Floor Statements

Mr. President, let me speak in support of what Senator Baucus, the Senator from Montana, attempted to do just now--to get a short-term extension of current law with regard to the estate tax, so we would have a $3.5 million exemption from the estate tax into next year for a short period, while we actually settle on what type of permanent change in estate tax law is appropriate.

As the Senator from Montana pointed out, the circumstance we find ourselves in right now, given the current state of the law, is untenable and irresponsible. What the current status is that if a person dies in the next 16 days, if their estate exceeds $3.5 million, they will be subject to an estate tax, and a couple whose estate--when the second member of the estate dies and their estate would exceed $7 million, they would be subject to an estate tax.

After the next 16 days, beginning on January 1 of next year, we have no estate tax under the law as it now exists. But at the end of next year--or the beginning of 2011--the estate tax comes back at a 55- percent rate.

That is not a reasonable set of circumstances for the American public to have to face. Not only is it a 55-percent rate that comes back on January 1, 2011, the exemption--the amount that is exempt from the estate tax--is reduced to $1 million. That is, obviously, adverse to many families in this country.

What has happened on the Senate floor is that the Senator from Montana has said let's do a short-term extension of the current estate tax provisions for a few months and get a resolution of what should be done on a permanent basis. The Republican leader has said: No; here is a permanent solution. Take this permanent solution or we object.

That is not a responsible way for this body to proceed, in my opinion. I do

think this issue that both Senator Reid and Senator Baucus have spoken about of this problem with a stepped-up basis going away for inherited assets is a very real problem. It is arcane, I understand that. It sounds like accounting speak. But it is a very real problem for American families when they inherit property in the future to have to take the value for purposes of paying capital gains tax. If that property is ever sold, they will have to go back and try to determine what was the basis that their parent or the person from whom they inherited the property had in that property. It is a bookkeeping nightmare and will create great confusion for American families.

Clearly, the right course is for us to do a short-term extension of the current estate tax provisions and then get agreement between the two parties as to what a long-term solution could be in the next couple of months.

That course, evidently, is being blocked. The request was made yesterday, I understand, by Senator Pryor to have a short-term extension. The Republican leaders objected to that request. The same objection has been raised to the request by Senator Baucus today.

I do think this is an unfortunate circumstance. It is a great disappointment to me to see us doing business in this fashion. I know there are many who think there should be no estate tax. I do not agree with that perspective. The estate tax in my State--I went back and got the IRS figures. There were 80 individuals in the year 2008 who wound up having to pay some estate tax, whose estates had to pay some estate tax in the State of New Mexico. It does not apply to most individuals.

I do believe it is appropriate that there be an estate tax for large estates. I do believe we should have a consistent policy, and it should not be something that is here today, gone tomorrow, and back again in a much worse form at the beginning of January 2011. That is the course we are on today. I think it is very unfortunate.

Again, I strongly support what the Senator from Montana was trying to accomplish with his unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a business meeting has been scheduled before Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The business meeting will be held on Wednesday, December 16, 2009, at 11:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office.

The purpose of the business meeting is to consider pending legislation.

For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836.

Mr. President, a recent report by the New America Foundation finds that ``the United States ran an overall green trade deficit of -$8.9 billion in 2008, including a deficit of -$6.4 billion in the critical category of renewable energy. . .'' To halt this trend and promote American leadership in clean technology manufacturing, I was pleased to see the Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit, codified as Section 48C of the Internal Revenue Code, established under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Under Section 48C, qualifying projects receive a 30 percent tax credit for capital expenditures related to new, expanded, or re-equipped advanced energy manufacturing projects. But Section 48C was enacted subject to a $2.3 billion limitation in allocation authority--and we expect the full $2.3 billion soon to be exhausted. Because we cannot allow this credit to lapse, I rise today to introduce the American Clean Technology Manufacturing Leadership Act, which would add $2.5 billion in allocation authority to the Section 48C Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit program. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Hatch, Senator Stabenow, and Senator Lugar in introducing this bill.

By establishing the Section 48C credit, Congress took a significant step--but we cannot slow down now. In the near- to mid-term, we can anticipate rapid growth in demand for renewable energy technologies, due to the long-term extension of the production tax credit and the commercial and residential investment tax credits; declining product costs; the anticipated enactment this Congress of a national renewable portfolio standard; and the anticipated implementation of a carbon control system. But without robust incentives, foreign-based manufacturers are poised to seize a large share of this domestic growth in the clean power market with products exported to the United States. As New America explains: ``If current trends continue, the green trade deficit can be expected to widen further as the administration's agenda increases domestic demand but without sufficient measures to increase domestic production. If the deficit continues to grow, the United States will forego the creation of millions of high-wage, high-skill green manufacturing jobs and lose its potential to be a global producer as well as a consumer of green technologies.''

The reality is that we need a level playing field to bring manufacturing jobs to the United States. For years, Germany, China, India, Malaysia, and the Philippines have offered incentives that have placed the United States at a competitive disadvantage. For instance, for solar photovoltaic manufacturers, Malaysia and the Philippines offer income tax holidays, 15 years in the case of Malaysia, and Germany offers up to 30 percent of investment costs for large enterprises and 40-50 percent for smaller enterprises.

The Section 48C Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit made an important stride in leveling that playing field. ARRA instructed Treasury and DOE to establish a selection procedure for allocating credits, thus ensuring that only the most promising projects receive a Federal investment. But the program is oversubscribed and we anticipate that by January 15, the full $2.3 billion authorized under ARRA will be allocated.

We cannot afford to have this credit lapse. There are additional qualified applications ready to be evaluated, and an existing selection infrastructure to make these awards quickly. To keep us on track, our bill would add an additional $2.5 billion in allocation authority-- enough to leverage an additional $8.3 billion in investment in domestic manufacturing facilities.

Yesterday President Obama himself called for an expansion of this credit. Speaking at the Brookings Institution, the President said that the Treasury program has received a substantial response and warrants an expansion: ``It's a positive sign that many of these programs drew so many applicants for funding that a lot of strong proposals-- proposals that will leverage private capital and create jobs quickly-- did not make the cut,'' President Obama said. ``With additional resources, in areas like advanced manufacturing of wind turbines and solar panels, for instance, we can help turn good ideas into good private-sector jobs.''

We should move immediately to meet the President's call, by adding $2.5 billion in allocation authority. Allowing this credit to lapse would only cede high-paying jobs to other countries at a time when our unemployment rate hovers above 10 percent.

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

Mr. President, let me thank Senator Baucus for his leadership on this issue. I have mentioned to him many times that I strongly believe without his leadership, we would not be where we are today in our effort to reform health care. I congratulate him on the superb effort he has made.

I want to spend a few minutes talking about health care reform both as it affects the country but also as it affects my home State of New Mexico. First, I would like to discuss the context for this health reform bill, and that is the very serious problem we face in the country with the growing cost of health care, if the Congress fails to act. We have a chart I will put up, since everyone has charts. This is a chart that shows what is happening to all health care costs and has been happening since 1960. We can see that as a percent of the gross domestic product, back in 1960 we were spending right at 5 percent of GDP on all health care. Today we are spending much more like 16 percent of the gross domestic product on health care. The projections for the future, if we do not act to reform the health care system, are very serious indeed.

Let me allude to an article in the morning New York Times. This is by Nobel award-winning economist Paul Krugman of Princeton University. He talks about this issue of fiscal responsibility and the impact of health care reform on the deficit. It talks about how some Senators have concerns about going ahead with this health care reform bill because of what it might cost. He makes the point:

But if they're really concerned with fiscal responsibility,

they shouldn't be worried about what would happen if health

reform passes. They should, instead, be worried about what

would happen if it doesn't pass. For America can't get

control of its budget without controlling health care costs--

and this is our last, best chance to deal with these costs in

a rational way.

I ask unanimous consent that the full column from the New York Times

of this morning be printed in the Record following my remarks.

As this chart demonstrates, according to the Congressional Budget Office, if we don't act to deal with the growth in health care costs, Federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid combined will grow from 5 percent of GDP today to almost 10 percent by 2035. By 2080, the government would be spending almost as much as a share of the economy on just its two major health care programs as it has spent on all of its programs and services in recent years.

Let me put up another chart that demonstrates that most of this increase in cost is not the result of our aging population. We do have an aging population; that does add to the cost of health care because as people get older they tend to need more health care. The dark blue shows the increase expected in health care costs by virtue of aging. But the lighter blue talks about the effect of excess cost growth that is not related to aging; that is, the growth in health care cost is out of control in our current system. Such spending is unsustainable. It has led the Congressional Budget Office to say:

Slowing the growth rate of outlays for Medicare and

Medicaid is the central long-term challenge for fiscal

policy.

Moreover, across the country, premiums continue to increase. They are becoming more and more unaffordable for individuals and for businesses. I hear on a regular basis when I go around New Mexico--and I am sure all my colleagues hear from their constituents as they travel in their States--that people cannot continue to pay more and more each year for their health care coverage. According to an August report by the Commonwealth Fund, nationally, family premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance increased 119 percent between 1999 and 2008. If cost growth continues on its current course, those premiums could increase another 94 percent to an average of $23,842 per family by 2020. I am not sure what the circumstance is in many States, but I know in New Mexico there are many families who cannot afford to pay $23,800 in health care premiums.

Nowhere is the unsustainable growth felt more acutely than in my home State. Without health reform, in my State we are projected to experience the greatest increase in health insurance premiums of any State in the Union. For example, the average employer-sponsored insurance premium for a family in New Mexico was about $6,000 in the year 2000. By 2006, this rate had almost doubled, or the cost had almost doubled to $11,000. By 2016, the amount is expected to rise to an astonishing $28,000. In addition, health insurance premiums in New Mexico make up a larger percentage of New Mexico's income, the income of the average New Mexico family, than almost all other States. We are paying 31.18 percent. Over 31 percent of the average income of a family in New Mexico is going to pay for health care. This is expected to grow to 56 percent if we do not reform our health care system.

It is important to highlight that the higher spending on health care in the United States does not necessarily prolong lives. I hear a lot of speeches about how we have the greatest health care system in the world. We are the envy of the world. People would just love to have access to our health care system. This chart illustrates that in 2000, the United States spent more on health care than any other country in the world, an average of $4,500 per person. That was in 2000. Switzerland was the second highest at $3,300, substantially less. Essentially, its cost per person was 71 percent of what it was in the United States during that year. Nevertheless, the average U.S. life expectancy comes out at 27th in the world. Our life expectancy average is 77 years. Many countries, 26 to be exact, achieve higher life expectancy rates with significantly lower spending on health care.

Data from the McKinsey Global Institute clearly indicates there is a considerable level of waste in our current system. McKinsey estimates that the United States spends nearly $\1/2\ trillion annually in excess of other similarly situated nations. Of this, about $224 billion in excess costs are found in hospital care. About $178 billion are found in outpatient care. Together these account for more than 80 percent of U.S. spending above the levels of other nations.

Here is one other chart. This is one I have used before on the Senate floor. Not surprisingly, as costs and inefficiencies continue to build, access to health care is becoming more and more difficult for middle- and lower-income Americans. This chart indicates the rate of uninsurance throughout the country. First, on the left-hand side is the year 2000; on the right-hand side is 2008. We can see the dark blue States are States where 23 percent or more of the population ages 18 to 64 are uninsured. Back in the year 2000, New Mexico and Texas were the only two States where the rate of uninsurance exceeded 23 percent. Now we can see the rate of uninsurance exceeds 23 percent for many of the States, particularly across the southern part of the country.

We have a very serious problem that needs addressing. It is clear that the U.S. health care system is failing many Americans. The situation is becoming more and more urgent. According to a study published by the Harvard Medical School in August, medical costs have led to almost two-thirds of the bankruptcies in this country. More than 26 percent of bankruptcies are attributable to health care problems. The study found that most medical debtors were well educated, owned their own homes, had middle-class occupations and, shockingly, three quarters had health insurance. So these were people who had coverage, but the coverage was not adequate to meet the needs. Unfortunately, for many individuals, the very high cost of medical care leads them to delay or to avoid receiving medical care altogether.

The Urban Institute reports that 137,000 people in this country died between 2000 and 2006 because they lacked health insurance. That includes 22,000 people in 2006. Clearly, the need for national health reform has never been so great.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the legislation we are debating, introduced by Senator Reid and others a few weeks ago, includes the key reforms we have come up with and that the experts have come up with, aimed at addressing these very serious problems, while protecting the aspects of our health system that are working today.

First, this bill includes long-overdue reforms to increase the efficiency and quality of the health care system while reducing overall cost. For example, the legislation includes payment reforms that I have championed to shift from a fee-for-service payment system to a bundled payment system. This will reshape our health care reimbursement system to reward better care and not simply more care as it currently does today.

Second, it includes a broad new framework to ensure that all Americans have access to quality and affordable health care. This includes creation of a new health insurance exchange in each State which will provide Americans a centralized source of meaningful private insurance as well as refundable tax credits to ensure that coverage is affordable.

Finally, these new health insurance exchanges will help improve choices by allowing families and businesses to compare insurance plans on the basis of price and performance. This puts families, rather than the insurance companies or the government bureaucrats, in charge of health care. It helps people to decide which quality, affordable insurance option is right for them.

The Congressional Budget Office, which is cited here--quite frankly, I notice that the Congressional Budget Office is cited by both Democrats and the Republicans in this debate, and that is a credit to the CBO. They are seen as nonpartisan, and they are nonpartisan. I congratulate Doug Elmendorf for the good work CBO has been doing in support of our efforts to come to the right answer on health care reform--the CBO forecasts that this legislation would not add to the deficit.

As the chart Senator Baucus had a few minutes ago clearly indicates, the deficit would be reduced in the first 10 years by $130 billion. It would be reduced in the second 10 years, going up to 2029, by something over $600 billion.

Let me also point out the contrast. We are talking about a bill which the

Congressional Budget Office says will reduce the size of the deficit in future decades. I can remember a couple Congresses ago when we had a debate on adding subpart D to Medicare, Part D to Medicare. There are many on the floor who are concerned about cost today--at least they say so in their speeches--who were very anxious to add that legislation to Medicare, adding another $500 billion. That was estimated by the CBO at that time: another $500 billion over a 10-year period to the cost that Medicare was bearing.

The efforts we are making in this legislation to bring under control the cost growth in Medicare is essential if we are going to keep Medicare solvent in the future, and part of the solvency problem Medicare has in the future, frankly, is related to what we did in subpart D.

On the subject of premium cost, CBO has also found that in the individual market, the amount that subsidized enrollees would pay for non coverage would be roughly 56 percent to 59 percent lower, on average, than the premiums charged in the individual market under current law. Among enrollees in the individual market who would not receive new subsidies, average premiums would increase by less than 10 to 13 percent. The legislation would have smaller effects on premiums for employment-based coverage. Its greatest impact would be on smaller employers qualifying for new health insurance tax credits. For these businesses and their employees, CBO predicts premiums would decrease by about 8 percent to 11 percent compared with their costs under current law.

This is consistent with estimates of the impact in my home State of New Mexico, where average families may see a decrease in premiums of as much as 60 percent. In addition, about two-thirds of New Mexicans could potentially qualify for subsidies or Medicaid and nearly a quarter would qualify for near full subsidies or Medicaid.

An overall decrease in premium costs also is consistent with the experience in Massachusetts where there has been an enormous reduction in the cost of nongroup insurance in the State after they enacted similar reform to what we are considering now in the Senate. After reform the average individual premium in Massachusetts fell from $8537 at the end of 2006 to $5143 in mid-2009, a 40 percent reduction while the rest of the Nation was seeing a 14 percent increase.

Finally, much of the debate on health care reform has focused on insurance coverage but it is important to recognize that as we expand coverage to include more Americans, the demand for health care services will also increase. A strong health care workforce is therefore essential for successful health reform. Within the United States, approximately 25 percent of counties are designated health professions shortage areas--a measure indicating that there is insufficient medical staff to properly serve that geographic area. The problem is even more apparent in rural States such as New Mexico. For example, 32 out of 33 counties in my State has this shortage designation. As a result, New Mexico ranks last compared to all other states with regard to both access to health care and utilization of preventative medicine.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act we are debating contains key provisions to improve access and delivery of health care services throughout the Nation. These provisions include increasing the supply of physicians, nurses, and other health care providers; enhancing workforce education and training; and providing support to the existing workforce.

I applaud Senators Reid, Baucus, Dodd, Harkin, and many other colleagues who have worked so hard on this bill. This legislation represents true healthcare reform. It is time for the Senate to put partisanship aside and enact this critical and long overdue legislation.

I see my time is up and there are others waiting to speak. I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

[From the New York Times, Dec. 4, 2009]

Reform Or Else

(By Paul Krugman)

Health care reform hangs in the balance. Its fate rests

with a handful of ``centrist'' senators--senators who claim

to be mainly worried about whether the proposed legislation

is fiscally responsible.

But if they're really concerned with fiscal responsibility,

they shouldn't be worried about what would happen if health

reform passes. They should, instead, be worried about what

would happen if it doesn't pass. For America can't get

control of its budget without controlling health care costs--

and this is our last, best chance to deal with these costs in

a rational way.

Some background: Long-term fiscal projections for the

United States, paint a grim picture. Unless there are major

policy changes, expenditure will consistently grow faster

than revenue, eventually leading to a debt crisis.

What's behind these projections? An aging population, which

will raise the cost of Social Security, is part of the story.

But the main driver of future deficits is the ever-rising

cost of Medicare and Medicaid. If health care costs rise in

the future as they have in the past, fiscal catastrophe

awaits.

You might think, given this picture, that extending

coverage to those who would otherwise be uninsured would

exacerbate the problem. But you'd be wrong, for two reasons.

First, the uninsured in America are, on average, relatively

young and healthy; covering them wouldn't raise overall

health care costs very much.

Second, the proposed health care reform links the expansion

of coverage to serious cost-control measures for Medicare.

Think of it as a grand bargain: coverage for (almost)

everyone, tied to an effort to ensure that health care

dollars are well spent.

Are we talking about real savings, or just window dressing?

Well, the health care economists I respect are seriously

impressed by the cost-control measures in the Senate bill,

which include efforts to improve incentives for cost-

effective care, the use of medical research to guide doctors

toward treatments that actually work, and more. This is ``the

best effort anyone has made,'' says Jonathan Gruber of the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A letter signed by 23

prominent health care experts--including Mark McClellan, who

headed Medicare under the Bush administration--declares that

the bill's cost-control measures ``will reduce long-term

deficits.''

The fact that we're seeing the first really serious attempt

to control health care costs as part of a bill that tries to

cover the uninsured seems to confirm what would-be reformers

have been saying for years: The path to cost control runs

through universality. We can only tackle out-of-control costs

as part of a deal that also provides Americans with the

security of guaranteed health care.

That observation in itself should make anyone concerned

with fiscal responsibility support this reform. Over the next

decade, the Congressional Budget Office has concluded, the

proposed legislation would reduce, not increase, the budget

deficit. And by giving us a chance, finally, to rein in the

ever-growing spending of Medicare, it would greatly improve

our long-run fiscal prospects.

But there's another reason failure to pass reform would be

devastating--namely, the nature of the opposition.

The Republican campaign against health care reform has

rested in part on the traditional arguments, arguments that

go back to the days when Ronald Reagan was trying to scare

Americans into opposing Medicare--denunciations of

``socialized medicine,'' claims that universal health

coverage is the road to tyranny, etc.

But in the closing rounds of the health care fight, the

G.O.P. has focused more and more on an effort to demonize

cost-control efforts. The Senate bill would impose

``draconian cuts'' on Medicare, says Senator John McCain, who

proposed much deeper cuts just last year as part of his

presidential campaign. ``If you're a senior and you're on

Medicare, you better be afraid of this bill,'' says Senator

Tom Coburn.

If these tactics work, and health reform fails, think of

the message this would convey: It would signal that any

effort to deal with the biggest budget problem we face will

be successfully played by political opponents as an attack on

older Americans. It would be a long time before anyone was

willing to take on the challenge again; remember that after

the failure of the Clinton effort, it was 16 years before the

next try at health reform.

That's why anyone who is truly concerned about fiscal

policy should be anxious to see health reform succeed. If it

fails, the demagogues will have soon, and we probably won't

deal with our biggest fiscal problem until we're forced into

action by a nasty debt crisis.

So to the centrists still sitting on the fence over health

reform: If you care about fiscal responsibility, you better

be afraid of what will happen if reform fails.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill important to public health and safety and the environment in the West. This legislation addresses an interpretation by the Department of the Interior, DOI, which restricts the ability of States to use certain funds under the Abandoned Mine Land, AML, Program authorized by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, SMCRA, for non-coal mine reclamation.

The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 contained amendments to SMCRA reauthorizing collection of an AML fee on coal produced in the U.S. and making certain modifications to the AML program. Under this program, which is administered by DOI, funds are expended to reclaim abandoned mine lands, with top priority for protecting public health, safety, general welfare, and property, and restoration of land and water resources adversely affected by past mining practices. The program is largely directed to abandoned coal mine reclamation, but under section 409 of SMCRA, funds have been available to address non- coal mine sites.

Pursuant to a Memorandum Opinion, M-37014, issued by the DOI's Solicitor on December 5, 2007, the Department has interpreted the amendments in a manner that limits the ability of western States to use certain funds under SMCRA to address significant problems relating to non-coal abandoned mines. This is in spite of the fact that these funds had previously been available for these purposes. In accordance with section 409 of SMCRA, western States such as New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah, have prioritized the use of AML funds to undertake the most pressing reclamation work on both coal and non-coal mine sites. While activities on non-coal sites have consumed a relatively insignificant portion of the funding provided for the overall AML program, the results in terms of public health and safety in these States is considerable, and there is significant work yet to be done. For example, New Mexico alone has over 15,000 remaining mine openings with a vast majority of these being non-coal. Uranium mine reclamation is a particular priority in New Mexico. All AML-related fatalities in New Mexico in the last few decades have been at non-coal mine sites.

The bill that I am introducing today would correct what I believe is an unfortunate interpretation of the 2006 Amendments by modifying the language of SMCRA to clarify that the funding would be available for non-coal reclamation as it was prior to the passage of the amendments in 2006. Under the bill, which makes a conforming change to sections 409 and 411 of SMCRA, western, non-certified States

could continue to use their State share balances, including amounts comprising their so-called previously unappropriated State share balances, for non-coal reclamation.

I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation, which has important implications for abandoned mine clean-up in the West.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lifetime Income Disclosure Act, to help Americans ensure they do not outlive their retirement savings. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Senator Isakson, and the Chairman of the Aging Committee, Senator Kohl, in introducing the Act. In sum, the Act would require private defined contribution retirement plans annually to show plan participants how their account balances translate into monthly income equivalents, based on age at retirement and other factors. The act is structured so as not to impose a material burden on employers.

As life expectancies rise, individuals have an increasing need for protection against the risk that they will outlive their savings. In fact, Boston College's National Retirement Risk Index recently found that half of American households are ``at risk'' of being unable to maintain their pre-retirement standard of living in retirement.

But trends in retirement plan coverage are only increasing this risk. Defined benefit pension plans--to which employers make regular fixed contributions--are becoming rare. Individuals who receive any form of workplace retirement account are increasingly offered the opportunity to contribute to defined contribution plans, like 401(k)s, to which the employer may or may not provide a matching contribution. At present, 401(k) plan statements typically provide a total account balance, but not a monthly income equivalent. Consequently, employees are not well- prepared to evaluate whether they are saving adequately to maintain cost of their current standard of living in retirement.

To address this challenge, the act would require that defined contribution plans subject to ERISA, such as 401(k) plans, include ``annuity equivalents'' on benefit statements provided to employees. An annuity equivalent is the monthly annuity payment that would be made if the employee's total account balance were used to buy a life annuity that commenced payments at the plan's normal retirement age, generally 65. The act requires the statement to show the monthly annuity payments under both a single life annuity and a qualified joint and survivor annuity--that is, an annuity with survivor benefits payable for life to the employee's spouse. The annuity equivalents would only be required to be provided once a year, even where quarterly statements are otherwise required.

In this regard, 401(k) benefit statements would become better coordinated with Social Security benefit statements, which only express benefits in the form of a life annuity. Knowing the amount of monthly income they can expect from Social Security and their define contribution plan will help employees determine whether they are on the path to a secure retirement. Additionally, including annuity equivalents on benefit statements will make employees more aware of the possibility upon retirement of receiving at least a portion of their benefit in the form of an annuity that protects them against outliving their savings.

As I have already discussed, this proposal addresses a critical public policy issue. But it is equally important that the proposal be structured not to impose any material burden or potential liability on employers that voluntarily maintain a plan. Thus, the act directs the Department of Labor to issue, within a year, assumptions that employers may use in converting a lump sum amount into an annuity equivalent. Accordingly, employers will be able to base their annuity equivalents entirely on clear mechanical assumptions prescribed by the DOL. Of course, to the extent that a participant's benefit is or may be invested in an annuity contract that guarantees a specified annuity benefit, the DOL shall, to the extent appropriate, permit such specified benefit to be treated as an annuity equivalent.

The DOL would further be directed to issue, within a year, a model disclosure that explains the assumptions used to determine the annuity equivalents and the fact that the annuity equivalents provided are only estimates. This model disclosure would include a clear explanation that actual annuity benefits may be materially different from such estimates.

The act also provides employers with a clear path to avoid liability: under the act, employers and service providers using the model disclosure and following the prescribed assumptions and DOL rules would not have any liability with regard to the provision of annuity equivalents. This exemption from liability would apply to any disclosure of an annuity equivalent that incorporates the explanation from the model disclosure and that is prepared in accordance with the prescribed assumptions and DOL rules. For example, subject to such conditions, the exemption would apply to annuity equivalents available on a Web site or provided quarterly.

Finally, the act would not go into effect until a year after the DOL has issued the guidance needed by employers to implement the new rules.

Our proposal is a small step, but one that can make a significant difference in beginning to tackle a key policy challenge. I am pleased that the act enjoys the support of many advocates for retirement security, including AARP, the Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement, and the Council of Independent 401(k) Recordkeepers. I look forward to working with Senators Isakson and Kohl to see these provisions enacted into law.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill important to public health and safety and the environment in the West. This legislation addresses an interpretation by the Department of the Interior, DOI, which restricts the ability of States to use certain funds under the Abandoned Mine Land, AML, Program authorized by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, SMCRA, for non-coal mine reclamation.

The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 contained amendments to SMCRA reauthorizing collection of an AML fee on coal produced in the U.S. and making certain modifications to the AML program. Under this program, which is administered by DOI, funds are expended to reclaim abandoned mine lands, with top priority for protecting public health, safety, general welfare, and property, and restoration of land and water resources adversely affected by past mining practices. The program is largely directed to abandoned coal mine reclamation, but under section 409 of SMCRA, funds have been available to address non- coal mine sites.

Pursuant to a Memorandum Opinion, M-37014, issued by the DOI's Solicitor on December 5, 2007, the Department has interpreted the amendments in a manner that limits the ability of western States to use certain funds under SMCRA to address significant problems relating to non-coal abandoned mines. This is in spite of the fact that these funds had previously been available for these purposes. In accordance with section 409 of SMCRA, western States such as New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah, have prioritized the use of AML funds to undertake the most pressing reclamation work on both coal and non-coal mine sites. While activities on non-coal sites have consumed a relatively insignificant portion of the funding provided for the overall AML program, the results in terms of public health and safety in these States is considerable, and there is significant work yet to be done. For example, New Mexico alone has over 15,000 remaining mine openings with a vast majority of these being non-coal. Uranium mine reclamation is a particular priority in New Mexico. All AML-related fatalities in New Mexico in the last few decades have been at non-coal mine sites.

The bill that I am introducing today would correct what I believe is an unfortunate interpretation of the 2006 Amendments by modifying the language of SMCRA to clarify that the funding would be available for non-coal reclamation as it was prior to the passage of the amendments in 2006. Under the bill, which makes a conforming change to sections 409 and 411 of SMCRA, western, non-certified States

could continue to use their State share balances, including amounts comprising their so-called previously unappropriated State share balances, for non-coal reclamation.

I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation, which has important implications for abandoned mine clean-up in the West.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lifetime Income Disclosure Act, to help Americans ensure they do not outlive their retirement savings. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Senator Isakson, and the Chairman of the Aging Committee, Senator Kohl, in introducing the Act. In sum, the Act would require private defined contribution retirement plans annually to show plan participants how their account balances translate into monthly income equivalents, based on age at retirement and other factors. The act is structured so as not to impose a material burden on employers.

As life expectancies rise, individuals have an increasing need for protection against the risk that they will outlive their savings. In fact, Boston College's National Retirement Risk Index recently found that half of American households are ``at risk'' of being unable to maintain their pre-retirement standard of living in retirement.

But trends in retirement plan coverage are only increasing this risk. Defined benefit pension plans--to which employers make regular fixed contributions--are becoming rare. Individuals who receive any form of workplace retirement account are increasingly offered the opportunity to contribute to defined contribution plans, like 401(k)s, to which the employer may or may not provide a matching contribution. At present, 401(k) plan statements typically provide a total account balance, but not a monthly income equivalent. Consequently, employees are not well- prepared to evaluate whether they are saving adequately to maintain cost of their current standard of living in retirement.

To address this challenge, the act would require that defined contribution plans subject to ERISA, such as 401(k) plans, include ``annuity equivalents'' on benefit statements provided to employees. An annuity equivalent is the monthly annuity payment that would be made if the employee's total account balance were used to buy a life annuity that commenced payments at the plan's normal retirement age, generally 65. The act requires the statement to show the monthly annuity payments under both a single life annuity and a qualified joint and survivor annuity--that is, an annuity with survivor benefits payable for life to the employee's spouse. The annuity equivalents would only be required to be provided once a year, even where quarterly statements are otherwise required.

In this regard, 401(k) benefit statements would become better coordinated with Social Security benefit statements, which only express benefits in the form of a life annuity. Knowing the amount of monthly income they can expect from Social Security and their define contribution plan will help employees determine whether they are on the path to a secure retirement. Additionally, including annuity equivalents on benefit statements will make employees more aware of the possibility upon retirement of receiving at least a portion of their benefit in the form of an annuity that protects them against outliving their savings.

As I have already discussed, this proposal addresses a critical public policy issue. But it is equally important that the proposal be structured not to impose any material burden or potential liability on employers that voluntarily maintain a plan. Thus, the act directs the Department of Labor to issue, within a year, assumptions that employers may use in converting a lump sum amount into an annuity equivalent. Accordingly, employers will be able to base their annuity equivalents entirely on clear mechanical assumptions prescribed by the DOL. Of course, to the extent that a participant's benefit is or may be invested in an annuity contract that guarantees a specified annuity benefit, the DOL shall, to the extent appropriate, permit such specified benefit to be treated as an annuity equivalent.

The DOL would further be directed to issue, within a year, a model disclosure that explains the assumptions used to determine the annuity equivalents and the fact that the annuity equivalents provided are only estimates. This model disclosure would include a clear explanation that actual annuity benefits may be materially different from such estimates.

The act also provides employers with a clear path to avoid liability: under the act, employers and service providers using the model disclosure and following the prescribed assumptions and DOL rules would not have any liability with regard to the provision of annuity equivalents. This exemption from liability would apply to any disclosure of an annuity equivalent that incorporates the explanation from the model disclosure and that is prepared in accordance with the prescribed assumptions and DOL rules. For example, subject to such conditions, the exemption would apply to annuity equivalents available on a Web site or provided quarterly.

Finally, the act would not go into effect until a year after the DOL has issued the guidance needed by employers to implement the new rules.

Our proposal is a small step, but one that can make a significant difference in beginning to tackle a key policy challenge. I am pleased that the act enjoys the support of many advocates for retirement security, including AARP, the Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement, and the Council of Independent 401(k) Recordkeepers. I look forward to working with Senators Isakson and Kohl to see these provisions enacted into law.

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

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests.

The hearing will be held on Thursday, December 17, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills:

S. 1470, to sustain the economic development and recreational use of National Forest System land and other public land in the State of Montana, to add certain land to the National Wilderness Preservation System, to release certain wilderness study areas, to designate new areas for recreation, and for other purposes;

S. 1719, to provide for the conveyance of certain parcels of land to the town of Alta, Utah;

S. 1787, to reauthorize the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, and for other purposes;

H.R. 762, to validate final patent number 27-2005-0081, and for other purposes; and

H.R. 934, to convey certain submerged lands to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in order to give that territory the same benefits in its submerged lands as Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa have in their submerged lands.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to allison_seyferth@energy .senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Scott Miller or Allison Seyferth.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Energy. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 8, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills:

H.R. 957, Green Energy Education Act of 2009;

H.R. 2729, To authorize the designation of National Environmental Research Parks by the Secretary of Energy, and for other purposes;

H.R. 3165, Wind Energy Research and Development Act of 2009;

H.R. 3246, Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2009; H.R. 3585, Solar Technology Roadmap Act;

S. 737, A bill to amend the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to authorize the Secretary of Energy to conduct research, development, and demonstration to make biofuels more compatible with small non-road engines, and for other purposes;

S. 1617, To require the Secretary of Commerce to establish a program for the award of grants to States to establish revolving loan funds for small and medium-sized manufacturers to improve energy efficiency and produce clean energy technology, and for other purposes;

S. 2744, A bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to expand the authority for awarding technology prizes by the Secretary of Energy to include a financial award for separation of carbon dioxide from dilute sources; and

S. 2773, A bill to require the Secretary of Energy to carry out a program to support the research, demonstration, and development of commercial applications for offshore wind energy, and for other purposes.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Rosemarie [email protected].

For further information, please contact Jonathan Epstein or Rosemarie Calabro.

Mr. President, I rise to speak for a few minutes about the health care legislation that has now been proposed by the majority leader and that we will be hopefully proceeding to for serious discussion, deliberation, and opportunity for amendment. Let me talk first about where we are today without health care legislation.

What are the circumstances faced by the average American family without enactment of health care legislation? The cost of medical care is rising. In fact, it is unaffordable for many individuals and businesses. In addition, there are 46 million who are uninsured in the country. That number continues to grow. I have been in the Senate and continued to watch that number grow for the last decade at least. Those most in need of health insurance often are denied coverage. Many others worry about whether they are one diagnosis away from financial ruin because of their lack of adequate coverage and their lack of ability to afford adequate coverage.

We are working in the Senate to craft a national health reform proposal that would remedy the situation and would do so by reducing the growth in the cost of health care. Let me be clear. We are not saying the cost of health care is going down substantially. We are talking about the growth in the cost of health care. That is what we are trying to moderate as part of this legislation.

We are also providing insurance to everyone in the country, regardless of

their health status and medical condition. This health reform proposal is designed to lower health care costs, lower than what they otherwise will be in the future. This health reform legislation caps what insurance companies can force patients to pay in their out-of-pocket expenses and in their deductibles. The legislation would let small businesses and individuals join purchasing pools and give them the lower costs that benefit larger groups today. I have heard from hundreds of small business owners in my State over the years who have complained that the cost of health care to them and their employees is so much higher than the cost of health care to large employers and their employees. We would solve that. We would create a system that helps to prevent illness and disease instead of just treating it when it is too late and when the cost is excessive.

This health reform proposal will reduce health care fraud and waste and abuse and overpayment to insurance companies. It is estimated by most experts to be in the range of $60 billion per year under the current health care delivery system. This legislation would eliminate most of the cost of uncompensated care. This is a substantial part of the premium people with health insurance are required to pay. They are not only paying for their own health care when they pay their premium, they are paying for the uncompensated care that hospitals, physicians, and others are providing to people who don't have insurance. That is the 46 million uninsured figure I mentioned before.

This legislation reduces the growth in the cost of public programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and helps to rein in the Federal deficit. We have the unusual circumstance that many of the individuals who opposed the establishment of Medicare and claimed it was socialized medicine are now resisting any effort to put it on a sounder financial footing and doing so purportedly in the name of defending the beneficiaries of Medicare. We need to speak the truth to the American people and say: Medicare and Medicaid are going to continue. There are going to have to be reductions in the growth of those programs in the future, the growth of the cost of those programs, and some of those changes are incorporated in this legislation. That is a good thing for Medicare beneficiaries. That is a good thing for people who are going to be dependent upon Medicare in the future. They will know Medicare is there. They will know Medicare is solvent and will benefit accordingly.

Health reform will also ensure all Americans have access to quality and affordable insurance. We prevent insurance companies from the current practices in which they are engaged. One of the worst of those practices is the practice of denying health coverage for preexisting medical conditions. If one has a preexisting medical condition and is able to buy a policy, perhaps, the policy in its own language will exclude them from getting medical treatment that might result from that preexisting medical condition. This legislation would end that. It would end the discrimination of charges that currently exist where the charge for health care is based on one's health status or gender.

During the course of this year and the last few years, while we have been studying the health care delivery system, I have come to a new understanding of what the word ``underwriting'' means. I used to think I knew what the word ``underwriting'' meant in insurance. What I have found it means is the screening out of people who might actually need the insurance that is being sold. So much of the effort of the health insurance industry today is not focused on assisting the patient or the policyholder; it is focused on screening out those individuals who might, in fact, wind up sick and might need health care. We try to end that in this legislation, and we do so effectively.

The legislation provides tax credits to middle-class families to make sure they can afford quality coverage. There are many middle-class families in my State who, frankly, cannot afford adequate and quality coverage for the parents and the children.

This legislation strengthens employer-based health care by offering small businesses a tax credit so that employers can offer competitive, affordable rates to their employees, if they choose to do so.

It creates incentives that reward doctors for healthy outcomes, not only for more and more procedures. We have the unfortunate circumstance today, for which this Congress and this administration and previous Congresses and previous administrations are responsible, where we have set up a system of payment, under Medicare in particular, where the amount the health care provider receives depends on how many procedures they perform, not on whether the patient gets better, not on whether they have done the right thing to assist that patient. We are trying to begin changing that with this legislation. This will result in better health care for all Americans.

Health reform is also designed to improve the choices people have when they go out to obtain coverage or to obtain health care itself. Most Americans get their insurance through an employer. Many are satisfied with the plans they currently have. They are satisfied with the physician or the doctor they currently have. It is clear in the legislation we are considering that this legislation does not require them to change that. This legislation says they can keep that policy. They can renew that policy. They can add family members to that policy if they choose to do so. But this health reform also provides security that ensures that families always will have guaranteed choices of quality, affordable health care. That is even when a person loses their job, when a person switches jobs, when a person gets sick, or a person decides to move from one community to another. This legislation will ensure that they have access to health care even in those circumstances.

It creates a health insurance exchange. This exchange would be a place where families and businesses could easily compare insurance plans and prices and make a judgment based on that comparison. This puts families, rather than insurance companies or government bureaucrats, in charge of their own health care. It helps people to decide which quality, affordable insurance option is right for them and for their family.

It keeps government and insurance bureaucrats, because there are bureaucrats working for insurance companies just as there are bureaucrats working for the government, both from coming between each individual and his or her doctor by simplifying insurance paperwork, by cutting out the pages of fine print, by eliminating all of the ``gotcha'' clauses people discover once they get sick. They find out they were not covered for whatever it is that now afflicts them.

By promoting computerized medical records, this legislation will dramatically improve efficiency in our health care system and, through that effort, also reduce cost.

Let me talk a little bit about the impact of this legislation on my State. I represent New Mexico. Frankly, this legislation is critically important to my State. This chart is a depiction of what is projected by the experts about the cost of health care in New Mexico. Without health care reform, my State is expected to experience the largest increase in health insurance premiums of any State in the Union. For example, the average employer-sponsored insurance premium for a family in New Mexico in the year 2000 was $6,000. By 2006, that had almost doubled to $11,000 for a family of four. By 2016, the expected increase goes to an astonishing $28,000.

In addition, this third chart highlights the health insurance premiums and the percentage those premiums represent of the income of the average New Mexico family. It is higher in my State, unfortunately, than in any other State in the Union. Today, 31 percent of a family's income is going to pay for health care. That is for the folks who have coverage today in New Mexico. That is expected to grow to an astounding 56 percent. Over 56 percent of a family's income is expected to be consumed just paying premiums for health care by 2016. That is totally unsustainable and unaffordable.

The health reform proposal that has been developed by the majority leader, based on the work of the Finance and HELP Committees, intends to slow the growth of health care costs around the Nation. The nonpartisan Congressional

Budget Office forecasts that the legislation would not add to the Federal deficit. In fact, it would reduce the deficit by $130 billion by 2019 and by more than $400 billion by 2029.

Most experts believe these reductions also will drive down the cost in the private health insurance market. Thus this legislation is critically important to my State because it will help to curb increases in health care costs for all New Mexicans.

Let me show you a fourth chart. This one is a chart based on--I guess this is data from the Census Bureau. It is a chart that was developed by the Commonwealth Fund. It is the percent of adults ages 18 to 64 who are uninsured by State. It has two maps shown on it. The first is for 1999 through 2000 and the second is 2007 through 2008.

You can see what has happened just in that relatively short period. In 1999 to 2000, there were two States that had more than 23 percent of its population uninsured, and those two States were Texas and New Mexico. The only State in the Union that has a higher uninsured rate than we do in New Mexico is Texas. That was the case then, in 1999 through 2000. It is still the case today, I would point out.

But what you can see from this map on the right of the chart for 2007 to 2008 is that many other States--particularly the States shown in dark blue across the South and California--many other States have joined the ranks of States that have over 23 percent of their population uninsured. Their aged 18-to-64 population was uninsured. This is a very serious problem.

I think my State has the lowest rate of employer-sponsored insurance in the Nation. We also have the highest rate of uninsured among employed individuals in the Nation.

Let me show you this next chart, this fifth chart I have in the Chamber. This is a pie chart that shows what the current status of folks in New Mexico is. I know it is difficult to read from a distance, but let me explain what it is.

We generally think of most people having private health insurance coverage. In New Mexico, 38 percent of our population has private health insurance coverage. So it is not a majority; it is 38 percent. We have 14 percent who are covered by Medicare. We have 22 percent who are covered by Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. We have 4 percent who are undocumented immigrants in our State, estimated at about 80,000 individuals. They do not have coverage today, and they will not have coverage once this legislation becomes law, if we are able to pass this legislation and the President is able to sign it.

Then this large red area shown down here at the bottom of the chart is 22 percent, and that represents individuals who have no coverage, excluding undocumented immigrants. So we have the undocumented immigrants, at 4 percent. Then we have 22 percent without coverage. These are folks who are here legally. Most of them are citizens. They do not have coverage. This gets back to the point I was making before about people's premiums today are covering not only the cost of their own health care needs, but they are covering the cost of the uncompensated care that is provided to this large red wedge of people shown down here on the chart. So it is a serious problem that needs attention.

New Mexico will benefit from this legislation in very important ways. The legislation will provide new Federal tax credits for private insurance, and it will also expand the Medicaid Program for individuals with incomes of up to 133 percent of poverty.

This is a very important provision for my State: It is projected that insurance market reform and Federal tax credits may reduce the cost of coverage in the individual/private market for the average family in my State by as much as 40 percent. So this last chart tries to take the previous information and say what would likely occur by 2019--10 years from now--if, in fact, we are able to enact this legislation.

You can see what the two biggest changes in the legislation are. The green wedge in the pie chart shows that we will have more people covered by Medicaid and CHIP. We would have 29 percent rather than the 22 percent we had before. It shows we will have many more people covered by private insurance. I believe for the first time in the history of our State, we will have over 50 percent of our population-- exactly 53 percent is what is estimated--who will be covered by private insurance and have an insurance policy they can depend upon.

So this would still leave undocumented immigrants--which is still estimated to be 4 percent of the population--without any guaranteed source of coverage. But we would have about 124,000 New Mexicans newly eligible for Medicaid coverage, and covered by Medicaid, we would hope. We would have an additional 238,000 New Mexicans who would be eligible for private coverage through the exchange or from their employers if their employers chose to provide that coverage.

We will have a lot of opportunity over the next few weeks to debate particular parts of this legislation. I look forward to that debate. I think the more the American people understand what is in this legislation, the more wholeheartedly they will support us moving ahead and enacting this legislation.

This debate has been a long time in coming. In the 27 years I have been in the Senate, we have not gotten to this point previously, where we were beginning a serious debate that might actually result in the passage of legislation, major comprehensive reform legislation. But I think we are to that point.

This is legislation that is currently available for anyone to review on the Internet, and I encourage people to do that. I encourage people to study the issue and follow the debate. As I say, the more people do study the issue and follow the debate, the more people will conclude this is worth doing, this is important to do.

So I very much urge my colleagues to rally around this effort. I hope, frankly, we will get some Republican support for this legislation. I think it is very unfortunate we are going into this debate with reports that all Republicans are agreeing to oppose health care reform. That is not the way to move our country forward. If there are amendments they would like to offer, obviously, they will have every opportunity to offer those, and some of them may prevail.

That certainly was the case in the Finance Committee when we marked up the legislation. That certainly was the case in the HELP Committee when we marked up the legislation. Amendments were offered from Republican members, and some were adopted. But to just say no, to just say: We are opposed to reform, is not a good option. I think the American people deserve better than that. I hope we will have a serious, substantive discussion about what the elements of health care reform should be.

I compliment the majority leader for putting together a very credible proposal that will move this country very far toward meeting the health care needs of all Americans. I hope by the end of this year we are able to enact that legislation or pass it through the Senate and go to conference with the House of Representatives.

Mr. President, I see my colleague is in the Chamber to speak on this issue, and I will yield the floor at this time.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nuclear Power 2021 Act, which is cosponsored by Senator Murkowski and Senator Udall from Colorado.

This bill, along with Senator Udall's bill S. 2052 are designed to give the Department of Energy a set of specific programmatic authorities to help address ways to lower the up-front capital cost of nuclear reactors. The National Academies of Science in their recent America's Energy Future study determined that by 2030 we will need essentially to double the existing base load power provided by nuclear energy or about another 100 gigawatts.

But before we can make such a large and dramatic increase in nuclear energy, I believe we must demonstrate the ability to construct ``first- mover'' reactors in the U.S. that are on cost and schedule. The National Academies likewise confirmed this as one of two principal demonstrations that must be carried out during the next decade to more fully understand the range of available options for controlling carbon emissions from energy production. The other challenge of commensurate importance that they identified is the demonstration of carbon capture and sequestration on a large scale for fossil-fuel based energy production.

In that regard, the bill I am introducing today addresses the topic of small modular reactors, which are typically rated with a capacity of less than 300 electrical megawatts; and that can be constructed and operated in combination with similar reactors at a single site. These reactors can be less capital intensive than the larger 1,000 megawatt reactors currently being licensed at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; they have the potential to be built in a modular fashion much like our current fleet of nuclear submarines.

This bill is similar to the Department of Energy's Nuclear Power 2010 program; it concentrates not so much on the research and development of these reactors but demonstrating the ability to license them. Senator Udall's bill authorizes the Department to conduct research on these reactors with the goal of reducing cost while operating them in a safe and secure fashion.

More specifically, this bill authorizes the Secretary of Energy to work in a public private partnership to develop a standard design for two modular reactors, one of which will not be more than 50 megawatts; obtain a design certification from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for each design by 2018; and obtain a combined operating license from the Commission by 2021.

All of this effort would be cost shared by non-federal funds and selected under competitive merit review process while emphasizing efficiency, cost, safety and proliferation resistance.

The climate change issue we face today is too large to exclude any one

technology that can produce energy without emitting carbon dioxide. The National Academies report acknowledges the important role nuclear energy has and must play in a carbon constrained energy world; this bill I hope is another step to address some of the recommendations of this report. I hope my colleagues join me as cosponsors of this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nuclear Power 2021 Act, which is cosponsored by Senator Murkowski and Senator Udall from Colorado.

This bill, along with Senator Udall's bill S. 2052 are designed to give the Department of Energy a set of specific programmatic authorities to help address ways to lower the up-front capital cost of nuclear reactors. The National Academies of Science in their recent America's Energy Future study determined that by 2030 we will need essentially to double the existing base load power provided by nuclear energy or about another 100 gigawatts.

But before we can make such a large and dramatic increase in nuclear energy, I believe we must demonstrate the ability to construct ``first- mover'' reactors in the U.S. that are on cost and schedule. The National Academies likewise confirmed this as one of two principal demonstrations that must be carried out during the next decade to more fully understand the range of available options for controlling carbon emissions from energy production. The other challenge of commensurate importance that they identified is the demonstration of carbon capture and sequestration on a large scale for fossil-fuel based energy production.

In that regard, the bill I am introducing today addresses the topic of small modular reactors, which are typically rated with a capacity of less than 300 electrical megawatts; and that can be constructed and operated in combination with similar reactors at a single site. These reactors can be less capital intensive than the larger 1,000 megawatt reactors currently being licensed at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; they have the potential to be built in a modular fashion much like our current fleet of nuclear submarines.

This bill is similar to the Department of Energy's Nuclear Power 2010 program; it concentrates not so much on the research and development of these reactors but demonstrating the ability to license them. Senator Udall's bill authorizes the Department to conduct research on these reactors with the goal of reducing cost while operating them in a safe and secure fashion.

More specifically, this bill authorizes the Secretary of Energy to work in a public private partnership to develop a standard design for two modular reactors, one of which will not be more than 50 megawatts; obtain a design certification from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for each design by 2018; and obtain a combined operating license from the Commission by 2021.

All of this effort would be cost shared by non-federal funds and selected under competitive merit review process while emphasizing efficiency, cost, safety and proliferation resistance.

The climate change issue we face today is too large to exclude any one

technology that can produce energy without emitting carbon dioxide. The National Academies report acknowledges the important role nuclear energy has and must play in a carbon constrained energy world; this bill I hope is another step to address some of the recommendations of this report. I hope my colleagues join me as cosponsors of this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks.

The hearing will be held on Thursday, December 3, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills:

S. 760, to designate the Liberty Memorial at the National World War I Museum in Kansas City, Missouri, as the ``National World War I Memorial'';

S. 1838, to establish a commission to commemorate the sesquicentennial of the American Civil War;

S. 2097, to authorize the rededication of the District of Columbia War Memorial as a National and District of Columbia World War I Memorial to honor the sacrifices made by American veterans of World War

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 15, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 2052, a bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to require the Secretary of Energy to carry out a research and development and demonstration program to reduce manufacturing and construction costs relating to nuclear reactors, and for other purposes and S. 2812 the Nuclear Power 2021 Act.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Rosemarie [email protected]

For further information, please contact Jonathan Epstein at (202) 224-3357 or Rosemarie Calabro at (202) 224-5039.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privileges of the floor be granted to Nassim Zecavati, who is a fellow in my office.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, December 3, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on H.R. 3276, the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2009.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Rosemarie_Calabro @energy.senate.gov

For further information, please contact Jonathan Epstein at (202) 224-3357 or Rosemarie Calabro at (202) 224-5039.