And, the numbers are worse if the student is Hispanic, African American, Native American, has a disability, or is male. Sadly, a recent report indicates that students are dropping out at a younger age, resulting in an even less educated workforce.

For students who graduate with a high school diploma, too few go on directly to college. Astonishingly, only 38 percent of high school freshmen will earn a high school diploma and make the immediate transition to college directly after graduation. In New Mexico, the statistics are pretty staggering. For every 50 ninth graders in New Mexico, only 30 will graduate high school; 18 will enter college; 11 are still enrolled in their sophomore year; and 5.5 graduate from college within 6 years. We must do better.

We also know, unfortunately, that as many as 40 percent of this country's high school graduates are not prepared to meet the demands of college or a

competitive workforce. A survey of college professors reveals that half of all public school graduates are not adequately prepared to do college-level math or writing.

There is some good news, however; we know what works. Research conducted by the Department of Education shows that the single best predictor of college success is the quality and level of a student's high school classes. Students who take a solid college prep curriculum are less likely to need remedial classes, and are more likely to earn a college degree. In fact, evidence shows that the intensity and quality of high school curriculum is the greatest measure of completion of a bachelor's degree. Importantly, studies also show that not only do college-bound students benefit from rigorous courses, but that all students benefit from more rigorous coursework. Accordingly, it is critical that all of our young people have access to rigorous coursework in secondary school in order to meet the demands of postsecondary education and a competitive workforce.

Therefore, I introduce legislation that builds on this research and works toward a goal of ensuring that all secondary school students are enrolled in classes that prepare them to excel in college and in the workplace.

The GEAR UP program, Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, was first authorized in 1998 and was designed to promote student achievement and access to postsecondary education among low-income students. Since that time, GEAR UP grants have served over a million students per year. In my home State of New Mexico, there are six GEAR UP programs that serve thousands of students in many different ways, including by instituting reading and math programs, taking students to colleges so they can begin to imagine themselves on a college campus, creating science fairs and technology training seminars, providing career and financial counseling, and many other vital services. And, the individuals who work with GEAR UP programs are some of the most dedicated professionals I have met.

I believe we can build on the successes of GEAR UP to ensure more students leave high school prepared for the academic rigor of college and a competitive workforce. My legislation, called Gearing Up for Academic Success, will support and strengthen GEAR UP so that it promotes lasting and systemic change in the schools served by the GEAR UP grant.

The legislation places a particular focus on encouraging more students to take college preparation courses, especially those who are at risk for dropping out of school. But, it also builds capacity within the school so that activities funded with a GEAR UP grant benefit not only the students who receive the services, but also future cohorts of students who enter GEAR UP schools after the initial grants have ended.

My legislation does not change the fundamental structure of GEAR UP; it maintains States and partnerships as eligible entities. The legislation, however, changes the focus and the types of activities the eligible entities must engage in. Eligible entities will now be required to provide activities that ensure more students participate in college preparation coursework. Further, my legislation requires the activities to be designed so as to benefit both current students as well as future cohorts of students.

As in current law, partnerships are comprised of school districts, institutions of higher education, and community organizations. The legislation also retains the focus on cohorts of students that exists in current law by requiring grantees to serve one grade level of students, beginning not later than the 7th grade, through the 12th grade. Unlike current law, however, partnerships will now be required to provide activities designed to ensure the secondary school completion and college enrollment of this cohort of students. The legislation will also require the partnership to focus on developing a more rigorous curriculum and on professional development opportunities for teachers of college prep courses. Consequently, future cohorts of students would benefit from the more rigorous curriculum and the professional development available to the teachers.

Partnerships may also engage in a wide variety of other activities permissible under current law, including providing mentoring and advising, creating summer programs at institutions of higher education, providing skills assessment, personal and family counseling, financial aid counseling, and activities designed to foster parent involvement in issues surrounding completion of high school and the attainment of a college education.

The State can play a more effective role in ensuring students graduate high school prepared for college, and accordingly, my legislation requires State grantees to focus on two types of activities. First, the State would be required to provide policy leadership to promote college readiness of students in the State, particularly those who are at risk of dropping out of school and those who are economically disadvantaged. And, second, the State will be responsible for promoting coordination and information sharing among all GEAR UP grantees in the state, providing technical assistance and training, disseminating information about best practices, and providing opportunities for eligible partnerships to coordinate their efforts.

This program is so worthwhile, and leadership at the State level is absolutely critical, and accordingly, propose changing the formula to make funds available to every State. When appropriations for GEAR UP exceed $400,000,000 per year, one third of the funds will be made available to each State by formula. The remainder of the allocation will go to eligible partnerships on a competitive basis.

We all can agree that it is in our national interest to ensure that all of our students leave high school prepared to meet the demands of the 21st century workforce. This legislation provides an opportunity to systemically change the way our secondary schools prepare all students for college and a competitive workforce. I ask unanimous consent the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent Lydia Olander and Joseph Helble, two fellows from the Office of Senator Lieberman, be granted floor privileges during consideration of this Energy bill.

I also ask that during the pendency of the Energy bill, the following interns from my office be permitted privileges on the floor: Amaris Singer, Jed Drolet, Mike Garcia, Ed Kellum, Katy Sterba, Anna Wadsworth, and Matt Shunkomolah.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the New Mexico Junior College baseball team from Hobbs, NM on winning the 2005 National Junior College World Series. This is a tournament that involves baseball teams from junior colleges across the United States. The Thunderbirds swept to the national title with a perfect record of 5-0 in tournament play. Their hard work and dedication is a perfect example of what is takes to win a national championship. This is the first national championship in New Mexico Junior College history.

I would also like to recognize Coach Ray Birmingham for winning the Coach of the Year award, his seventh in 15 years. The loyalty that Coach Birmingham engenders in his players is both heart-warming and inspiring. Several of Coach Birmingham's players won awards as well. Among the outstanding honors were Renny Osuna, who was chosen for the Preston Walker MVP Award; Brian Flores, who was selected as Outstanding Pitcher; and Corey Zimmerman, who was named as Best Defensive Player.

Mr. President, fans lined the streets in Lovington and Tatum as the bus carrying the team passed through. A large group of proud supporters met the team when the bus rolled onto the campus in Hobbs on Monday. It was that kind of community support, along with the determination, skill and work ethic of the team, that swept the Thunderbirds to victory. I congratulate New Mexico Junior College on its great accomplishment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent request that Lauren Mical, a fellow with Senator Jeffords's Environment and Public Works Committee staff, Margaret McCarthy, Katie Gallagher and Matthew Kireker, three interns on Senator Jeffords's staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of H.R. 6.

Mr. President, I should not take more than 15 minutes.

Mr. President, let me first congratulate our chairman, Senator Domenici, on successfully bringing this bill through the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and to the Senate floor. As he indicated, the vote to report the bill from committee was 21 to 1-- nearly unanimous. That vote is a testament, not only to what is contained in the bill but also to the process he followed when moving the bill to the Senate floor.

It has been over 4 years since President Bush released his energy policy plan. I believe President Bush was right to want to fashion a comprehensive energy policy for the Nation. President Clinton had such a policy document put together by a task force under Secretary of Energy Federico Pena. The first President Bush also had a national energy strategy document that was put together by then-Secretary of Energy James Watkins, after numerous public hearings around the country.

The fact that three successive Presidents have seen the need for comprehensive energy policy illustrates an important fact; that is, a good energy policy does not happen automatically. Energy markets are not inherently free markets and the short-term thinking that drives much corporate behavior in America is often mismatched to the long-term energy needs of the country.

As one example, if you look at the utility sector, you can see that our generation mix in recent years has strongly skewed toward new plants based on natural gas. But we now find that our long-term supply picture for natural gas cannot accommodate this additional demand without significant increases in price for all gas consumers.

Energy policy is something that requires intentional forethought and planning. I remember former Chairman Bob Galvin of Motorola saying at one point that there are certain things a country needs to set out to do on purpose. I believe, along with my colleagues on the Democratic side, a good, comprehensive energy policy is one of those things. I believe what we should try to do on purpose can be summarized under four basic principles.

The first principle is that we need to increase our supplies of energy from all available sources. Every potential source of energy will be required in order to meet our energy needs in the future. We need to make sure that resources that have not yet been as extensively developed as they might otherwise be, such as renewable energy, get the policy assist they need to make their maximum contribution.

The second principle is we need to ensure that the energy we do produce is transported as effectively as possible and is consumed as efficiently as possible. Our national energy system depends on a critical infrastructure of ports and pipelines and transmission wires and other modes of moving energy from one place to another. Building and maintaining that infrastructure is difficult and it is expensive. We need to make sure we have policies so consumers are not hurt by price spikes and other problems caused by bottlenecks in the energy system.

Once energy reaches its point of end use, it is important that it not be wasted. Improving the efficiency of energy use in appliances, in commercial equipment, in industrial processes, and in transportation will lead to two important goals: lowering the price for all energy users and less strain on our energy infrastructure.

The third principle of a good, comprehensive energy policy is that we need to make sure it meshes well with other important national policies. It is especially important the energy policy have good synergy with environmental policy. Nowhere is this more clear, in my view, than in the case of global warming. Mr. President, 98 percent of the carbon dioxide produced in the United States is associated somehow with energy production and use. We cannot afford an energy policy that does not take into account environmental and climate impact, just as we cannot afford to have a climate policy that ignores energy impacts.

Finally, because we rely heavily on market forces and signals to shape our energy choices, we need to be sure that we have energy markets that are transparent and that are fair to consumers. I believe when we have competitive energy markets that work fairly, everyone in the energy chain, from the producer to the consumer, benefits.

As the California electricity crisis a few years ago showed--and not just the California crisis but the crisis that afflicted most of the west coast--when energy markets are not structured properly, when those markets allow for hidden and manipulative practices, great economic damage can be done.

These four principles are the foundation I hope we have before us in this energy bill that is coming to the Senate for consideration. I believe the Senate will ultimately be judged in the area of energy policy, first by whether our bill makes a concrete difference in bringing new energy resources and technologies into the mix; second, by whether we make sure that we use advanced technology to save as much energy as possible; third, by our ability to protect the environment and respond to challenges such as global warming; and, finally, by our ability to shape energy markets for the future that protect and empower consumers.

At the beginning of the markup of the bill in the Energy Committee, I expressed my appreciation to my colleague, Senator Domenici, for the way he and his staff had worked with Democratic Members and staff in preparing for the markup. I told him that he deserved great credit for a good start, and I looked forward to working with him to see if we could have a similarly good finish in the committee.

We had a very good finish in the committee. We are now having a good start on the Senate floor. This bill is a good starting point, but there are several important issues with which we need to deal in the full Senate that we were not able to address in committee. Three of these issues deal with providing more certainty to all those associated with our energy system so that they can make rational investments in the energy technologies of the future.

First, we need to provide renewable energy with a more certain place in our future. Renewable energy provides nowhere near the contribution to our energy mix today that it could or that it should. In the last Congress, we expanded the scope of production tax credits for renewable energy, but these tax credits expire after only a very short time. Thus, they do not provide the needed long-term market signals. I believe we need to supplement these tax credits with a long-term national renewable electricity standard. By having a clear, certain requirement that 10 percent of all electricity generation comes from renewables in the year 2020, we would give industry the certainty it needs to successfully undertake new projects to improve the diversity of our electricity generation mix and to relieve some of the pressure that is leading to high natural gas prices.

Second, we need to deal responsibly with global warming. The electric industry and many other sectors of our economy are gripped with uncertainty about the future of carbon-based energy and products in a world that is increasingly concerned about global warming. There is a need for certainty about the regulatory framework that would be in effect regarding future investments to ameliorate the threat of global warming. Under our current voluntary approach to the problem we will likely never see these new investments,

not because they are not needed but because the economic picture is so clouded.

Third, we need more clarity on how we plan to deal with our dependence on foreign oil. We need to see if we can spur additional petroleum production in a way that is environmentally responsible, and we need to see if we can find ways to use less oil in the American economy. If we can trim the growth in our national demand for oil, we will relieve both our dependence on imports and the pressure on our national infrastructure of oil terminals and pipelines and refineries, all of which are operating near their capacity today.

An energy bill is a place for clear purposes. I hope that when the full Senate has completed its consideration of this measure, it will have expressed a willingness to take clear and forceful new action to ensure that our energy future is clean and abundant and affordable.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I join the chairman in his reluctance to prejudge amendments that we have not yet seen here in the Senate. We are trying very hard on this bill to consider and work out issues on their merits, which is how I think energy legislation should be considered in the Senate.

I can assure my colleagues, Senator Nelson and Senator Martinez, that in order to move forward expeditiously with this legislation, I will likewise not support an amendment that alters current OCS moratoria with respect to submerged lands off of Florida's coast or that affects lands in Lease Sale 181, and that I will work very closely with them on any amendment that they believe affects Florida's interests with respect to the Outer Continental Shelf. Senator Nelson has been a strong leader and advocate for preventing oil and gas development off of Florida's coasts. He is a passionate defender of the pristine beaches, estuaries, and native mangrove ecosystems of Florida. I am keenly aware that he and his colleague, Senator Martinez, have considerable rights under the Senate rules to impede the progress of this bill if amendments threatening these important Florida resources were in fact offered. But, I think it is unlikely that any Senator will offer an amendment to lift OCS moratoria off of Florida, or open areas otherwise unavailable for leasing, during our consideration of this bill.

I have somewhat different policy views than those of Chairman Domenici with respect to the role of States and the OCS. I certainly agree with his desire to see additional environmentally responsible energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf. Any policy differences regarding how that is to be accomplished are probably best left to another occasion. I also have a very different policy view on Lease Sale 181 from the Senators from Florida. I have supported drilling in the Lease Sale 181 area in the past and am likely to do so in the future.

I do believe that oil and gas production on the OCS can and will play an important role in meeting our Nation's energy needs, and that we need to craft appropriate national policies in that regard. For that reason, like the chairman, I support the inventory proposal contained in the bill now, and would support attempts to improve it. But I do not think that such provisions necessarily would operate to the detriment of Floridians. I appreciate the diligence being shown by our colleagues on these topics, given the importance that Floridians place on maintaining a pristine coastal environment. I look forward to continuing to work with them on these issues as this bill progresses.

Mr. President, let me take a minute, also, and underscore the comments our colleague from Nebraska and Senator Domenici have made about Jim Exon. He was a great U.S. Senator and one with whom I was fortunate to serve on the Armed Services Committee for many years. He contributed a tremendous amount to his home State and to this country. He will be missed by all who served with him in the Senate.

There is a service for him tomorrow in Nebraska, which I hope to attend. I will also have extensive comments to offer at a future time. It is a great loss to the country and a great loss, of course, to all those who knew him. He will be fondly remembered in this Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sreela Nandi, Tara Billingsley, and Dominic Saavedra, all of whom are fellows or interns with the Democratic staff and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and Jonathan Epstein, a legislative fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of this bill, H.R. 6.

Mr. President--I rise today to introduce a bill that would establish a capability within the State Department Science Advisor's Office to assess science and technology outside the United States.

Over the past two years I have traveled to Taiwan, China and India to better understand why these developing countries' economies were growing so rapidly. I learned that in all cases the primary reason for their robust growth was the emergence of a well-trained science and engineering workforce that tied directly into their highly competitive innovation economies.

For instance, Taiwan now leads the world in general purpose foundry computer chip facilities, controlling about 70 percent of the world market. A recent Defense Science Board Report entitled ``High Performance Microchip Supply'' notes that by the end of 2005 there will be 59 300mm chip fabrication plants with only 16 of these located in the United States. The number of U.S. plants has remained constant for the past two years, so as the number of Asian foundries has risen, the share of these advanced chip making facilities has declined from 30 to 20 percent. This report also notes that capital expenditures in the U.S. chip industry has fallen from a high of 42 percent in 2001 to 33 percent in 2004. Conversely, Taiwan's investment has increased from 15 percent in 2002 to 20 percent of the world's capital expenditure in chip facilities and now leads Korea, Japan, and Europe.

There is a good explanation as to why countries such as Taiwan are rapidly rising in the high-technology world. Since 1984 Taiwan has made steady increases in their investments in the building of science based research parks. Hsinchu, their flagship science park, now has over 324 high technology companies, generating over $22 billion annually in gross revenues, and employing a high technology work force exceeding 100,000. This science park is bounded by two universities and contains six national laboratories. Taiwan is now building science parks in the middle and south of the island to concentrate on other fields such as nanoscience, optoelectronics, and biotechnology. These parks are the result of a number of carefully crafted government policies and incentives dealing with taxes, real estate, and fundamental research. In the area of technology transfer, the Taiwan government helped set up the world famous Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) which has over 5,000 scientists working to spin out laboratory ideas across the ``valley of death'' into new industries. Remarkably, the two chip foundry companies which now control 70 percent of the world's foundry market were launched from ITRI. As a result of this rapid economic growth, Taiwan's technical universities are now world class with their own excellent graduate programs. The reason they are side-by-side with these large science parks is to supply a steady stream of talented researchers.

Recently, our National Academy of Sciences noted in its report, ``International Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Scholars,'' that Taiwan's domestic economic growth has led to fewer Taiwanese students applying to U.S. graduate schools. For the past two decades, Taiwan's students were the core supply of talent in our innovative science and engineering graduate school programs. Of equal concern, the successful Taiwanese scholars who attended graduate school in the United States 20 or 30 years ago are now returning home and giving back their

professional wisdom to advance on their birth country's high-technology leadership.

This same story holds true for India. My visit there this January yielded similar observations on their rapidly developing high technology sector. Since 1990, India has invested in the development of software and technology parks and currently has over 40 spread throughout the country. These parks were responsible for much of the high technology development in software and biotechnology. Indeed, multinational companies such as Intel, Microsoft and GE have built large research centers there to tap into the intellectual power educated at the Indian Institutes of Technology and the Indian Institute of Science. GE's Jack Welch R&D Center in Bangalore has 2,300 Ph.D.'s conducting research in all aspects of their product lines. India's GE center now directs their plastics plant in Indiana on how to operate more efficiently in real time over the internet. Intel's research center has 2,000 product engineers designing the chips Americans will use in our computers and home entertainment centers next holiday season. The chips designed at Intel's Bangalore center are fabricated at their plant in Albuquerque. The tables have turned rather dramatically. We used to design the chips here and then they were manufactured overseas.

When I visited Infosys, one of India's largest software companies, I was advised that in 2004 they received 1.2 million on-line employment applications, gave a standardized test to 300,000 job seekers interviewed 30,000, and then hired 10,000. They expect to repeat this same process again this year, which illustrates the deep pool of well trained talent that India has available. A number of the India's leading biotech entrepreneurs I visited with told me they weren't so much afraid of losing talent to the U.S. as they were to Singapore, with its burgeoning government investments in biotechnology.

Similar to Taiwan, the National Academy report also documents a rapid drop in Indian student applications to U.S. graduate schools. India's rapidly developing economy encourages the best and brightest students to stay home and study in India rather than consider U.S. graduate schools. For the past 20 years, we have relied on this influx of the cream of the academic crop I from India and Taiwan to form the high- tech startup companies of Silicon Valley.

The stark question before us--whether it involves India, Taiwan, China, or Singapore is: are we missing the bigger picture? By the time we realize we have a problem in innovation and our investments in science and engineering investments, will it be too late? Will these Pacific Rim countries have climbed past us up the value chain, and will they be able to produce equally innovative high technology product at far cheaper costs?

The bill I am introducing today, may be small, but the consequences are enormous. This measure proposes to authorize a capability in the office of the Science Advisor to the Secretary of State to conduct assessments of the science and technology capabilities in other countries such as India, China and Taiwan.

The director of this office will report to the Secretary of State's Science Advisor. The office will to the maximum extent possible utilize firms that can conduct science and technology assessments in the country of interest to minimize and augment the federal staff. That is why I have proposed giving the office generous contracting authorities with respect to soliciting contracts and disbursing funds so that it may move quickly to gather information on certain topics so that we as a nation are not caught by surprise by an advance in a high technology area.

Additionally, this legislation authorizes a Foreign Science and Technology Assessment Panel whose purpose is to look over the horizon and choose topics and technologies to assess, as well as to evaluate the timeliness and quality of the reports generated. These reports are to be publicly available, benefiting not only our government by ensuring the nation's leadership in science and engineering, but also our private sector, especially those high technology firms that must successfully compete in a fierce global market. The panel members, to be selected by the Secretary of State in consultation with the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, will be distinguished leaders who have expert knowledge about our competitors' capabilities in science and technology.

High technology moves at a rapid rate, and every sign I picked up from my science and technology trips to China, India, Taiwan and Japan indicates to me that our government seems to be asleep at the switch here at home with regard to understanding how quickly these countries are moving up the value chain from simple manufacturing to sustained efforts in science and engineering that matches if not exceeds us in the innovation cycle. This bill, while a small step forward, will serve to ensure that we constantly assess where other countries are in that value chain and to make sure we are doing everything possible to maintain our leadership in fields of high technology.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation entitled ``Ending the Medicare Disability Waiting Period Act of 2005'' with Senators DeWine, Corzine, Durbin, Schumer, Johnson, Cantwell, Lautenberg, Stabenow, Kennedy, Clinton, Kerry, Mikulski, Akaka, Salazar, and Sarbanes. This legislation would phase-out the current 2-year waiting period that people with disabilities must endure after qualifying for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). In the interim or as the waiting period is being phased out, the bill would also create a process by which the Secretary can immediately waive the waiting period for people with life-threatening illnesses.

When Medicare was expanded in 1972 to include people with significant disabilities, lawmakers created the 24-month waiting period. According to a July 2003 report from the Commonwealth Fund, it is estimated that over 1.2 million SSDI beneficiaries are in the Medicare waiting period at any given time, ``all of whom are unable to work because of their disability and most of whom have serious health problems, low incomes, and limited access to health insurance.''

The stated reason at the time was to limit the fiscal cost of the provision. However, I would assert that there is no reason, be it fiscal or moral, to tell people that they must wait longer than 2 years after becoming severely disabled before we provide them access to much needed health care.

In fact, it is important to note that there really are actually three waiting periods that are imposed upon people seeking to qualify for SSDI. First, there is the disability determination process through the Social Security Administration, which often takes many months or even longer than a year in some cases. Second, once a worker has been certified as having a severe or permanent disability, they must wait an additional 5 months before receiving their first SSDI check. And third, after receiving that first SSDI check, there is the 2-year period that people must wait before their Medicare coverage begins.

What happens to the health and well-being of people waiting more than 2\1/2\ years before they finally receive critically needed Medicare coverage? According to Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund, which has conducted 2 important studies on the issue, ``Individuals in the waiting period for Medicare suffer from a broad range of debilitating diseases and are in urgent need of appropriate medical care to manage their conditions. Eliminating the 2-year wait would ensure access to care for those already on the way to Medicare.''

Again, we are talking about individuals that have been determined to be unable to engage in any ``substantial, gainful activity'' because of either a physical or mental impairment that is expected to result in death or to continue for at least 12 months. These are people that, by definition, are in more need of health coverage than anybody else in our society. Of the 1.2 million people stuck in the 2-year waiting period at any given time, it is estimated that one-third, or 400,000, are left completely uninsured. The consequences are unacceptable and are, in fact, dire.

In fact, various studies show that death rates among SSDI recipients are highest during the first 2 years of enrollment while waiting to be covered by Medicare. For example, the Commonwealth Fund report, entitled ``Elimination of Medicare's Waiting Period for Seriously Disabled Adults: Impact on Coverage and Costs,'' 4 percent of these people die during the waiting period. In other words, it is estimated that of the estimated 400,000 uninsured disabled Americans in the waiting period at any given time, 16,000 of them will die awaiting Medicare coverage. Let me repeat . . . 16,000 of the 400,000 uninsured disabled in the waiting period at any given moment will die while waiting for Medicare coverage to begin.

Moreover, this does not factor in the serious health problems that others experience while waiting for Medicare coverage during the 2-year period. Although there is no direct data on the profile of SSDI beneficiaries in the 2-year waiting period, the Commonwealth Fund has undertaken a separate analysis of the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey for 1998 to get a good sense of the demographic characteristics, income, and health conditions of this group.

According to the analysis, ``. . . 45 percent of nonelderly Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities had incomes below the Federal poverty line, and 77 percent had incomes below 200 percent of poverty. Fifth- nine percent reported that they were in fair or poor health; of this group, more than 90 percent reported that they suffered from one or more chronic illnesses, including arthritis (52 percent), hypertension (46 percent), mental disorder (36 percent), heart condition (35 percent), chronic lung disease (26 percent), cancer (20 percent), diabetes (19 percent), and stroke (12 percent).''

To ascertain the impact the waiting period has on the lives of these citizens, the Commonwealth Fund and the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation conducted a follow-up to ``gain insight into the experiences of people with disabilities under age 65 in the Medicare 2-year waiting period.'' According to that second report entitled ``Waiting for Medicare: Experiences of Uninsured People with Disabilities in the Two- Year Waiting Period for Medicare'' in October 2004, ``Most of these individuals must invariably get by with some combination of living one day at a time, assertiveness, faith, and sheer luck.''

One person in the waiting period with a spinal cord injury from Atlanta, Georgia, seeking medical treatment for their condition was told to simply ``try not to get sick for 2 years.'' As the individual said in response, ``None of us TRIED to become disabled.''

The people that we have spoken to in the waiting period, since the introduction of this legislation last year, talk about foregoing critically needed medical treatment, stopping medications and therapy, feeling dismayed and depressed about their lives and future, and feeling a loss of control over their lives and independence while in the waiting period.

These testimonials and appeals in support of this legislation are often emotional and intense. Some describe the waiting period as a ``living nightmare'' and appropriately ask how it is possible that their government is doing this to them.

In fact, some have had the unfortunate fate of having received SSI and Medicaid coverage, applied for SSDI, and then lost their Medicaid coverage because they were not aware that the change in income, when they received SSDI, would push them over the financial limits for Medicaid. In such a case, and let me emphasize this point, the government is effectively taking their health care coverage away because they are so severely disabled.

Therefore, for some in the waiting period, their battle is often as much with the government as it is with their medical condition, disease, or disability.

Nobody could possible think this makes any sense.

House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas questioned the rationale of the waiting period in a press conference on April 29, 2005.

As the Medicare Rights Center has said, ``By forcing Americans with disabilities to wait 24 months for Medicare coverage, the current law effectively sentences these people to inadequate health care, poverty, or death . . . Since disability can strike anyone, at any point in life, the 24-month waiting period should be of concern to everyone, not just the millions of Americans with disabilities today.''

Although elimination of the Medicare waiting period will certainly increase Medicare costs, it is important

to note that there will be some corresponding decrease in Medicaid costs. Medicaid, which is financed by both Federal and State governments, often provides coverage for a subset of disabled Americans in the waiting period, as long as they meet certain income and asset limits. Income limits are typically at or below the poverty level, including at just 74 percent of the poverty line in New Mexico, with assets generally limited to just $2,000 for individuals and $3,000 for couples.

The Commonwealth Fund estimates that, of the 1.26 million people in the waiting period, 40 percent are enrolled in Medicaid. As a result, the Commonwealth Fund estimates in the study that Federal Medicaid savings would offset nearly 30 percent of the increased costs. Furthermore, States, which have been struggling financially with their Medicaid programs, would reap a windfall that would help them better manage their Medicaid programs.

Furthermore, from a continuity of care point of view, it makes little sense that somebody with disabilities must leave their job and their health providers associated with that plan, move on the Medicaid to often have a different set of providers, to then switch to Medicare and yet another set of providers. The cost, both financial and personal, of not providing access to care or poorly coordinated care services for these seriously ill people during the waiting period may be greater in many cases than providing health coverage.

And finally, private-sector employers and employees in those risk- pools would also benefit from the passage of the bill. As the 2003 report notes, ``. . . to the extent that disabled adults rely on coverage through their prior employer or their spouse's employer, eliminating the waiting period would also produce savings to employers who provide this coverage.''

To address concerns about costs and immediate impact on the Medicare program, the legislation phases out the waiting period over a 10-year period. In the interim, the legislation would create a process by which others with life-threatening illnesses could also get an exception to the waiting period. Congress has previously extended such an exception to the waiting period for individuals with amyothrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, and for hospice services. The ALS exception passed the Congress in December 2000 and went into effect July 1, 2001. Thus, the legislation would extend the exception to all people with life-threatening illnesses in the waiting period.

I would like to thank Senator DeWine and the other original cosponsors, including Senators Corzine, Durbin, Schumer, Johnson, Cantwell, Lautenberg, Stabenow, Kennedy, Clinton, Kerry, Mikulski, Akaka, Salazar, and Sarbanes, for supporting this critically important legislation. Furthermore, I would like to commend Representative Gene Green of Texas for his introduction of the companion bill in the House of Representatives and for his work, diligence, and commitment to this issue.

I urge passage of this legislation and ask unanimous consent that a fact sheet, which includes a list of original supporting organizations for the legislation, and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.