Floor Statements

Mr. President, I want to take just a few minutes to speak about our colleagues who have announced their plans to retire at the conclusion of this 110th Congress. We obviously will miss them. There are five individuals about whom I wanted to say a brief word: Senators Allard, Hagel, Craig, Warner, and Domenici. They have all brought their intelligence, principles, and perspectives on the issues confronting our Nation. The Nation is better for their efforts.

Senators Allard and Hagel both came to the Senate in 1996.

Wayne Allard

Senator Allard had a long career in public service before coming to the Senate. He managed to serve the State of Colorado while never giving up his credentials as an expert veterinarian in that State, reaffirming the long-held belief that he and all of us have had that a legislative body should be composed of individuals with training other than that which they acquire here in the Halls of Congress. His straightforward approach has been a hallmark of his work here.

Living a principle that he espouses, he is fulfilling his often- stated intention to limit himself to two terms. He and his wife Joan will certainly be missed here in the Senate.

Chuck Hagel

Chuck Hagel of Nebraska forged a very successful career in business and broadcasting, civic organizations and government, but first he served our country as a sergeant in Vietnam. It was an honor to work with him on the Vietnam Memorial visitors center legislation. He has championed that cause, knowing firsthand how much it means to have lived through the experience of that war. He has a wide knowledge of the world, and he has informed his thoughtful and well-considered positions on foreign policy and arms control and national security issues with that knowledge.

He can always be counted on for a straightforward approach and an honest statement of his views.

Larry Craig

My longtime colleague on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Craig, has been a valuable voice for Idaho for decades. He served in his State's legislature for 6 years before coming to the House of Representatives 28 years ago, where he served for 10 years.

In 1990, he was elected to the Senate. We worked very closely on issues important to energy and natural resources throughout the West. He has been a leader in many national policy areas, including aging and opening trade to Cuba.

I have appreciated his contributions, particularly in our Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where his opinions have always been clearly expressed and his best efforts are made to represent his State and the Nation.

John Warner

With the exception of Harry Byrd, John Warner has represented Virginia in the Senate longer than any other Senator in its history. He has done so with great enthusiasm, skill, hard work, and style. To many people, John Warner embodies what a Senator should be. He knows the world, he knows this country, and he knows, of course, his beloved State. He is an outstanding citizen of each of those.

He is a patriot in the old-fashioned and in the deep-hearted sense of that word. He has demonstrated his love of country through years of service both in uniform and out of uniform. The miles he has traveled to all corners of the world to see our forces in action and the hours-- innumerable hours--he spent hearing committee testimony, he has absorbed. That has equipped him to really be an expert in this body on military issues. His leadership will be missed on those issues and other issues as well here.

Pete Domenici

The most senior Senator retiring this year, of course, is my colleague and friend Senator Pete Domenici. He is not only the most senior Senator retiring this year from the Senate, he is also the most senior Senator New Mexico has ever had. When Pete leaves the Senate this year, it will be after 36 years of unstinting work doing his best for his country and for our State of New Mexico.

He will be the first to say that his success and longevity here could not have been possible without two important elements: his family and his staff. The love and support of his wife Nancy have been invaluable. Also, from the first, he has had a fine staff. It was true when he came to Washington and it is certainly true today, here and in New Mexico. They are skilled individuals who make it their business to be helpful to the people of our State.

Senator Domenici's contributions are well known to all of us. His work on the Budget Committee and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Appropriations Committee over the years has made a lasting impact on national policy. As a member of the Budget Committee, from the day he was sworn in, he was either the chairman or ranking member of that committee for 12 years of his 36 years on the committee.

One of the things in which he takes great pride is helping to get us to a balanced Federal budget twice. We can all appreciate how difficult that kind of undertaking is.

Senator Domenici and I, of course, served on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee together. The Senate Historian has told us that as far as his office can tell, it is the only instance in the history of the Senate where Senators from the same State served as chairman and ranking member of the same committee at the same time. Obviously, I will miss that arrangement.

New Mexicans, including me, have great affection and respect for Pete Domenici. ``People for Pete'' is the motto Pete has used in each of his campaigns for many years. It is not just a famous campaign phrase in our State--although it is seen on bumper stickers all over our State whenever a campaign is underway involving Pete--but it is a bit of a twist on what his career has been all about; that is: Pete for the people of New Mexico. That has been his commitment. He has carried through in great form.

We will miss his service to the State of New Mexico here in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me state my understanding of how we are going to proceed now. I believe, in the spirit of going back and forth, the Senator from Colorado has indicated he would agree that I can go ahead and speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business; that he is going to be requesting 15 minutes to speak. At that time, if Senator Feingold is here, I know he wanted to speak, too, and Senator Bond has been waiting and wants to speak.

I gather maybe I should do a unanimous consent at this point that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes and then Senator Allard be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, let me take a few minutes to discuss what we have been able to do with regard to energy policy in this Congress and discuss where I believe we are headed in the next Congress.

We began this Congress having passed, in mid-2005, the first comprehensive Energy Policy Act in 13 years.

Mr. President, could I be advised when 8 of my 10 minutes has been used?

We passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005. That bill was about 5 years in the making. It only became law because the chairman of the Energy Committee at that time, Senator Domenici, took it upon himself to work constructively across the aisle with Democrats, myself and others, to put forward a bill both sides could embrace. In the first session of this Congress, we followed up with a new comprehensive energy bill, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. That bill was also the result of a strong bipartisan effort.

President Bush helped by putting forth some important policy initiatives in his 2007 State of the Union speech, calling for more production of alternative transportation fuels and for higher fuel economy standards.

In the Senate Energy Committee, we were able to report a strong energy bill that formed the basis for Senate action with a large bipartisan majority. Other committees played a major role in different parts of that legislation as well.

After a long and difficult process with the House, we were able to come to closure on a financial piece of bipartisan legislation that the President signed in December of last year.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was a good piece of legislation. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was an even better piece of legislation. Throughout much of 2008, energy issues have been surrounded, unfortunately, by more partisan rancor as energy emerged as a key concern for voters as an issue on the campaign trial.

This is an important reason why, despite so much floor discussion of energy and energy-related topics, we do not have as much to show as a result of our efforts as I would like.

When energy issues become politicized along party lines, it is clear the Senate loses its ability to act in an effective way. I am pleased that in the past few weeks we have begun to find a bipartisan way forward on energy again. We have put together an energy tax incentive package that has won very broad bipartisan support in the Senate. It passed with a margin of 93 to 2.

The efforts of leadership, Senator Reid in the Senate, Senator McConnell, Senator Baucus, Senator Grassley, and many others helped to put this legislative package together. Also, we have made some significant bipartisan progress on energy policy in the continuing resolution, which I believe is coming up for consideration in the Senate very soon.

The moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration has been lifted for much of the Outer Continental Shelf. That is a development I support. We have also fully funded the direct loan program for retooling the auto industry, permitting up to $25 billion in loans to be made to help move our transportation sector into a cleaner and more energy-efficient future.

This is important to our future national economic security. I hope all these accomplishments make it across the finish line and actually become law in the next few days. If they do, they will help set the stage for what I believe to be a reemergence of bipartisanship on energy after the election is behind us and as we reconvene this next year as the 111th Congress.

I wish to make clear this morning my intention to push early and hard in the new Congress to renew our commitment to an effective, bipartisan, and comprehensive approach to energy policy. Despite the successes we have had in this Congress, and in the past, there is a great deal of work that remains to be done in order to secure our energy future, an energy future that is adequate and affordable and clean.

Let me talk about a few of the energy challenges we face in the next Congress and that I hope to work on with my colleagues both on the Democratic and Republican side. We have a real need to work on the deployment of new energy technologies of all kinds, particularly with the growing concern about global warming.

We need to make sure we are developing and putting in place a new generation of clean, low-carbon energy technologies. These technologies include renewable energy, and carbon capture, transportation and storage and other low-carbon technologies relevant to the nuclear power industry.

There is a global clean-tech revolution we can either lead in or we can miss out on. I believe we need to make the investments here in the United States to be leaders in this revolution.

Along with new clean energy technologies, we will need a modernized energy infrastructure to make sure clean energy can be transported or transmitted from wherever it is generated to wherever it is needed. Without a major new focus on putting in place a 21st century energy infrastructure, we will not be able to make the progress we need to make to secure our energy security goals and our climate security goals.

Along with new sources of energy, we need to make much more progress on using energy wisely and efficiently. A major focus of our effort needs to be made in the transportation sector. Many in the Senate have talked about the need for another Manhattan Project or another Apollo Project.

While I recognize that a different committee, the Committee on Commerce and Science and Transportation, is largely responsible for regulatory standards on fuel economy, there is a great deal our committee, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, can do to make sure we have the right technology push for advanced vehicles. I see that as a focus of our work in the next Congress as well.

We need to do more to improve energy usage in manufacturing, buildings

and commercial equipment and appliances. Our investments in these areas have been totally inadequate over the past decade. Our investments in new energy technologies and innovation, new energy science and engineering, on training the next generation of energy researchers and technicians have been inadequate.

Finally, we need to include the functioning of our Federal agencies and programs related to energy across the board. We need to develop real strengths in the Federal Government in terms of working with entrepreneurs and industry and markets in commercializing new energy technologies.

One other area we obviously need to put a focus on is the area of the recent scandals in the Minerals Management Service. This indicates that a thorough examination is needed as to how that agency currently functions, how its programs can be reformed so the taxpayers get the value they deserve from the Federal oil and gas resources.

I appreciate that notification. My colleague from Alaska, the very valued senior member of our committee, Senator Murkowski, is here and wanted to make a few comments about our plans for the upcoming Congress.

I very much welcome her strong support for a bipartisanship effort, and I yield the balance of my 10 minutes to her.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Obesity Prevention, Treatment and Research Act of 2008. This legislation creates unprecedented collaborations and collective across agencies, and among private and public entities, individuals, and communities.

The very high prevalence of individuals who are obese or overweight has resulted in an epidemic in the United States, affecting over 66 percent of adults and 32 percent of children according to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. Over the last 30 years, the obesity rate has more than doubled in all ages. The United States now has the highest prevalence of obesity among the developed nations. In fact, the prevalence of obesity in U.S. in 2006, 34 percent is more than twice the average for other developed nations, 13 percent. The prevalence of obesity in the next closest country, the United Kingdom, is over 25 percent less than that of the U.S.

The Obesity Prevention, Treatment and Research Act of 2008 comprehensively addresses the obesity and overweight epidemic by focusing on coordinating and augmenting existing prevention and treatment activities. The legislation is based on the extensive work on obesity of the Institutes of Medicine, IOM, over the last few years.

The legislation focuses on developing dynamic new collaborations and collective actions, which IOM recommends as essential to successfully addressing the problems of obese and overweight individuals throughout the nation. In addition, the legislation focuses on supporting interventions that will improve access to obesity prevention and treatment services in our federal healthcare programs in recognition that the high prevalence of overweight and obese individuals dramatically increases the costs in Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and other public and private health insurance programs.

I note that interventions aimed at significantly decreasing the prevalence of these illnesses are extremely cost effective and are critical to overall disease prevention and health promotion efforts. The Trust for America's Health recently reported that an investment of just $10 per person per year in proven community based disease prevention programs would yield a $2.8 billion annual health expenditure reduction. Put another way, our nation would recoup nearly $1 over and above the cost of a comprehensive disease prevention and health promotion program for every $1 invested in the first 1 to 2 years of the program.

The Obesity Prevention, Treatment and Research Act of 2008 establishes the United States Council on Overweight & Obesity Prevention, USCO-OP, which is charged with creating a comprehensive strategy to prevent, treat and reduce the prevalence of overweight individuals and obesity. This advisory council will update Federal guidelines, identify best practices, conduct ongoing surveillance and monitoring of existing Federal programs, and make recommendations to coordinate budgets, policies and programs across Federal agencies in collaboration with private and public partners. In addition, the Council will provide guidance to the Federal Government for a new series of grant programs established by the legislation to combat obesity and the high prevalence of overweight individuals.

It is important to note that in July the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that physical activity levels drop sharply as children age. Children should be engaging in 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity most days of the week. While 90 percent of children met the recommended activity at age 9, by age 15 only 31 percent met the level on weekdays, and only 17 percent on weekends. Moreover, these behaviors become worse as they get older. I find these trends very disturbing.

In addition, experts tell us that Americans want and need better and more accessible information about healthier foods, beverages and exercise programs. The Council will help develop and update the daily physical activity requirements in our schools, and identify activities that families can do together, involving parents and their children throughout the week, and as lifelong participants.

My legislation also creates grant programs to provide funding to schools, community health centers, academic institutions, state medical societies, state health departments, and communities to reduce the prevalence and improve the prevention and treatment of individuals that are obese or overweight.

It is also critical to point out that certain populations are more vulnerable than others to the obesity and overweight epidemic. In my home state of New Mexico, for example, the consequences are devastating. 74 percent of Native American adults in New Mexico are overweight or obese, as are 38 percent of Native American High School students. I take steps in this legislation to address populations more severely impacted by the obesity and overweight epidemic, including: prioritizing grants to these populations

and requiring Federal reporting on research and data related to obesity in these populations.

The legislation also doubles existing funding levels for the Department of Agriculture's Fresh Foods and Vegetables program to levels that will assure that most low-income children will have access to these foods within their schools.

The legislation also requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Agriculture to consult with USCO-OP to update and reform Federal oversight of food and beverage labeling. Such reforms include improving the transparency of labeling with regard to nutritional and caloric value of food and beverages. These updates and reforms are critical. Research suggests that high-energy dense foods that are low in nutrients represent 30 percent of the average American total calorie intake. Research also suggests that these foods don't trigger the brain's normal pathways and responses to let the body know that it is full.

My legislation also amends the Social Security Act to expand access to medical nutrition therapy and exercise counseling when determined cost effective by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. We have to figure out a way to prevent the development of end stages of morbid obesity, such as kidney failure, heart failure and disability from arthritis and other problems. My bill seeks to invest our Federal dollar more wisely. This is truly the case where an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I would like to thank Dr. Dan Derksen, who served as a Robert Wood Johnson Health Policy Fellow in my office this year, for his great work in developing this legislation. In addition, I would like to thank the Institutes of Medicine, the Campaign to End Obesity, and First Focus for their assistance in developing this legislation.

The legislation has received the endorsement of: the Campaign to End Obesity, American College of Gastroenterology, First Focus, Shaping America's Health, YMCA of the USA, the National Coalition for Promoting Physical Activity, the Sporting Goods Manufacturers of America, and the New Mexico Medical Society.

I urge my other Senate colleagues to join in supporting this critical legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Obesity Prevention, Treatment and Research Act of 2008. This legislation creates unprecedented collaborations and collective across agencies, and among private and public entities, individuals, and communities.

The very high prevalence of individuals who are obese or overweight has resulted in an epidemic in the United States, affecting over 66 percent of adults and 32 percent of children according to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. Over the last 30 years, the obesity rate has more than doubled in all ages. The United States now has the highest prevalence of obesity among the developed nations. In fact, the prevalence of obesity in U.S. in 2006, 34 percent is more than twice the average for other developed nations, 13 percent. The prevalence of obesity in the next closest country, the United Kingdom, is over 25 percent less than that of the U.S.

The Obesity Prevention, Treatment and Research Act of 2008 comprehensively addresses the obesity and overweight epidemic by focusing on coordinating and augmenting existing prevention and treatment activities. The legislation is based on the extensive work on obesity of the Institutes of Medicine, IOM, over the last few years.

The legislation focuses on developing dynamic new collaborations and collective actions, which IOM recommends as essential to successfully addressing the problems of obese and overweight individuals throughout the nation. In addition, the legislation focuses on supporting interventions that will improve access to obesity prevention and treatment services in our federal healthcare programs in recognition that the high prevalence of overweight and obese individuals dramatically increases the costs in Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and other public and private health insurance programs.

I note that interventions aimed at significantly decreasing the prevalence of these illnesses are extremely cost effective and are critical to overall disease prevention and health promotion efforts. The Trust for America's Health recently reported that an investment of just $10 per person per year in proven community based disease prevention programs would yield a $2.8 billion annual health expenditure reduction. Put another way, our nation would recoup nearly $1 over and above the cost of a comprehensive disease prevention and health promotion program for every $1 invested in the first 1 to 2 years of the program.

The Obesity Prevention, Treatment and Research Act of 2008 establishes the United States Council on Overweight & Obesity Prevention, USCO-OP, which is charged with creating a comprehensive strategy to prevent, treat and reduce the prevalence of overweight individuals and obesity. This advisory council will update Federal guidelines, identify best practices, conduct ongoing surveillance and monitoring of existing Federal programs, and make recommendations to coordinate budgets, policies and programs across Federal agencies in collaboration with private and public partners. In addition, the Council will provide guidance to the Federal Government for a new series of grant programs established by the legislation to combat obesity and the high prevalence of overweight individuals.

It is important to note that in July the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that physical activity levels drop sharply as children age. Children should be engaging in 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity most days of the week. While 90 percent of children met the recommended activity at age 9, by age 15 only 31 percent met the level on weekdays, and only 17 percent on weekends. Moreover, these behaviors become worse as they get older. I find these trends very disturbing.

In addition, experts tell us that Americans want and need better and more accessible information about healthier foods, beverages and exercise programs. The Council will help develop and update the daily physical activity requirements in our schools, and identify activities that families can do together, involving parents and their children throughout the week, and as lifelong participants.

My legislation also creates grant programs to provide funding to schools, community health centers, academic institutions, state medical societies, state health departments, and communities to reduce the prevalence and improve the prevention and treatment of individuals that are obese or overweight.

It is also critical to point out that certain populations are more vulnerable than others to the obesity and overweight epidemic. In my home state of New Mexico, for example, the consequences are devastating. 74 percent of Native American adults in New Mexico are overweight or obese, as are 38 percent of Native American High School students. I take steps in this legislation to address populations more severely impacted by the obesity and overweight epidemic, including: prioritizing grants to these populations

and requiring Federal reporting on research and data related to obesity in these populations.

The legislation also doubles existing funding levels for the Department of Agriculture's Fresh Foods and Vegetables program to levels that will assure that most low-income children will have access to these foods within their schools.

The legislation also requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Agriculture to consult with USCO-OP to update and reform Federal oversight of food and beverage labeling. Such reforms include improving the transparency of labeling with regard to nutritional and caloric value of food and beverages. These updates and reforms are critical. Research suggests that high-energy dense foods that are low in nutrients represent 30 percent of the average American total calorie intake. Research also suggests that these foods don't trigger the brain's normal pathways and responses to let the body know that it is full.

My legislation also amends the Social Security Act to expand access to medical nutrition therapy and exercise counseling when determined cost effective by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. We have to figure out a way to prevent the development of end stages of morbid obesity, such as kidney failure, heart failure and disability from arthritis and other problems. My bill seeks to invest our Federal dollar more wisely. This is truly the case where an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I would like to thank Dr. Dan Derksen, who served as a Robert Wood Johnson Health Policy Fellow in my office this year, for his great work in developing this legislation. In addition, I would like to thank the Institutes of Medicine, the Campaign to End Obesity, and First Focus for their assistance in developing this legislation.

The legislation has received the endorsement of: the Campaign to End Obesity, American College of Gastroenterology, First Focus, Shaping America's Health, YMCA of the USA, the National Coalition for Promoting Physical Activity, the Sporting Goods Manufacturers of America, and the New Mexico Medical Society.

I urge my other Senate colleagues to join in supporting this critical legislation.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 25, 2008, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 25, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 25, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight Hearing on EPA's Cleanup of the Superfund Site in Libby, Montana.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 25, 2008, at 3 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 25, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Preventing Nuclear Terrorism: Hard Lessons Learned From Troubled Investments.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 25, 2008, at 2:15 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct an executive business meeting on Thursday, September 25, 2008, at 10 a.m. in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 25, 2008, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 25, 2008, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on

Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 25, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Addressing Cost Growth of Major DOD Weapons Systems.''

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

Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to express my strong support for the so-called extenders package, which includes the Energy Improvement and Extension Act and will come before the Senate, as I understand it, as early as this afternoon.

Passage of this bill is very important for the country and will have wide-reaching impacts. It will reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, curb greenhouse gas emissions, create hundreds of thousands of American jobs, promote R&D in our innovative industries, ease fiscal burdens on rural counties, and reduce the tax burden on middle-class families.

The bill demonstrates the critical role that tax incentives can play in addressing our country's most pressing challenges.

Let me focus today on the very robust package of tax incentives for clean, renewable energy, and energy efficiency. Those are incentives I and many of my colleagues have worked on since the beginning of this Congress. We have already taken eight votes this Congress on various versions of this energy tax package. Unfortunately, as the ``green'' energy sector has sat by and production has slowed in that sector, and as skyrocketing gas prices have made our dependence on foreign oil more apparent than ever, our energy tax incentives have been hostage to a broader dispute between the parties concerning whether, and how, to offset the costs of extending various tax provisions. I am very pleased that after a number of false starts, we appear, finally, to have reached a compromise.

The compromise will enable us to become a more energy-efficient nation. It will wean us off of our dependence on fossil fuels. It extends the production tax credit by 1 year for wind energy and by 2 years for other qualified renewable sources. I had hoped we could achieve a longer term extension of the production tax credit, but this is all that could be afforded within the package's cost constraints. Undoubtedly, this bill's extension of the production tax credit will enable our renewable industries to stay afloat. Today, I want to state my commitment again to work for a long-term extension of the production tax credit, which is very much needed, which I hope we can achieve in the next Congress.

This package, however, includes long-term extensions for tax credits that make distributed green energy technologies affordable for American businesses and families. The investment tax credit, which gives businesses a 30-percent tax credit for investing in solar, wind, geothermal, and ocean energy equipment, is extended for a full 8 years. So, too, is the residential energy efficiency property credit, which gives families a 30-percent tax credit for the cost of installing solar equipment at

their residences. That is an 8-year extension of that provision, which is very good news for many Americans.

For both of these tax incentives, the bill expands the classes of qualifying equipment. This means businesses and families will have added flexibility in choosing the energy-saving technologies that make the most sense for them. Both credits are expanded to include small wind technologies that are used for onsite energy production, and geothermal heat pumps, which can use the Earth as either a heat source, when operating in heating mode, or a heat sink, when operating in cooling mode. There are already more than 1 million geothermal heat pumps installed in the United States, and those who have installed them can save up to 70 percent annually on their utility bills. So when this bill becomes law, families will be able to choose among installing solar technology, small wind technology, and geothermal heat pumps in their homes, and the 30 percent tax credit will be available for any of those installations. In case of solar electric investments, we greatly improve the incentive by removing the current $2,000 credit cap.

The bill also expands the business credit to include combined heat and power systems, which use a heat engine or power station to simultaneously generate both electricity and useful heat. Businesses that install these systems are able to get both heat and electricity from the same source, which decreases both energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions.

The benefits of these investments, these incentives, go far beyond energy independence, greenhouse gas reduction, and energy cost savings. They will enable U.S. firms of all sizes to add a great many ``green'' jobs on American soil. The Navigant Consulting organization recently put out a report estimating that the 8-year extension of the solar credit that I have just talked about will create 1.2 million employment opportunities in this country, including 440,000 permanent jobs, and $232 billion in domestic investment. Solar energy is already an important economic engine in my State of New Mexico. I am very pleased this extension is anticipated to add an additional 12,000 direct jobs in my State and 7,000 indirect jobs.

Shifting to the need to reduce demand for petroleum, the bill creates a new plug-in electric drive vehicle credit. We are hopeful that plug- in electric vehicles will come to the market next year and that the Government will help individuals purchase these vehicles through tax credits. This bill provides those tax credits will start at $2,500, and they will climb as high as $7,500, depending upon the battery capacity of the particular vehicle.

For commercial vehicles, the bill adds incentives for idling reduction units, which provides an alternative source of power used to heat, cool, or provide electricity to the cab or other parts of the truck. There are more than 200,000 trucks carrying refrigerated cargo around this country any day. The fleet owners will be incentivized to install advanced insulation on those trucks that can dramatically reduce the amount of gasoline those trucks consume trying to keep that cargo cool. So this is a very important provision.

Finally, the bill addresses our conservation and efficiency needs. It extends credits for energy-efficient improvements to new and existing homes and commercial buildings. Because energy used to heat and cool residential and commercial buildings accounts for nearly 40 percent of U.S. energy consumption--and nearly as much of our carbon dioxide emissions--these tax incentives are especially important. Owners of existing homes will be able to claim a tax credit of up to 10 percent of the combined costs from all qualified electric efficiency improvements, such as installing insulation in their homes, replacing windows, water heaters, and high-efficiency cooling and heating equipment. For new homes, there is a $2,000 tax credit for a home builder who constructs a qualified new energy-efficient home, certified to achieve a 50-percent reduction in energy usage. With new homes likely to remain part of our Nation's housing stock for more than 60 years, we need to make sure that builders have the right incentives to make energy efficiency a top priority. Owners of commercial buildings will continue to be able to deduct up to $1.80 per square foot of building floor area if they achieve a 50-percent energy savings target through energy reductions for the building's HVAC and interior lighting system.

With this addition to the provisions related to energy, American businesses are counting on Congress to enact this package because it contains an extension of the R&D development tax credit. It contains important tax relief for American families. It patches the alternative minimum tax to prevent it from engulfing millions of additional hard- working families. It lowers the income threshold for the $1,000 child tax credit from $12,000 to $8,500. That change alone enables 25,000 New Mexico children to newly qualify and an additional 94,000 to receive a larger credit than under prior law.

It extends the qualified tuition deduction for higher education expenses. That is a deduction of up to $4,000 that helps more than 4.4 million middle-class families meet the cost of sending their children to college.

Finally, the bill includes the secure world schools provisions and the payment in lieu of taxes provisions. These are extremely important for Western States in particular but for virtually all of our States.

As to the payment in lieu of taxes, let me talk specifically about that issue. We increase funding for payment in lieu of taxes in the current fiscal year. We fully fund the program for 4 years. These Federal payments are essential to local governments, including many in my State, in order to offset the losses and property taxes due to nontaxable Federal lands located within their boundaries. This funding is long overdue, and it is more desperately needed now than ever before.

Passage of this legislation, this energy incentives package, will demonstrate to the American people that we are willing to shift our tax priorities in a new direction toward a national energy policy that promotes diversified domestic sources of clean energy.

It furthers the significant progress we made in recent years with respect to promoting investment in efficiency and the renewable energy technologies that can help grow our economy. And beyond energy issues, it addresses key concerns of American families, businesses, and municipalities.

I applaud the various Senators who have had a major part in the development of this legislation, particularly Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley, but also our leadership, both the Democratic and Republican leaders, for bringing us together around this package.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes today to express my sadness regarding the tragedy this week involving officials with the International Boundary and Water Commission, IBWC. On Monday, an airplane carrying U.S. Commissioner Carlos Marin; Mexican Commissioner Arturo Herrera; and also Jake Brisbin, Jr., Executive Director of the Rio Grande Council of Governments; and Matthew Peter Juneau, the pilot, was reported as missing when it failed to arrive at its destination of Presidio, TX. Wreckage of that aircraft was located yesterday, and it was confirmed that there were no survivors. I offer my condolences to the family members of all of the individuals who were on the aircraft.

I would like to say a few words in particular about Commissioner Marin, who I had the pleasure of working with on a range of IBWC matters in New Mexico. Commissioner Marin was appointed to his position by President Bush in December 2006 after 27 years of service to the Commission. Previous to that, he worked with the Bureau of Reclamation after receiving a bachelor's degree in civil, engineering. He took over the IBWC at a tumultuous time, and quickly gained the respect of his colleagues and employees with calm and steady leadership of the agency. He was a problem-solver, focused on the IBWC's mission, and someone who was always readily accessible to my staff and me. Recently, my staff worked with him on the management plan for the Rio Grande in southern New Mexico. Commissioner Marin was instrumental in moving this project along after an impasse of many years. We will miss his effective leadership and his warm personality. My sympathies go out to his wife Rosa and two adult children.

Mr. President, one of the credit crunch's most unfair-- but least-discussed--impacts is its severe curtailment of municipalities' ability to raise capital for critical infrastructure projects. Because municipalities did not engage in the financial ``innovation'' that led to this situation, they are merely innocent bystanders swept up in a national crisis. Congress must take swift action to mitigate the credit crunch's impact on U.S. municipalities. To do so, I rise today to introduce the Municipal Bond Market Support Act of 2008. By relaxing outdated restrictions that prevent banks from acquiring municipal debt, the Act will significantly enhance demand for municipal bonds, thus aiding municipalities across the Nation-- particularly those in small and rural communities--in financing essential infrastructure projects. I thank my friend from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, a colleague on the Finance Committee, for joining me in introducing this bipartisan legislation.

Federal policy has long recognized the critical role of municipal bonds in enabling communities to undertake critical investments. But the liquidity crisis has dried up available capital for bonds, both municipal and corporate, at a time when the municipal bond market is already reeling from other setbacks. The auction-rate security market's collapse, which forced municipal issuers to refinance or convert more than $80 billion of their total $166 billion in such securities, has already cost municipalities more than $1 billion, thus pushing new municipal bond issuance out of reach for many municipalities. Meanwhile, when the Nation's two largest bond insurers were downgraded earlier this year, the underlying municipal bonds saw a corresponding downgrade--a penalty for merely being ``wrapped'' in the downgraded firm's insurance.

Taken together, these forces have driven yields on benchmark, 30-year tax-exempt debt to their highest levels since July 2004. These high rates have dramatically increased costs for municipalities facing interest payments on outstanding floating-rate municipal bonds, while making it more costly for municipalities to issue new debt. In the first half of 2008, long-term municipal issuance dropped 4.1 percent over the prior year, and a further drop is predicted in the second half; for new issuances, the interest costs have vastly increased. Given the credit crunch's severity, full recovery is probably a long way off. The timing could not be less opportune--the financial slowdown will cause municipal budget deficits to balloon, just when the need for infrastructure enhancements could not be more apparent.

Our bill, which largely mirrors a companion already introduced in the House by Chairman Frank and Chairman Neal of the House Ways and Means Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee, would stimulate demand--and therefore lower borrowing costs for issuing municipalities--by relaxing restrictions on banks' ability to participate in the municipal bond market.

To understand the proposed changes, it is useful to briefly review the tax code's current rules regarding banks' holding of municipal debt. Prior to 1986, banks were generally permitted to deduct the full interest costs they incurred unless a borrowing was incurred or continued to purchase or hold such bonds. Consequently, banks made up a significant share of the demand for municipal debt. But the 1986 tax reform eliminated this deduction for banks by requiring a pro-rata interest expense disallowance, with a limited ``qualified small issuer'' exception that permits banks to deduct 80 percent of the cost of purchasing and carrying bonds of governmental entities that issue $10 million or less in municipal bonds in any calendar year. This exception was added because small issuers' infrequent and small borrowing amounts make it too costly for them to sell debt in the national capital markets, leaving private placements with local banks the most feasible and cost-effective alternative.

To increase demand for municipal debt, the bill makes two modifications to these limitations. First, it would raise the bank qualified limit for small issuers from $10 million to $30 million, and then index the new limit for inflation. Municipalities that issue between $10 million and $30 million will thus be able to raise capital through private placements. Because private placements generally carry no underwriting fees and require no offering document, the up-front issuing costs to municipalities are far lower than issuing debt on the public markets. More critically, interest payments are far lower: Interest on such ``bank qualified'' debt averages 40 basis points, 0.40 percent, less than interest on nonbank qualified debt.

Failing to raise the bank-qualified level from the amount set in 1986 has real consequences for American communities. For instance, many small hospitals and healthcare facilities, even in small population States, cannot take advantage of today's small-issuer exception because they borrow through statewide authorities that issue bonds on behalf of multiple institutions, thereby exceeding the $10 million limit. In my home state, the New Mexico Hospital Equipment Loan Council tells me that if the $10 million limit had instead been $30 million, then many hospitals in our state's rural communities would have been able to secure funding to acquire additional hospital equipment, among them, Sierra Vista Hospital in Truth or Consequences; the Prairie Meadows assisted living facility in Clovis; and the Las Cruces Mental Health Center in Las Cruces. For each of these entities, the prospective borrower was instead forced to seek alternative, higher-cost capital options--or could not secure funding to complete the transaction.

As another example, the City of Las Cruces would benefit from this bill. The city has had five debt issues in the last 5 years that exceeded $10 million. The financial advisor under contract to the City estimates that the difference in rates, with a higher limit on bank qualified debt, would be about 20 basis points--a savings that would be passed on to the taxpayers and rate payers in our community.

Second, as concerns municipalities that issue more than $30 million in debt annually, the bill would allow financial institutions to hold up to 2 percent of their total assets in such debt, without disallowing a proportional amount of their interest expense deduction. This change is intended to restore bank demand and provide some stability by bringing this group of institutional investors back into the municipal market. Nonfinancial companies already benefit from this safe harbor, so in this regard, the bill creates parity. Many larger municipal infrastructure projects have costs in excess of $30 million, and bank investment can only help these critical projects succeed.

Finally, it bears mentioning that this bill offers at least two collateral benefits. First, enabling local governments to undertake additional infrastructure investments will help to stimulate our challenged economy. Second, by enabling banks to acquire municipal bonds--the safest class of security--the bill will enhance the stability of banks at a time that they face considerable financial pressure.

I am pleased that this bill has been endorsed by a number of organizations, including the National League of Cities; U.S. Conference of Mayors; National Association of Counties; Government Finance Officers Association; International City/County Management Association; National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers; National Association of State Treasurers; Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities; Education Finance Council; and National Association of Health and Educational Facilities Finance Authorities.

I hope my colleagues will join with Senator Crapo and me in working to enhance liquidity in the municipal bond market. Our bill will go a long way toward ensuring that our cities, towns, counties, utility districts, and school districts can secure affordable financing to undertake the infrastructure projects that our communities sorely need.

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

Mr. President, one of the credit crunch's most unfair-- but least-discussed--impacts is its severe curtailment of municipalities' ability to raise capital for critical infrastructure projects. Because municipalities did not engage in the financial ``innovation'' that led to this situation, they are merely innocent bystanders swept up in a national crisis. Congress must take swift action to mitigate the credit crunch's impact on U.S. municipalities. To do so, I rise today to introduce the Municipal Bond Market Support Act of 2008. By relaxing outdated restrictions that prevent banks from acquiring municipal debt, the Act will significantly enhance demand for municipal bonds, thus aiding municipalities across the Nation-- particularly those in small and rural communities--in financing essential infrastructure projects. I thank my friend from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, a colleague on the Finance Committee, for joining me in introducing this bipartisan legislation.

Federal policy has long recognized the critical role of municipal bonds in enabling communities to undertake critical investments. But the liquidity crisis has dried up available capital for bonds, both municipal and corporate, at a time when the municipal bond market is already reeling from other setbacks. The auction-rate security market's collapse, which forced municipal issuers to refinance or convert more than $80 billion of their total $166 billion in such securities, has already cost municipalities more than $1 billion, thus pushing new municipal bond issuance out of reach for many municipalities. Meanwhile, when the Nation's two largest bond insurers were downgraded earlier this year, the underlying municipal bonds saw a corresponding downgrade--a penalty for merely being ``wrapped'' in the downgraded firm's insurance.

Taken together, these forces have driven yields on benchmark, 30-year tax-exempt debt to their highest levels since July 2004. These high rates have dramatically increased costs for municipalities facing interest payments on outstanding floating-rate municipal bonds, while making it more costly for municipalities to issue new debt. In the first half of 2008, long-term municipal issuance dropped 4.1 percent over the prior year, and a further drop is predicted in the second half; for new issuances, the interest costs have vastly increased. Given the credit crunch's severity, full recovery is probably a long way off. The timing could not be less opportune--the financial slowdown will cause municipal budget deficits to balloon, just when the need for infrastructure enhancements could not be more apparent.

Our bill, which largely mirrors a companion already introduced in the House by Chairman Frank and Chairman Neal of the House Ways and Means Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee, would stimulate demand--and therefore lower borrowing costs for issuing municipalities--by relaxing restrictions on banks' ability to participate in the municipal bond market.

To understand the proposed changes, it is useful to briefly review the tax code's current rules regarding banks' holding of municipal debt. Prior to 1986, banks were generally permitted to deduct the full interest costs they incurred unless a borrowing was incurred or continued to purchase or hold such bonds. Consequently, banks made up a significant share of the demand for municipal debt. But the 1986 tax reform eliminated this deduction for banks by requiring a pro-rata interest expense disallowance, with a limited ``qualified small issuer'' exception that permits banks to deduct 80 percent of the cost of purchasing and carrying bonds of governmental entities that issue $10 million or less in municipal bonds in any calendar year. This exception was added because small issuers' infrequent and small borrowing amounts make it too costly for them to sell debt in the national capital markets, leaving private placements with local banks the most feasible and cost-effective alternative.

To increase demand for municipal debt, the bill makes two modifications to these limitations. First, it would raise the bank qualified limit for small issuers from $10 million to $30 million, and then index the new limit for inflation. Municipalities that issue between $10 million and $30 million will thus be able to raise capital through private placements. Because private placements generally carry no underwriting fees and require no offering document, the up-front issuing costs to municipalities are far lower than issuing debt on the public markets. More critically, interest payments are far lower: Interest on such ``bank qualified'' debt averages 40 basis points, 0.40 percent, less than interest on nonbank qualified debt.

Failing to raise the bank-qualified level from the amount set in 1986 has real consequences for American communities. For instance, many small hospitals and healthcare facilities, even in small population States, cannot take advantage of today's small-issuer exception because they borrow through statewide authorities that issue bonds on behalf of multiple institutions, thereby exceeding the $10 million limit. In my home state, the New Mexico Hospital Equipment Loan Council tells me that if the $10 million limit had instead been $30 million, then many hospitals in our state's rural communities would have been able to secure funding to acquire additional hospital equipment, among them, Sierra Vista Hospital in Truth or Consequences; the Prairie Meadows assisted living facility in Clovis; and the Las Cruces Mental Health Center in Las Cruces. For each of these entities, the prospective borrower was instead forced to seek alternative, higher-cost capital options--or could not secure funding to complete the transaction.

As another example, the City of Las Cruces would benefit from this bill. The city has had five debt issues in the last 5 years that exceeded $10 million. The financial advisor under contract to the City estimates that the difference in rates, with a higher limit on bank qualified debt, would be about 20 basis points--a savings that would be passed on to the taxpayers and rate payers in our community.

Second, as concerns municipalities that issue more than $30 million in debt annually, the bill would allow financial institutions to hold up to 2 percent of their total assets in such debt, without disallowing a proportional amount of their interest expense deduction. This change is intended to restore bank demand and provide some stability by bringing this group of institutional investors back into the municipal market. Nonfinancial companies already benefit from this safe harbor, so in this regard, the bill creates parity. Many larger municipal infrastructure projects have costs in excess of $30 million, and bank investment can only help these critical projects succeed.

Finally, it bears mentioning that this bill offers at least two collateral benefits. First, enabling local governments to undertake additional infrastructure investments will help to stimulate our challenged economy. Second, by enabling banks to acquire municipal bonds--the safest class of security--the bill will enhance the stability of banks at a time that they face considerable financial pressure.

I am pleased that this bill has been endorsed by a number of organizations, including the National League of Cities; U.S. Conference of Mayors; National Association of Counties; Government Finance Officers Association; International City/County Management Association; National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers; National Association of State Treasurers; Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities; Education Finance Council; and National Association of Health and Educational Facilities Finance Authorities.

I hope my colleagues will join with Senator Crapo and me in working to enhance liquidity in the municipal bond market. Our bill will go a long way toward ensuring that our cities, towns, counties, utility districts, and school districts can secure affordable financing to undertake the infrastructure projects that our communities sorely need.

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

Mr. President, I wish to speak very briefly to express my sadness on the death of Philip Clapp, who was the president and chief executive officer of the National Environmental Trust, from its founding in 1994 until it merged with the Pew Charitable Trusts this year, and who served as the deputy managing director of the Environmental Group of the Pew Charitable Trusts.

There are few of us in the Senate who have not had contact with Philip and seen the effectiveness of his advocacy on environmental and energy issues. He formerly served on Tim Wirth's staff when Tim served as a colleague of ours in the House of Representatives.

Under his guidance, the National Environmental Trust was one of the major nongovernmental organizations that contributed to international summits and agreements on climate change-related issues.

I wish to express my condolences to his family and to his many colleagues here and abroad who will greatly miss him and his leadership on these issues.

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, September 23, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to examine why diesel fuel prices have been so high, and what can be done to address the situation.

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 Tara Billingsley at (202) 224-4756 or Rosemarie Calabro at (202) 224-5039.

Mr. President, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a business meeting on Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 12 noon, in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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.

Subcommittee on Energy

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Energy Subcommittee of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 16, 2008, at 2:30, in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on recent analyses of the role of speculative investment in energy markets.

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 email to Gina [email protected].

For further information, please contact Angela Becker-Dippmann at (202) 224-5269 or Gina Weinstock at (202) 224-5684.

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a business meeting on Thursday, September 11, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an energy summit has been scheduled under the auspices of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The summit will be held on Friday, September 12, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-G50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington,