Floor Statements

Mr. President, I understand that the order gave a period from 2 to 3 to the Senator from Virginia, the Senator from California, and the Senator from Connecticut. Am I correct on that?

Recognizing that our leadership had important matters to bring to the attention of the body and that 15 minutes of that time was consumed in that series of important messages, I ask unanimous consent now that the entire calendar of scheduled speeches and so forth be moved ahead 15 minutes to restore our time and thereby extend time.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I thank my colleagues.

Mr. President, I wish once again to express my appreciation to the chairman, Chairman Boxer, and my colleague, Senator Lieberman, in the long voyage we have had. Senator Lieberman and I have been working on this for nearly a year, the climate change bill and the security bill, as we call it, and then our chairman eventually joined and the committee acted and the rest is history.

I look upon this as being a very substantial contribution to this continuing debate on this very perplexing but essential subject to be continuously watched here in the United States of America, and the next Congress will take it up, and I think we will have laid a foundation for the future work of the next President and the next Congress--an important foundation. I wish we would have had more debate, but I will not get into the politics of what happened. It is clear to all. But I will say that in the brief period we were on the bill, for example, I did not hear any really substantial debate contesting the fundamental question: Is there adequate science to support--to support--the action by the Congress of the United States and then hopefully the President of the United States to address this issue? That seems to me to be put aside now.

I think we can deduce from this limited debate we have had that each and every Member of this Chamber is genuinely concerned to some degree about the effects of the erratic changes in our climate, in our weather, with the droughts and the floods, the tornadoes, and these other unexplainable variations in the historical--I repeat, the historical--benchmarks of these weather occurrences. So we are moving forward, and that was a very important building stone.

This morning, the chairman and the Senator from Connecticut and, indeed, the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry--the four of us joined to introduce two very fine, distinguished, retired four star officers--one a general and one an admiral. They are a part of a team of 11 members.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the names of all the members of the Military Advisory Board to the Center for Naval Analysis, a national and internationally recognized organization which deals in a nonpolitical way on issues. They put together a very comprehensive report about the national security implications from global climate change.

Mr. President, I will read first from the statement, and then I will insert the full statement of General Sullivan in the Record.

General Sullivan has had a 50-year career, in one way or another--on Active Duty or continuously working--with the U.S. Army. I have known him a long time. I remember him coming to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee many times in his capacity as the Chief of Staff of the Army. He stated as follows:

Having said this, I admit I came to the Advisory Board as a

skeptic and I'm not sure some of the others didn't as well.

After we listened to leaders of the scientific, business, and

governmental communities, both I and my colleagues came to

agree that global climate change is and will be a significant

threat to our national security. The potential destabilizing

impacts of global climate change include reduced access to

fresh water, impaired food production, health issues,

especially from vector and food-borne diseases, and land

loss, flooding and so forth, and the displacement of major

portions of populations. And overall, we view these phenomena

as related to failed states, growth of terrorism, mass

migrations, and greater regional and inter-regional

instability.

This is a totally pure, nonpolitical assessment of this problem.

How I wish we would have had the opportunity to have had further debate, at which time we could have brought forth other testimony of members of this panel and addressed the security issues. Those were the issues that drew me, this humble Senator, to participate and to devote basically a year of my career with my good friend from Connecticut, both of us members of the Armed Services Committee. It is because of the national security implications.

I would like to read a bit from the testimony of ADM Joe Lopez. Now, I have known Joe Lopez ever since he was a Navy captain, when I was the Secretary of the Navy. He has a remarkable career. He stated as follows:

National security involves much more than just military

strength. National security is affected by political,

military, cultural, and economic elements. These elements

overlap, to one degree or another, and every major issue in

the international arena contains all of them. And climate

change has an impact on each of them. This will be

particularly more pronounced in the world's most volatile

regions, where environmental

and natural resource challenges have added greatly to the

existing political, economic, and cultural tensions. These

instabilities that already exist will create a fertile ground

for extremism, and these instabilities are likely to be

exacerbated by global climate change.

Again, there is no politics in this. It is a clear statement from a man who has devoted over 40 years of his life to military service for our country, and there are nine others who participated in this panel.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the statements of General Sullivan and Admiral Lopez.

So Mr. President, there again we have laid another building block, bringing to the attention of the American people their own security here at home, their own armed services who are called upon to address these problems now and in the coming years.

Now, I have no basis and I will not state that the tragic weather change that hit Burma and is taking tens upon tens of thousands of lives should be put in a category now of global climate change, but I do point out that, at this very moment, we still have ships and aircraft and men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces offshore ready to move in with food and supplies and other things.

Our country, almost alone, is the one to which the world turns when there is some sort of a crisis, and it is clear from the statements of these two professionals that many of those crises can be generated by these erratic climate changes.

Mr. President, I wish to yield the floor at this moment to my other colleagues, but I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a series of recognitions that the three of us want to state with regard to our staffs and to a number of organizations that have come forward, foremost among them the Pew Center--that was the one that provided us with magnificent books on this--and many others across America that came forward to participate in what we had hoped to be very extensive debate on this issue. Nevertheless, they have laid the foundation, and they will continue to lay a foundation upon which to build and build, until we finally come to grips with a framework of the solutions as to how this Nation is going to lead and deal

with the inevitable consequences of these climate changes.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. President, I have placed into the Record the statement of General Sullivan and Admiral Lopez.

Madam President, I wonder if I might take 3 and my distinguished colleague from Connecticut, the senior partner of this partnership, would have the final few words to say.

I thank our colleague from Colorado. How much I have enjoyed, through the years he has been here, how he has stopped at every opportunity to talk about the land, the farm that is in his family, and his love for the land and the outdoors. He speaks from the standpoint that he has tended that land and loves it. He wants to preserve that land for future generations. I commend him.

This debate has laid strong building blocks for the future. We have worked our way through the issues of the science. We have worked our way through how national security is linked to this subject. We have worked our way through the fact that technology must be encouraged in every possible way to accommodate the capture, transportation, and eventual sequestration of CO2, this greenhouse gas that is affecting the atmosphere. That technology needs a known, dedicated, constant--underline ``constant''--stream of funding. Whatever global climate exchange comes up, eventually the Congress of the United States must put in a clear understanding that we are going to fund and have that funding stream go to provide for the needs of the technology to come up with the answer to this question. Our several States--another building block--each of the States, in its own individual way, is doing things. We commend them. But the United States must step up and lead.

Lastly, we must devise clearly a policy toward other nations in the world--nations we trade with, nations we otherwise have relationships with. We are all in this together. Sharing of the hardships must be common among those nations. We cannot ask the citizens of our Nation to accept a level of sacrifice greater than that which would be accepted by other leading nations of the world.

I am very proud of what has been done. I am humble to have had a small part in laying this foundation.

I yield the floor to my colleague.

Madam President, I say to the Senator, you are the chairman of the subcommittee. Senator Boxer is chairman of the full committee.

I am the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator.

I would just like to say to my distinguished colleague from Alaska, we had a number of conversations in the course of the deliberation on this bill. I first want to say this colleague worked very hard and very conscientiously. There are honest differences of opinion on this subject. Her State, which she is so proud to represent, is quite unique. It has been severely affected by what I believe are some manifestations of climate change that are somewhat unique and without precedent. But I think in this instance, I say on behalf of my colleague, this is a decision where people of good intentions can have different views.

All I know is this colleague worked very hard to deliberate through her thinking process. I will be gone, but I will have to leave it to her, being in a leadership position next year one way or another, hopefully one of the most powerful Senate committees. I know she will apply the same amount of careful thought and consideration when that committee--I believe it is Energy; am I not correct? I am certain it will have a major role and voice in collaborating with the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

I yield the floor. I wanted to make that observation.

I thank the distinguished presiding officer.

Mr. President, I, once again, recognize the strong leadership given by the distinguished Senator from California on this legislation. It comes from the heart and a strong conviction that she thinks we are doing the right thing, and I am pleased to be a part of the team that helped engineer getting this bill prepared and to the committee and to the Senate floor.

And I don't fear the consequences of the vote tomorrow. No one can predict what it will be, but I think both of us

will walk out with a sense of satisfaction we did our best. It may well be we will go on next week. Time will tell, subject to this vote tomorrow. As we say in the Navy: Well done, sir.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 599; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, no other motions in order, that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session.

I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. This nomination is for General McChrystal. General McChrystal is well-known to many of us in the Senate. I recall very vividly the period when our Nation was building its force structure to go into the situation in Iraq. And putting aside all of the honest debate on that decision to go in, I think the professional soldiers like McChrystal did their job.

McChrystal used to come every morning that the Senate was in session, at 8 o'clock, and brief Senators in S. 407. I know the Presiding Officer was there on a number of occasions. He was accompanied by COL Bill Caniano, who is currently on my staff, and they answered the questions, kept the Senate informed as to the buildup of that operation as our forces built up tempo and moved into the Iraq situation. A very fine officer.

He has been in Iraq now--well, I don't think you add up the number of tours because he has basically been there almost constantly over 2\1/2\ years; one of the longest serving members, whether it is a general officer or a private, in the Iraq theater. He has distinguished himself particularly on his initiatives to take on al-Qaida at any place, at any time of day or night, and to do the very best to eliminate that threat to not only the U.S. forces, Iraqi forces, but the Iraqi people who were brutally treated by that organization. And to the extent that we have reduced that situation of al-Qaida's capabilities in Iraq today, and also Afghanistan--this officer goes back and forth between those two theaters--then it is, I would say, with a sense of humility he would say: I think I have done my best.

I am very pleased the President recognized his outstanding career, that he has been nominated now to become the chief of staff for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in operating that very essential part of the defense complex in the Department of Defense.

I thank the Senators, I thank the leadership, the Democratic leadership, particularly Senator Durbin, who worked on it, and Senator Levin; and on this side, the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, and others who worked with me on this nomination during the course of last night's deliberations on a variety of matters on the Senate floor.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on this vote, I have a pair with the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy. If he were present and voting, he would vote ``yea.'' If I were permitted to vote, I would vote ``nay.'' I, therefore, withhold my vote.

Mr. President, if I might just speak for 2 minutes.

I thank my colleague from California. I say to her, it has been a pleasure to work with you and to continue

to work with you in the Senate. Our primary responsibilities are on the Intelligence Committee, but you are a very diversified Senator and can seize many subjects and provide your expertise for the benefit of this Chamber. I thank you for your thoughtful, personal remarks and your very informative speech given this morning.

Mr. President, I wish to commend our distinguished colleague from Georgia. I listened very carefully, and I appreciate his reference to the fact that I will be offering at the earliest possible time an amendment to lay some foundation in this proposed legislation addressing nuclear power.

As I listened to what the Senator from Georgia said, I basically agree. But as the Senator well knows, if we were to have included these provisions, either during the course of the committee markup or indeed now in the amendment process, we would get blue-slipped. This type of legislation, which I support, I say to the Senator, must originate--as he well knows having served--in the House of Representatives and then come to the Senate.

So as colleagues follow this and say to themselves: This Senator brings forth very constructive proposals, why didn't the managers put that in the bill, I think you would have to agree with me we would be faced with a blue-slip problem and our bill would come to a dead halt.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman. I would say to my good friend from Georgia, I have talked extensively with a wide range-- as you have--of the industrial individuals who represent nuclear plants today and are forthcoming. The chairman is quite correct. A number of these companies are planning to go ahead boldly and courageously and build new plants. Given the uncertainties of where they are going to get the parts, can they be manufactured in the United States; given the uncertainties as to whether there are enough trained people to operate these plants, they are going ahead. So I don't believe it is just a profit motive.

But as I talk to these individuals, it is clear to me they are watching the jurisdiction of the Energy Committee as having a great proportion of the nuclear responsibility; the Tax Committee, and they cautioned against trying to do too much in this bill for fear of interrupting a process that is in place with the Energy Committee, the Tax Committee, and such other committees as deal with nuclear power because that responsibility does spread over quite a number of committees within the Senate. So we could not simply put into our bill, recommended by way of amendment at this time, such a comprehensive amendment because we know it is disruptive to the work that apparently is going on in other committees as it relates to nuclear power.

But perhaps I will reflect on this as to whether I could add in my amendment, or the Senator from Georgia might wish to modify my amendment and take those portions of his which do not impact blue slip--I think that is something we don't want to get tangled up with-- and doesn't infringe on the jurisdictions of the other committees and see if we can make it work.

Mr. President, again, I commend our colleague for a very constructive contribution to the dialogue on this bill.

Reserving the right to object, I thought I had 2 minutes.

Then at the appropriate time the Chair directs me, I will use the 2 minutes.

I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I say to my good friend, this has been an excellent debate he engendered on this floor. This is what we should have. This is the only way we are going to resolve this issue of global warming. I urge the managers to consider building in a little block of time after speakers, such as there can be some colloquy taking place rather than just one speaker, another speaker, reading a speech or delivering a speech. This is what it is all about.

Mr. President, I say to my good friend, he and I have worked on this issue over a period of about 2 or 3 months. I have worked on it for 8 months. I don't claim any special credit. But if the Senator feels so badly about this bill, why haven't he and others brought to the floor a companion bill to replace this and to solve the problems he has? It is one thing to come in here and hail damnation on what we have done by means of putting this bill together, but if it is going to be a constructive process, show us--

Let me finish the statement, and I will yield the floor-- a comprehensive bill that will work to the satisfaction of a majority of the people here. For example, you talk about this board, seven men. Let's say there might be a woman or two on it.

The point is, if we look at section 435 of the bill, it says that chart the Senator has up there has to be approved by the Congress.

Nevertheless, you omitted any reference to the fact that Congress has a hand. If you look at the amendment I have thrown in, the President of the United States, at any time he or she desires, can go in and change that. So it is not as if we have unleashed this bill in perpetuity. There are a number of checks and balances in this bill to protect the very issues that the Senator states.

Mr. President, I agree with what the Senator has said.

The Senator showed courtesy in getting them.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his comments. But a short time ago there was a colloquy on the floor, and someone said they felt----

There was a slow roll. I immediately went back to consult with my leadership, and that is not the case. The reason for not going to amendments today seems to me to be a valid one; that is, a number of Senators wish to speak. The list is up to 18 now, and they want to speak in such a way that is not feasible if we are in an amending posture.

So I thank the distinguished chairman on this matter because I do believe we have made some progress today. We have had good, constructive speeches. Senator Corker spoke, Senator Isakson spoke on this side, and colleagues on your side. I think Senator Kerry was about to speak.

So I think, Mr. Chairman, we are making some good, solid progress in the Senate and can rightfully take pride in what we have done thus far. Would you agree with me?

Mr. President, I have nothing further to say.

Mr. President, that would not be possible if we were in an amendment posture. We could not get all those Senators in.

Reserving the right to object.

Let us make it clear that the value of this debate, not just to ourselves but to the American public, is to have some exchange between us and to have a little followup and some questioning. I hope nothing that has been said thus far will restrict a Senator--for example, my dear friend who is about to speak, I would like to ask him a question and then that be charged against my time. Is that to be in any way obstructed by that procedure which we normally follow--I assume you will accept the question or maybe equally divide the time so we have some colloquy taking place.

I beg your pardon.

Mr. President, before my distinguished colleague from Tennessee leaves the floor, I listened to his proposal, just taking out the power industry and use that. But the revenues you gain by your bill, wouldn't they be

subject to the same accusation? Is it a tax? I think it is a false accusation, but I think your plan is basically a part of our plan. If they call our plan a tax, yours is a tax; am I correct?

That is all I need to know.

Mr. President, I reply to my good friend, your plan is just as subject to the calls in here that it is a tax as is ours. But you send it back to the taxpayers. What we do is to give it to research and technology to try and improve the efficiency of the spectrum of organizations. We will have a proper pie chart tomorrow, showing how we take the money we collect and send it to research and development to improve our ability to develop solar and wind and all types of things. That is the difference. You are, in a sense, a tax collection agency. You collect it and give it back to the people. We collect it the same way, but we then put it into where technology will benefit the people.

I yield to the manager part of my time for the purpose of a colloquy. The colloquy will add strength to this whole debate.

Mr. President, the chairman is correct.

Mr. President, the chairman is correct.

Mr. President, the chairman is correct.

I have no objection, but where is the time coming from? I would hope you could find it.

Mr. President, if I may take 2 minutes off my time to say to my good friend, when you get up and say it is going there for the next 42 years or whatever statement you made, you are incorrect. In our managers' amendment, the substitute, whatever comes up tomorrow--and that will be the order of business--we explicitly give the President of the United States the power at any time to come in and alter where those funds go. Of course, it requires the concurrence of the Congress, so the Congress has a voice.

There is nothing in our bill that acts in perpetuity. If at any time the President determines there is a crisis in the economy or that the technology, as required by the power sector to do the sequestration, is not there, the President pulls back on the throttle.

So I would hope colleagues, when they get up to discuss this bill, recognize that flexibility has been put in it to take care of all of these situations. I hope we do not have anybody saying again: And for 42 years this will stay in fixed cement, in place. It is not true. Flexibility is at every turn.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will yield my good friend a minute or two off my time. Several Senators, including myself, are waiting to talk. I yield him 2 minutes.

Mr. President, I was going to answer the Senator's questions.

Mr. President, I was interested in the comments the Senator made. What the Senator has described--tomorrow, I will have a better pie chart for colleagues to look at. The money that comes in through the bill is to be distributed primarily to companies, entities developing new technology as to how to solve the very question the Senator raises; namely, will technology be available for the sequestration? So it is not as if it is going to be distributed similar to leaflets and dropped all over. This money is going for the purpose of trying to improve America's sources of energy.

I say to my good friend, give me until tomorrow. He reads off correctly some of the allocations, but each of them has some benefit to the problem of the CO2 and global climate change; each one is carefully thought through. So tomorrow I will be able to give this to you in greater detail, once we get before us the actual amendment or the bill that we are going to hopefully continue to debate with the amendment process.

The second question the Senator asked about was the nuclear program. There is nothing in any of the bills that have been put into the record thus far, but I have the amendment here to initiate a very significant program to address what the distinguished Senator said is the need for nuclear power to begin to expand, using the current base, which, as he well knows, and I know, has been reduced in the last 12 to 14 years to where it is hardly in existence, either manufacturing or educational. But I have that handled.

Lastly, I hope the Senator will spend a little time on a provision I have in this bill by which the President of the United States is given authority to at any time correct inequities or problems he thinks are incorrect.

Have I not 17 minutes also?

I can finish my 17 minutes and yield it back for the benefit of other colleagues because I have had my fair share talking about this bill.

Mr. President, if I may return to my allocation of 17 minutes.

I also say to my friend from New Hampshire, I call to his attention section 434, in which Congress has oversight on the use of these funds. Congress can change them.

Mr. President, I recognize he has a point there.

This situation, where I devised a provision to give the President the authority, in my view--in earlier days, I was in aviation. Unfortunately, I never fully succeeded to become an aviator. We used to have a stick in the old days, before all this other stuff, when we had tandem seats--believe it or not, I flew in those old planes--you pull the stick forward, pull it back, roll it. The President has the stick, and he can change this if this bill is wrong. But we have to get this train out of the station and start it rolling down the rails.

Fifty States are trying to devise their own framework of laws now. That has to be a nightmare to industry and particularly the power companies that have to serve a multiple of States.

We simply have to show the world this country can lead, and no one is a stronger leader than the Senator from New Hampshire in this body. He understands that.

Go ahead.

I say to my good friend, where do we get the money to perfect sequestration? That troubles me the most. I do not think science has proven that we can actually capture the CO2, cost effectively transfer it, and put it safely into some type of repository, an old gas well.

Yes.

Mr. President, I simply say to my good friend, we have a difference of opinion.

I will conclude my remarks. I congratulate the managers of this bill, the distinguished Senator from California and the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma. I have been here a few years. I know about managing bills. I have had that privilege many times. But it has been done fairly, equitably, and in a civil way on a highly controversial subject. May it remain for the balance of the time that this institution, I hope, votes for this bill and comes up with some solution to the problem. We simply cannot do nothing.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the professional dedication, vision, and military service of GEN B.B. Bell, who is retiring from the U.S. Army after 39 years of dedicated service. It is a privilege for me to recognize the many outstanding achievements General Bell has provided the

Army and our great Nation. General Bell was commissioned as a distinguished military graduate and second lieutenant in 1969 upon graduation from the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Following commissioning, General Bell specialized in armor and served with distinction as he rose through the ranks. His orders took him to posts throughout the United States, Germany, and the Middle East.

General Bell assumed command of the United Nations Command, Republic of Korea/United States Combined Forces command, and United States Forces Korea on February 3, 2006.

During his time in command, North Korea made provocative missile launches and numerous demilitarized zone and airspace incursions. Despite these threats, General Bell maintained military readiness even as he reduced the U.S. footprint in Korea by moving soldiers, civilians, and family members south, thus transforming the commands in Korea.

In addition, General Bell has been a principal participant in the fast-paced bilateral military and political discussions, where he has earned the reputation as a well-respected ambassador for the United States. He also developed and maintained close ties with the military and civilian leadership of the Republic of Korea in partnership with the U.S. Ambassador to Korea. He has helped fuse a lasting bond between the two countries.

General Bell is a soldier's soldier. Throughout his career, he has made the wellbeing of soldiers, families, and civilians a priority. He expects those serving below him to do the same.

During service in Desert Shield and Desert Storm as the United States Central Command executive officer, he worked to ensure that each soldier was properly prepared, trained, and equipped for the mission and that every family was cared for by a Family Readiness Group.

Throughout his illustrious career in the Army, General Bell has been nothing less than exceptional. He is a great credit to the Army and this country. I wish him and his wife Katie well in their new endeavors.

Mr. President, could we have the Chair advise the body with regard to the existing time agreement. It would be my hope that I could follow Senator Joseph Lieberman, since the two of us are the principal sponsors of this bill.

I will have to accept that.

I think that is most generous, but you take 15, I will take 5.

Mr. President, if the Senator from Oklahoma will yield for a moment, I say to my colleague, we have served together now for 28 years in this body. I wish you well in this latest chapter, but I also commend you for the forthright manner with which you have always come forward in this body at any time. If there is an ounce of reduction in the tremendous energy you apply to your work here in the Senate, you acknowledge it, but always saying you will be back stronger than ever. I wish you well.

I thank my colleague. I will have further words about my colleague. The chairman of our committee, on behalf of the Senate as a whole, has some information which, certainly, I find very heartwarming. So I wish at this time to yield to the chairman on a matter that is unrelated to the pending legislation.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of our committee and our colleague and friend for bringing that to the attention of all Senators. I have been privileged to know Senator Kennedy for many years. His brother and I were in law school together at the University of Virginia in 1949. I recall then meeting the Senator for the first time when he visited the campus on occasion. But he has been a very dear and valued friend, an absolute tower of strength in this body which he loves so much: the U.S. Senate. So I commend my colleague.

I also wish to thank my dear friend, Senator Lieberman. We have been together on so many legislative measures through the many years we have been here together, particularly as it relates to national security. He is a pillar of strength in his own right on this bill and in many other ways. I admire the independence of the Senator. I admire his commitment, his fortitude, and the strength which he has been tested on so many times. He is a great credit to this Nation and this institution.

Mr. President, I was indeed brought to this moment as a consequence of national security measures as there are implications with regard to global climate changes.

I don't use the term ``warming'' because it is, to me, a complexity of different climate variations--not only temperature but weather patterns manifesting in drought, patterns manifesting in floods, patterns manifesting in hurricanes, and all sorts of other things, such as tornadoes.

I have had the privilege of living a little bit longer than most in this Chamber. Indeed, in my lifetime, I have never seen such a complexity and changes in weather. Certainly, the evidence seems to be compiling every day that human activity and increasing carbon dioxide emissions are the causes. It is now time to deal with that situation.

I belong to the school of thought in this debate that we simply cannot do nothing; we cannot constantly postpone. Senator Lieberman and I, over a period of almost a year now, have put this bill together. It represents what we deem a consensus--I guess you would say a middle-of- the-road position. We could not satisfy all those who want stronger controls put in, more immediate corrections; nor could we satisfy those who sort of say let's wait and see. We felt we should put this together, bringing together the thoughts of so many of our colleagues. I would say that several dozen colleagues contributed to this bill. One is Senator Specter. In our bill, we relied on much of the good work included in Bingaman-Specter Low Carbon Economy Act.

Most significantly, our legislation includes provisions from their bill that protect U.S. manufacturers from competition with other countries not curbing emissions. Second, we also ``borrowed'' their idea for providing ``bonus allowances'' to facilities that adopt carbon capture and storage. This incentive is critical. The third point I will highlight is that we tried to provide the price certainty envisioned by their ``safety value'' by including a ``rainy day account'' of extra allowances that would be released to the market if a certain price point is hit. I thank those Senators for their very important contributions in improving this bill.

Mr. President, another reason I am drawn to working to address the issue of global climate change is that there is a great feeling all across America by people in small towns, large cities, and in State legislatures that we must move and move now; that we simply must do something. In my view, doing nothing is not an option. We simply must do something.

I believe the American people will be the final factor in this bill that is now about to be pending in the Senate, as to whether sufficient votes are garnered to send the bill eventually to the President after we have a conference, hopefully, with the House of Representatives, which I am certain, if this is passed by 60 votes here, the House will quickly put together their own thoughts--they have done a lot of work-- and we will have a bill that will go to the President. That will be largely owing to the public, as they follow this debate and read about it, as they discuss it among themselves. They will send back a message to this institution that doing nothing is not an option. Do the best you can. In crafting this legislation, we have done the best we can. If my fellow Senators have ideas to further improve the legislation, I ask them to bring them forward.

I commend the distinguished ranking member. He pointed out that he will support going forward with this bill this afternoon and also that there should be a number of amendments, hopefully, to strengthen it from the perspective of the ranking member and a number of colleagues on this side of the aisle. Let's show the American public that this institution can work and address a complicated subject and try to reach common ground and understanding. To do nothing is not an option.

In the substitute amendment, we significantly improved the bill by giving the President of the United States emergency authority to modify any requirement of this bill in the event of a

national, economic or energy emergency. In addition, Senator Lieberman, Senator Carper and I will be offering an amendment with respect to nuclear power. I ask unanimous consent that this section of the substitute amendment, and my amendment with Senators Lieberman and Carper be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Again, the first provision I refer to deals with the authority of the President of the United States. The Committee reported bill, I felt, did not give sufficient protections to the Nation for unforeseen things that could occur while this law is being met across the Nation. So we give to the President the authority to change any provision in this bill that he--or possibly she--deems appropriate. And then it is up to the Congress to determine whether they support what the President has done or not. I say that because we have drawn on a procedure that has been time tested by the Senate, and indeed the Congress, to give such power to the President regarding legislation. Supposing that, as a consequence of the legislation, it is shown it is damaging our ability to recover from what appears now to be a weakened economy? Then the President can readjust the timetable or the provision which he deems is contributing to that problem.

Now, we ask the power industry--most notably those segments of the industry dependent upon coal--coal is our largest natural resource of energy. This bill does not in any way try to damage coal. It, in fact, is a bill that will help that industry--our power industry--which requires coal as a source of energy for our daily needs. Give us time to explain to the coal industry how this is done. But if technology, in terms of capturing the CO2, conveying, transporting it to a repository for sequestration--if that technology is not in place in a timely way, the President can step in and readjust the timetable.

If there are national security implications from this bill that the President deems harmful, he can readjust this bill. So there are more than adequate safety measures in here to protect this Nation, and the President has full authority to implement them.

The Warner-Lieberman-Carper amendment relates to nuclear power. We looked at this in the course of the deliberations in the committee, and at that time, it simply was not feasible to include provisions. The distinguished colleague from Oklahoma and others brought forward a number of provisions about nuclear power during the mark up, which we could not accept at that time for reasons I think are apparent to all. But I am happy to bring forth an amendment now, joined by my distinguished colleagues, Senator Lieberman and Carper, to look at the absolute essential requirement that we rely on nuclear power as a growing and a more important daily source of energy for this country.

Mr. President, I hope that when this debate has concluded, if it is shown that the proponents of this legislation have not met the majority requirements of this body as to what is to be done legislatively now-- not in the future--to deal with this global climate change, then I hope that another legislative proposal will be brought forward via amendment, or perhaps even by a substitute bill, to replace ours. If it is the will of a majority to take that substitute, so be it. I hope I can support it. But to do nothing is not an option, Mr. President.

How much time do I have under the 10 minutes?

I yield that back to my colleague from Connecticut to wrap up for the two of us--in 1 minute, 1 year's work.

Exhibit 1

Subtitle B--Presidential Emergency Declarations and Proclamations

Madam President, before the Senator yields the floor, I wonder if I may ask him a question.

Fine. Of course, whatever the case may be. Because our colleagues are listening to these statistics, I think we better with greater specificity explain from where those numbers are coming. The Senator made a comment about the possible increase in the cost of gas. But is that not over the life of the bill, which is 20 years?

It is not tomorrow or the next day.

Madam President, I asked the question, but I will finish it up. Let's be candid, we are talking about a bill that is 20 years ahead of us. Look how much gas has risen, 26 increases in the past, I think, 90 days. It has nothing to do with this bill. This bill has all types of checks and balances that the President can move in and stop these provisions from being invoked if he is concerned.

I listened patiently to my colleague from Missouri: This is wrong, that is wrong, this is wrong. All right, folks, who is going to come forward in this Chamber and say this is what is right, here is the better approach? And let us be careful in the representation about these incredible increases and so forth. Give the time period and then contrast that to what has happened in the last 90 days, which has nothing to do with this bill--nothing.

What has an impact is if this bill eventually becomes law, then it will put in place the mechanism by which to relieve the crisis we are faced with today--these repeated 26 increases in the cost of gasoline.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am pleased to be here today for the opening debate on global climate change and the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.

The issue of global climate change is a pressing one that has ramifications far beyond our imagination. It is my firm belief that we need to temporarily put aside what we do not know about climate change and its potential impacts and to focus instead on what we do know in order to begin to address this critical problem.

We know that the science is clear. Some might respectfully disagree, but they are in the minority. In fact, the science is so clear and the observations on the ground are so convincing that more than half of the States of this great Nation and more than 800 cities have taken the bull by the horns and have enacted or are working to enact legislation to reduce carbon emissions.

I am the strongest supporter of states rights and I commend these States for their vision and their leadership absent Federal action. But we cannot have a patchwork approach to addressing climate change. Federal leadership is now warranted in this case.

We know that allowing global climate change to go unchecked will result in increased threats to global security. In April 2007 the Center for Naval Analysis Corporation issued a report, ``National Security and the Threat of Climate Change,'' which detailed the numerous threats posed by climate change.

The report found that global climate change does pose a significant threat to America's national security. The extreme weather and ecological conditions associated with climate change have the potential to ``disrupt our way of life and to force changes in the way we keep ourselves safe and secure.''

Some of the destabilizing impacts described in the report include: reduced access to fresh water, impaired food production, human health emergencies, and displacement of people. These are hardships that the globe will have to face.

These serious implications of climate change will have security consequences for the United States. For example, there will be an increased potential for failed nations and growth of global terrorism.

Another serious implication of climate change is the mass migrations of people that are likely to occur. Lack of water and food will force the movement of people. In the United States, the rate of immigration from Mexico is likely to rise because the water situation in Mexico is already marginal and could worsen with less rainfall and more droughts.

In addition to these indirect risks to national security, there are also direct impacts on U.S. military systems, infrastructure and operations. Climate change will add stress to our weapons system, threaten U.S. bases throughout the world, and have a direct effect on military readiness. As stated in the CNA report:

As military leaders, we know we cannot wait for certainty.

Failing to act because a warning isn't precise is

unacceptable.

We know that the fate of the copious coal resources within our borders hinges on Congress providing regulatory certainty. Have you seen the record of late? Permit after permit for coal-fired powerplant is being declined. In fact, 54 percent of coal capacity ordered since 2000 has been canceled or put on hold in the last 2 years, in part due to uncertainty about climate legislation. The way to ensuring coal remains a viable resource for the future and allowing coal to continue to provide more than half the power in the U.S. is to give regulatory certainty so that investors will once again finance the building of coal-fired powerplants.

With that said, I know that the coal industry doesn't support this bill. But we have done our best to provide more than the financial support the industry says is necessary to fund the technologies such as carbon capture and storage that are going to allow coal to remain viable. But inaction is not an option for our Nation, and it is not the best path forward for coal.

The concept of mandatory, by law, cap-and-trade is proven to work. Cap-and-trade harnesses the best of free market power and brings in industry, as partners, in solving the energy and emissions challenges in the future. With all due respect to those who support the carbon tax approach, I believe while the administration of such a new tax may be simpler, there is no guarantee you get the environmental benefit that consumers are paying for.

The very suggestion that there will be some huge increase in gas prices due to capping pollution is false. It is a scare tactic. Absent any program, gas prices have gone up about $1.10 this year alone. What the increases show is that the status quo of laws are not working.

The United States will be hostage to the price of oil until we reduce our demand--and a cap on carbon is the most effective step we can take toward that goal. This bill provides a very large incentive for the private sector to receive the investment so they can create improved and new alternative sources of energy. It funds advanced vehicle technology, efficient hybrid fleets, advanced biofuels and mass transit that will transform the transportation sector and reduce our dependence on oil.

Modeling suggests that the Act would reduce imports by 8 million barrels per day by 2025, more than the entire amount currently imported from OPEC. Overall, it reduces oil imports by up to 58 percent.

We also know that the cost of inaction is much more likely to hurt American families and the American way of life more than the potential costs of action.

Not addressing climate change is not going to keep energy bills low. Increased demand for energy will drive prices up, without the incentives for expanding the use of alternative energy sources or providing a safety net for consumers, as my bill would do.

I relish this opportunity to debate climate change legislation in the Senate. It is my hope that we will have robust debate. I want my colleagues, both those who agree with my bill and those who don't, to have ample opportunity to offer amendments. If we are going to be serious, serious consideration must be given to all members who want to have their say in this landmark debate.

In closing, I look forward to the time ahead spent on this bill, and I am available to address any questions, concerns, or issues my colleagues wish to raise with me.

Madam President, once again, I think as we debated this afternoon, the bill has been passed out, put on each desk. I hope that represents the majority of our colleagues will agree to letting this bill go forward, because it is not just the bill, it shows the American people we are doing their business.

We are trying, through a debate, well-intentioned individuals on both sides, to solve one of the most difficult problems ever facing America, our energy shortages, our increased prices of

energy, carbon emissions, how it has affected our environment, all those things.

Here it is. This is our joint effort, together with the chairman and members of the committee. If there is a better idea, bring it forward. This is the function which our Founding Fathers established this institution for. Bring forth our ideas and let us produce something and show the American people we can solve their problems.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from 20 different prominent, well-known industrial firms, confirming that this bill is necessary, be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. President, Senator Bingaman and I will be introducing in the Senate today a resolution to express the sense of the Senate regarding the use of gasoline and other fuels by the departments and agencies of the Federal Government. We simply refer to all of the problems we see every morning, as we get up, in the papers and on the television about how families are coping with this gas problem. We simply say in a respectful way in the last paragraph--I will read it:

It is the sense of the Senate that the President should

require all Federal departments and agencies to take

initiatives to reduce daily consumption of gasoline and other

fuels by departments and agencies.

I thank my colleagues. The full text will be available to all Members this afternoon. It is not as if we will be able to vote on this, but it will be some message to take back home that you are in support of it.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue that hits deep at the heart--and pocketbooks--of Americans nationwide: rising gasoline prices.

Each and every day, Americans contend with a rapid and inexplicable increase in gasoline prices. Over the last month, the average price of gasoline has increased a penny a day.

A barrel of oil is at $133.17.

The impacts of these increases are staggering.

I have heard stories of how individual Americans are coping with the problem of increased gas prices as they conduct their daily lives with their families and in their work environments.

They are finding ways to reduce their consumption of gasoline by driving less, altering daily routines, and even changing family vacation plans.

To me, this example of changing family vacation plans is all the more poignant on the eve of what is usually a busy holiday weekend, a holiday that usually sees many Americans traveling by car out of town.

In fact, travel over this holiday weekend is expected to be down for the first time since September 11, 2001.

The bottom line, Mr. President, is Americans are tightening their belts in ways that bring hardships, but save dollars that are necessary to meet essential family needs. And while small in comparison to the overall problem of supply and demand of gasoline, these efforts do add up. I never dismiss the American ``can do'' spirit.

In one word, it is individual conservation. And in cases such as this, when individuals are leading the way, the government should join.

The purpose of the Sense of the Senate Resolution that I am pleased to offer is to urge the federal government to likewise take initiatives to cut back--even in a small measure--its daily consumption of gasoline and other fuels.

I believe such a move would signal to Americans that their government is sharing the daily hardships occasioned by this turbulent, uncertain energy crisis.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Hagel, and I thank my distinguished partner in the Senate, Mr. Webb. We have known each other for a very long time, over 30 years. When I was in the Pentagon, we were associated together at that time. He had a long and distinguished career in the U.S. Marine Corps and following that in the Department of Defense in two very senior--including Secretary of the Navy--positions of civilian leadership. He has shown that same leadership from the day he crossed the threshold of the Senate, that this is his No. 1 priority. And how pleased and, indeed, humbled I am to join him and my good friend, Senator Hagel, in making this possible.

What we are trying to do, very simply, is to enable this generation of young men and women to have, as nearly as possible, the same benefits as former generations--most specifically, the generation from World War II and the Korean War generation of which I was a part.

Both of these gentlemen are highly decorated combat veterans. I have a less significant career in the service. But all three of us bring our own experience to bear on thinking this is essential for this generation who is going out and fighting as courageously as any servicemember in the history of this country and, in fact, perhaps with an added measure of courage because they are fighting an enemy that is so difficult to define, an enemy that does not have any state-sponsored nation attached to it, which is the form of the terrorism today.

I wish to thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who has graced us on this floor for the purpose of listening in on this debate, for guiding it through the current supplemental bill in the Senate, and including Senator Webb's bill in it. Indeed, I saw Senator Murray here and Senator Inouye, who both helped us get that done.

Now, much has been said by my colleagues about how we are trying to bring up the level of funding for the GI bill from the current existing Montgomery GI bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this document which traces the history of what is known as the Pell Grant Program.

That is a very fine program enabling individuals who are qualified to go to colleges and universities all across America--all across America--to any college or university that accepts them, to obtain a grant from the United States of America to help him or her with their tuition and other expenses.

This is the interesting thing. The program was initiated in 2000, but I use as a benchmark the year 2001. There were 4.8 million individuals who accessed this program. The Congress appropriated $8.7 billion to defer their expenses. Fast forwarding from 2001 until 2009, the total request is as follows: roughly, a 20-percent increase in the number of individuals going. It goes from 4.8 million to 5.7 million, a little under 1 million. Now here is the astonishing thing. The amount of money Congress appropriates for the 2009 class of 5.7 million is $18.9 million.

Yes.

I thank the Senator for correcting me. In the year 2009, it is $18.9 billion. That is over a 100-percent increase, keeping up with inflation, keeping up with added expenses. But that is not the case with the existing GI bill. Although there has been a CPI adjustment, it doesn't compare to how Congress has treated the category, a well-deserving category, of the Pell grants. So this is essentially what we are trying to do.

My colleagues, the three of us, have worked together on the question of transferability. I wish to go back and acquaint the Senate with some history. I was chairman in 2001 of the Armed Services Committee, and I worked with a distinguished former colleague, Senator Max Cleland. He introduced, along with myself, on May 23, 2001, an amendment on the ability of a service person, after stipulating periods of time, to have some transferability to his family. The cosponsors, at that time, of the original amendment were Senators Bingaman, Dayton, Kennedy, Levin, and myself. I was the only Republican. There were several other Senators, four more. I was the only Republican who stepped up at that time. Later it became a bipartisan effort. In the evolution of events that year, we marked it up. But here is the interesting thing. On June 28, 2001, in the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, at a full committee hearing, there was no markup or no action taken on the bill. So then we decided, on the Armed Services Committee, we would act. In September of 2001, our bill was accepted by the full Senate and became law on December 28, 2001.

I pay my respect to those who formulated the concept of transferability originally in the Senate. It is the law today. I will send to the desk later today an amendment, which Senator Webb, Senator Hagel, and I worked on. We are joined by two other original cosponsors, Senator Levin, current chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Senator Akaka, current chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. This amendment will be filed at the desk this afternoon. We are going to make a technical adjustment to it. The purpose of this amendment is to provide a 2-year pilot program of transferability. We track as closely as possible the original law I recited that was enacted on December 28, 2001. The details will be provided to the full Senate when we file the amendment.

Essentially, we are asking an individual to complete his or her first 4-year term of enlistment and then, if they enlist for another 6 years, there is a vesting over a period of time of the

full transferability of their benefits, as a sequence of time, to their family.

In the letter from the Secretary of Defense to the Senate, which talked about the need for transferability--and I am not sure at that time whether he was referring to the existing law or a new law--he said: ``Transferability supports military families, thereby enhancing retention.''

There it is. We are meeting the Secretary of Defense's letter to the Senate expressing the need for this transferability.

In my career, winding up 30 years in the Senate, I can't think of a piece of legislation in which I have had a greater emotional involvement. I am so pleased to share it with my good friend, the junior Senator from Virginia, and my friend from Nebraska. As I said when we first began to debate this bill, with a deep sense of humility, it is highly unlikely I would have ever achieved the opportunity to come to the Senate had it not been for the GI bill given to me by the United States in return for modest service in the last year of World War II and then a second period of active duty service during the Korean War, this time in the Marine Corps. I feel it so strongly in my heart. I don't know of any time I have felt more strongly the need to do something than this today.

Through the years, I have been to Iraq many times, Afghanistan. Throughout the intervening period, I visited military bases and spent as much time as I could with the men and women of the Armed Forces today. Each of us does the same thing, works with our military. On Monday, I was privileged to go into the State that Senator Webb and I are privileged to represent. We worked together to get funding in years past--and he is supporting it today--to build a new armory for the National Guard in Virginia, a famous regiment that fought in World War I and World War II. Members of that regiment were the first to go in on D-Day. They fought subsequently. I felt at that time that we are doing the right thing with this bill, taking care of those future guardsmen and reservists and active-duty individuals. This is the right thing for the Senate to do.

I understand there are honest differences of viewpoints and approaches. That is true with all legislation. Other colleagues have put in a different bill. It had a section on transferability. In some ways, it tracked what is existing law but not in the way we are doing this. This amendment, this bill, if amended, will bring forward existing law, incorporate it into the underlying amendment sponsored by Senator Webb and ourselves, and that will become, hopefully, at some point in time the new law that will govern future benefits of our GIs and sailors, airmen and marines. We file it today because I do not know exactly how this supplemental will go through. I don't know if there will be a window of opportunity put on it. If there is, we will exercise that opportunity. But if it is not, we are going to, as a team, bring it to the attention of the Armed Services Committee in the context of the annual authorization bill, which I presume will be done just before the Fourth of July recess.

We will affix to it that bill so it will eventually be amending the underlying bill, which I hope becomes law very soon as a component of the supplemental process now being undertaken by the Senate and the House.

Again, I salute my colleague from Virginia and my colleague from Nebraska. We have been here together. We have shared many opportunities to do something such as this together but none as important as this one.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my longtime friend and Member of this institution, Senator Byrd, for endorsing this bill and becoming a cosponsor. I also thank the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, who worked on this legislation and seeing that it was put into the supplemental.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference report to H.R. 2419, the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007.

I am pleased to vote in favor of passage of the conference report, as this legislation includes a number of programs of paramount importance to the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the creation of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program to replenish the bay.

Virginia, Maryland, and others in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed have worked diligently to implement programs to reduce nutrient run-off and other sources of pollution that enter the Bay, all in an effort to achieve a cleaner Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program will provide the Federal assistance necessary to support regional and State efforts to reach this important goal.

In addition, this bill will enhance conservation across the United States. Its provisions, such as technical assistance and conservation easements, will help protect more land for preservation and environmental initiatives.

Also, I note that provisions of this conference report provide greater research support and assistance for growers of specialty crops and significant changes to the nutrition title to promote better health for schoolchildren and increase support for our Nation's food banks.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I have been working with Senator Boxer and Senator Lieberman for almost 10 months on a bill with regard to global climate change. This week--perhaps tomorrow or the first of next week-- we will offer a managers' amendment which will address the important issues my colleague raises.

I simply ask this Chamber to consider that when our bill comes up there will be ample opportunity to address your issues and that we have a provision in the managers' amendment giving the President of the United States the chance to proceed to correct the very things the Senator seeks to be corrected with his motion.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be a cosponsor of the amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized on this side after Senator Webb.

Madam President, I stand before this Senate, which I have been in now almost 30 years, with a great sense of humility. I simply say that I would not be here had it not been for previous GI bills. I volunteered and served in the last year of World War II as a young sailor, 17 years old. Subsequently, I volunteered to go into the Marine Corps in 1948 and served on active duty during the Korean conflict, 1950-1952. That modest World War II service gave me a GI bill to get my undergraduate degree then, and my modest service in the Marine Corps on Active Duty--and I stayed in the Reserves for many years afterward-- gave me a second GI bill enabling me to get my law degree. I am here because of that education given to me and many other by a generous Nation.

I have joined my distinguished colleague, and dear friend, the junior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Webb, who was a part of my staff when I was Under Secretary and Secretary of the Navy. We have known each other for many years and have worked together prior to coming to the Senate. I have the greatest admiration for him. He is too modest to talk of his military career, his service in the Department in the Defense, as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, and later as Secretary of the Navy. We have collaborated with the Senator from Nebraska, who is another distinguished veteran of the Vietnam period. I think the three of us are highly conscious of what we want to do for today's generation of young men and women in uniform and their families.

In the aftermath of World War II, the first GI bill was passed in 1944. Sixteen million men and women were given that educational opportunity, of which 7.8 million veterans availed themselves of these GI bill benefits.

All those individuals, including this humble Senator, were given the option to go to that university or that college of their choice, and that university or college, because of their academic credentials, would accept them. The dollars were not a subject, because the GI bill largely paid for all the expenses incurred by the veterans.

That is the purpose of the Webb bill, to now give to this very courageous generation the same opportunities my generation had beginning in 1944. I think today's generation will be judged by history as just as great, or greater, than the World War II generation. We should give to this generation nothing less.

I can assure you that, based on my experience--and I think my colleagues will agree--this will be an inducement to bring more high- quality individuals into uniform, knowing that for that service, their Nation would recognize it with the opportunity for them to pursue further education.

Madam President, I will soon ask to have printed in the Record a part of the law as it exists today. Much has been said about the transferability of the GI bill rights to a spouse or a child. The Committee of the Armed Services on which I serve, put into law the first option by which a service person could have what is known as transferability of their GI bill to a spouse or child. It is still the law of the day.

I think my distinguished colleague from Virginia, having recognized this as existing law, might well consider it as a part of his legislation. That is a decision he will make and one I will support.

With that, I will yield the floor at this time.

I thank my distinguished colleague. Might that be in the form of an amendment to the Senator's existing bill?

Madam President, I admire the Senator's willingness to accept that. It was my hope that perhaps Senators could have worked together with those who sponsored the bill we just voted to table. But certainly Republicans exercised their right to have this vote on the measures put in by Senator Burr and Senator Graham.

Madam President, I say to my good friend and the leader of this effort, and Senator Hagel, let's clarify what I recommend we consider. That is the insertion of a provision, if it is so decided by Senator Webb, on transferability, which would be for an individual to serve a second tour of service upon the completion of the first tour of service. This tracks with the 2001 legislation.

Will the Senator from Virginia concur?

Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague. I am proud to note that on the Webb bill I think it remains correct at this time that there are 11 Republican Senators who are cosponsors of the bill. This clearly indicates that Senator Webb has devised legislation which is bipartisan, and does reflect, as our colleague from Nebraska said, the will of the people of the United States to recognize the extraordinary heroism and commitment of the individual in uniform and their family and loved ones at home.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record current law enacted in 2001, to which I referred earlier.

I yield the floor.