Floor Statements

Mr. President, I will talk quickly in 2 minutes.

I come to support the Bunning-Domenici amendment of coal to liquids. It is quite simple. I look at it in rather black-and-white terms. A vote for coal is a vote against Saudi Arabia. A vote for coal to liquids is a vote against Hugo Chavez. A vote of coal to liquids is a vote against Nigeria and for our own production.

The Senator from Colorado talks about America always laying the claim that we are the Saudi Arabia of coal, except we are rapidly deciding we are not going to use it for anything. Now, if we are going to use it, and it is the great energy supply, then we have to make it cleaner, and that is clearly the technology at hand.

One of the ways to do so, and not only to use it for transportation fuels, is to run it through the liquefication

process. And who is the expert in the field of testing it? The Idaho National Laboratory, working with Baard Energy, looked at the Ohio projects--46 percent cleaner. If you add biomass to it, 30 percent biomass to sequester the carbon dioxide and the combined cycle cogeneration process, that is what you get.

Now, isn't that a technology worth passing on to China, which is the largest emitter, or soon will be, producing more emission with less economy of CO2 than the United States? I think it is time we pushed all technologies, and if they are cleaner, they are better.

The argument here is they have to be perfect before we do them. I would suggest that perfect may not be possible, but 50 percent cleaner or more is possible, and that is where we ought to go. That is where the Bunning amendment takes us.

I tell you what I am going to do; I am going to vote for Senator Bunning's amendment, and I am going to vote against Saudi Arabia.

I thank the Senator for yielding. I appreciate the filing of that amendment.

What Americans are frustrated by--and I think the Senator realizes that--is the lack of balance. He and I have said that. We can conserve and we can change and we can adjust and we can adapt, but we also have to produce, and that brings the balance. I think what you and I did very early this year helped drive the debate that is on the floor now, when we looked at biofuels and efficiencies and production in the SAFE Act and began to argue and articulate those points of view. I thank the Senator for filing that amendment because that completes a very necessary package that brings us to the reality of what Americans want from their energy portfolio.

Mr. President, the debate that has had the Senate occupied for the last several days is a fundamentally very important debate, for not only this Senate but certainly for the American people. There are a variety of things that have grasped the attention of the American consumer at this moment. Obviously immigration has been one, and we have been aggressively involved in that in the Senate the last month. The other thing happens weekly, when that consumer goes to the gas pump and pulls his or her car up and fills it. All of a sudden, they pay a $45 or a $50 or a $60 or a $70 fuel bill. They say: My goodness, how am I going to readjust my family budget to fit these kinds of needs?

The broad bill we have before us is in part attempting to address that issue. There is no question about that. We are working very hard to get this country back into the business of production but in a diversified way. That is important. We should not be held hostage by foreign energy suppliers. Yet over the years we have drifted into that environment for a lot of reasons, some of them of our own doing, because we constantly restricted our own ability to

produce and we have set standards that make it much more expensive to produce. Some of that production has gone offshore. But we have also grown, and we demand more. We have larger cars, and that is our choice in the marketplace.

At the same time the American consumer is being hit by pump shock today, or nozzle shock, whatever you want to call it, in the reality of what we are about.

On the electricity side of the issue--because that is a bit more subtle, because that bill doesn't happen every day or every other day or twice a week at the pump by the digits rolling in the pump to show you what it is going to cost you--it comes once a month in a power bill or it may even be automatically deducted from your checking account. The subtlety of energy costs from the electrical side are less, but they are still very real. In creating an abundant electrical market, we ought to be extremely careful that we don't limit it in a way that continually drives up the cost of electrical production.

We have said, and we are continuing to say, the old concepts of electrical production are largely out or at least they aren't as clean as we want them to be. Because in the context of this whole energy debate, several years ago entered the concern about climate change, therefore, the emission of greenhouse gases that some believe are a major contributor to the warming of our globe. That is in dispute. I believe it is legitimately in dispute as to what or how or in what volume greenhouse gases play to climate change and warming, but the reality is, Americans say today: It has to be clean, or you shouldn't produce it. So we are now on the floor debating, if you will, cleanliness. Some years ago we started talking about that and we said: Well, the only way, 10 or 12 years ago, you could get clean into your electrical production was wind and solar.

In the Clinton years, because of the environmental movement and the power they had over that administration, they no longer said hydro is allowed to be considered a renewable or a clean fuel. It is an anomaly of the past, and it dams up rivers and changes the ecosystems of aquacultures. We can't go there anymore. So they pulled hydro out of the mix and out of the blend. As a result, it doesn't get fitted into the environment of a renewable portfolio standard of the kind we are debating today.

What evolved out of a 1990s debate to today is a standard we call RPS the Senator from New Mexico has introduced, and it is largely a wind standard. Yes, it includes biofuels, but it is dominantly driven by wind today. It creates a unique niche in the electrical market for wind, and it subsidizes wind. It requires that to meet the standard, you pretty much have to go wind.

I have not disagreed in total with it in the past, although I have opposed it because I think it is an arbitrary act on the part of Government to distort the marketplace. But at the same time there is no question, through tax subsidy, a tax credit, that we have, in fact, driven the marketplace toward wind. That was then. What is now?

The world has changed since the mid-1990s, since the concept of RPS. But we are still here having a 1990s debate when we ought to be having a 2010 and a 2020 debate. That debate is not all about renewable and all about wind. It is partially about it, but it is not all about it. Today it is about wind, biomass, biofuels in a lot of forms, nuclear-- clean, nonemitting sources. It is about new hydro efficiencies. We are learning very rapidly that efficiencies in the marketplace can create quantum leaps in savings and, therefore, less growth rate in demand of production.

All of those ought to be a part of a test today, if we are going to establish national policy. If we are going to demand certain levels of performance out of the production side of our utility industry, our electrical industry, then we ought to be balanced. We ought to be broader and, most importantly, we ought to use a new, modern definition, a new, modern screen, a measurement. I don't think it is RPS anymore. I think it is clean.

Having said all of that, if RPS survives this debate, here is what is going to happen. It is going to be a very expensive trip for the consumer and the taxpayer. If RPS survives and we don't move to a newer standard and we put into place the kinds of demands that take us to a 15-percent requirement and then we turn to the Finance Committee, I believe Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley--and we will debate that as it relates to wind energy and a tax credit on a 1, 3, 5, sometimes 10 years, someday probably a 10-year involvement--what will it cost? It is estimated it could cost $3 billion, $5 billion, $10 billion, $15 billion, in a direct Government subsidy, a tax credit, to produce the RPS requirement that is being proposed.

Fairness is fair. A CPS requirement will cost some money. We are having it costed out today. We don't believe it will be anywhere near as dramatic, because it will be spread amongst a much broader portfolio than the narrowest of an RPS. Is this an expensive process? You bet it is. When you enter a new technology into the market that isn't as efficient or competitive, you subsidize it.

That is what we are doing with wind today. But we are creating a new uniqueness. We are saying: OK, here is a market niche for your wind. We are going to give you some of the market. Then we are going to give you tax credits and benefits to get into the market because we want you producing wind. So we are creating a very unique market niche, and we are saying to all the utilities: You have to meet it.

Well, 23 States are already out in front of us. They have some form of RPS or renewable portfolio standard. Some of them are higher than the Bingaman standard, some of them are lower. But there is a movement out there, and there ought to be flexibility in that movement, instead of the rigidity that is the reality of the current RPS. That is what we offer in a CPS or a clean portfolio standard--broaden the base, get modern, let's do not keep regurgitating the past.

I am always amazed that once one group--any group, any interest group--locks on to an idea they can capture the mind with, and they ride that idea for decades, sometimes when it no longer fits the technology of the day or the demands of the marketplace. I believe RPS is that idea that got locked on to in the mid-1990s that no longer fits the marketplace today. I do believe CPS fits the climate change concern, fits the regional disparity as a result of the geography of our country, where there is wind and no wind. I tell some of my southern Senator friends there is a lot of hot air in the South but there is not any wind. Well, there is not any wind in the South. So they have to go out and buy it.

You have utilities in Florida buying wind farms out in the Midwest. Is that somehow going to make Florida cleaner? Why don't we give Florida the opportunity to build clean energy right in Florida, instead of buying something out in the Midwest to offset? It is a strange thing. It is kind of like: Well, we believe in a very green standard. You are going to have to buy your way in if you cannot produce your way in.

I disagree with that. I think you ought to be able to produce your way in. I do not mind clean standards, but I do not think you ought to disadvantage certain regions of the country by the standard you are requiring. CPS changes that. It says we are requiring a cleaner standard in new production. You can do it through wind, as the Senator from New Mexico is proposing; you can do it through biomass; you can do it through new nuclear; you can do it through new hydro; You can do it through new efficiencies. If someday--and I believe it will--coal to liquids comes on line, you can do it through carbon sequestration or, ultimately, we may be able to retrofit our existing coal-fired generation facilities in a way to capture that carbon and sequester it. If we can, shouldn't they get credit for it? Shouldn't there be some benefit for cleaning up the air, instead of letting that remain dirty, but you buy your way out of it by going somewhere else to buy something that is clean?

That is an interesting concept, but that is the concept if you do not identify with the marketplace and you do not identify with the regions and the capability of the regions and the uniqueness of our country today. That is why Southern Senators are frustrated at this moment, because the amendment on RPS says you cannot do it by what we say so you have to go somewhere else and buy it.

Let's make the standard uniform. Let's make it fit all parties. Let's allow it to reflect the diversity of the countryside and the resource that is available in the countryside. We think that is possible. We think if you do it, it is less expensive than the RPS that is currently being proposed.

Here is what I am suggesting to those who are a little concerned about budget exposure because we have not seen what the Finance Committee will do. But if the Finance Committee brings about the tax credits that we think for a 1-, a 3-, and a 5- and someday a 10-year reality, that cost could be $3 billion, $5 billion, $10 billion, $15 billion. Current law is here. Future law could well be here based on what we think the Finance Committee will offer. So we create the marketplace niche today for wind, and tomorrow we finance it. It is a very expensive proposition.

I have wind farms coming up in Idaho, and I am glad they are there, and they are going to blend and be a part of our overall economy. I am all for wind, but I am not just for wind. Again, it is a concept whose day has matured. It is an idea that now fits well beyond the 1990s into the year 2000 and beyond, as new concepts come on board.

In other words, let's get modern. Let's build a policy for the future. Let's don't simply react to the past because the interest groups of the past are still here driving it. Let's think beyond that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, that is my understanding, I say to the Senator, if there is a renewal of the tax credit based on what we think Finance will do. Here is the problem--

It assumes there is a renewal of it. Because what you do, what you know you are doing, if your policy becomes law--there is no opt out at this point--you drive the entire national utility marketplace to a standard. By driving them there, you give them this opportunity, and it is a U.S. tax opportunity. There is no question that is the tax credit. You must go here. And when you go there, you can identify with the tax credit under the assumption--and that is fair--the Finance Committee is going to come forth with it. And we have every reason to believe they will.

That is what drives it. The reason it does is because, if you do not, you put the industry in a very precarious situation. Wind today does not pay its way. It is still on the margin. Based on its productivity in certain wind patterns, it has to be subsidized to fit into the market. How you subsidize it is through the credit, or you are simply saying you are going to do something you cannot afford to do, so you are going to have to go right to the ratepayers and charge them a much higher price than you otherwise would with the credit to come into compliance with the RPS.

Yes. So that is the appropriate assumption of this chart.

And new hydro, where it fits, and efficiencies and sequestration, yes.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator, you are correct to assume a CPS standard would have a budgetary impact as much as an RPS standard. The RPS standard--as I have said, it is a bit old school, so it is considerably more measurable, and you are forcing production into a narrower slot in the marketplace--wind and bio--whereas we are broadening the slot dramatically.

Yes, there are some of those new nuclear plants, as you know, as it relates to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that are going to have some tax benefits. The first certain numbers are. Sequestration, more than likely--to encourage it, and to make it reasonable in the marketplace-- is going to have some tax consequence. We promote efficiency in the marketplace through that. But in all fairness to the Senator, it is not yet a measurable item. Those who are looking at it now say it is probably spread and less costly, but it is also more than just a cost item.

As I said, if you take a Florida utility that meets the standards by buying wind in the Midwest, it does nothing for the airshed in Florida; whereas, a CPS says you can build clean in Florida and benefit the airshed of Florida. I think there is the other side of that value.

Lastly, if I could react, and the Senator would allow me to, I am all for biofuels. But driving the biofuel market under the current technology--I am surprised some environmentalists are not reacting because it is not a totally clean emitting technology. We are all for it because it is renewable. I am for it because it helps us clean up

the forest floors and do a lot of other things that are the right things to do out there. But we also know when you burn it--and you are burning it--you have carbons, and that is escaping to some degree.

So driving it is the right thing but giving clean options is also the right thing. That is what CPS does.

Thank you.

Mr. President, today is a day of great significance to me and many Americans. In 1949, after decades of unofficial celebrations, President Truman signed an act of Congress that National Flag Day would be celebrated each year on June 14. Sadly, this national holiday goes unnoticed by far too many Americans. I wish to make a few brief comments about our Nation's flag on this day of celebration and remembrance.

Whenever I get a chance to speak with foreign visitors to the United States, I like to ask about their impression of the United States, especially if it is their first time visiting. Time after time, they express amazement at the abundant presence of the U.S. flag, not only in Washington, DC, but in cities and towns of every size across the Nation.

Truly, flags are flying everywhere, not only at government buildings but at restaurants, parks, malls, gas stations, along highways, not to mention

inside and outside private homes. Flag pins adorn lapels, flag stickers grace our cars, flag designs make for popular home decoration, and on Independence Day, our clothing often takes on the theme of Old Glory.

Clearly, we Americans love our flag and love displaying it. It is an expression of patriotism, reverence, and love of country.

From 1776 to today, from the marines who fought their way to plant the flag at the top of Iwo Jima to the firefighters who lifted the flag above the ruins of the World Trade Center, it is clear that our flag represents so much more than a nation. In truth, the American flag represents thousands of years of struggle to achieve political liberty, religious autonomy, and freedom from want. More important, our flag represents the inspiration of the life of our Nation and what humanity has the potential to accomplish.

Throughout our Nation's history, the American flag has enjoyed the protection of its people and its laws. Unfortunately, this safeguard was eroded in 1989 by the Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson. This decision, which many of my colleagues and I agree was misguided, found within the Constitution a right that had never before existed: the right to physically assault the flag under the first amendment. Since then, Members of Congress have been faced with reconciling the tension between ``free speech'' and the symbolic importance of the American flag. As citizens, we can no longer allow flag burning to be considered a ``norm'' in our society. Although we can do nothing when terrorists or those with anti-American sentiments defile our flag abroad, we owe it to our brave service men and women, to ourselves, and to our children to do something when it happens on our own soil.

Our colleagues in the House have submitted a joint resolution to amend the Constitution to allow Congress to protect our flag. I do not take amending the Constitution lightly, but I commend the sponsoring representatives for taking action on such an important issue.

On this Flag Day, I hope we can all remember that our flag is much more than tightly woven cotton mixed with beautiful colors. It is a true symbol of the struggle of this Nation to remain free and it flies tall as a reminder to all of the liberties that we enjoy as proud citizens of this country. The respect that our flag deserves depends on us. I will close by quoting Franklin K. Lane, former Secretary of the Interior, who said this about the flag:

I am what you make me; nothing more. I swing before your

eyes as a bright gleam of color, a symbol of yourself.

Mr. President, I wish to honor one of Idaho's oldest businesses--Caxton Printers of Caldwell, ID. This year they are celebrating their 100th anniversary; they are older than many Caldwell mainstays including the J.R. Simplot Company and the Caldwell Night Rodeo.

For 100 years, Caxton Printers has served the people of Idaho. Their ideals are reflected in the statement of one of the founders, J.H. Gipson: ``Books to us never can or will be primarily articles of merchandise to be produced as cheaply as possible and to be sold like slabs of bacon or packages of cereal over the counter. If there is anything that is really worthwhile in this mad jumble we call the Twentieth Century, it should be books.''

Well, times have certainly changed since then. One can only imagine what Mr. Gipson would say about the 21st century. Caxton Printers, though, continues to survive by focusing on quality--both in their service and in their product. My staff and I know this firsthand.

What they do for us, though, is just a sliver of their storied history.

During their first 100 years, the family-run business has been a shining example of a couple bootstrappers making it in the rural West. In fact, at one point, they were the exclusive printing and binding company west of Kansas City, and in the 1920s they decided to help western writers receive the attention they deserved. By 1928, they had produced five titles. Output steadily grew, and by 1936 they had released well over 100 new books. While they lost money on virtually every book published before World War II, Mr. Gipson ``felt repaid in producing at least a book or two which have a fair chance of gaining a place in the permanent literature of our country.'' Well, Caxton's most famous author, Ayn Rand, certainly achieved that acclaim.

Caxton Printers has helped to preserve and tell the history of the West. In addition to focusing their publishing on nonfiction books about the West, they have served as the Idaho State Textbook Depository since 1927. Just about every student in Idaho has been impacted by Caxton Printers. I can tell you that this Senator certainly appreciates all they do to preserve and tell the stories of the people, places, and events that shaped the West.

Over the past 100 years, Caxton Printers and the Gipson family have experienced a lot and, through it all, have prospered while remaining true to J.H. Gipson's philosophy of producing high-quality books and products. They make Idaho, and the West, proud.

Mr. President, Senator Domenici will be to the Chamber in a few moments and is preparing to speak to the second degree to the Bingaman amendment the chairman has outlined. In doing so, I will touch for a few moments on some of the differences between an RPS and a CPS and some of the value of broadening the portfolio Senator Bingaman is talking about to create greater advantages nationwide for a larger amount of clean energy.

There is no question that RPS, as we know it, invented in the mid- 1990s as a concept, evolving now to 23 States having accepted some form of an RPS standard, has a very strong bias for wind and biomass. It is there. We subsidize wind today. The letter the Senator introduced from the wind industry is reflective of the phenomenal subsidy they get and the advantage they get.

We create a market niche for them with an RPS, and then we subsidize them. Frankly, I am for that. Wind energy and the more of it we can have is the right energy, along with all other forms.

What the Senator did not say was the Southeast is dramatically disadvantaged because they don't have wind. As a result, they have to go buy or be taxed to offset the differences. That is unfair. Many of us believe it is unfair. We also believe RPS is not an obsolete standard but an old one.

About 3 years ago, people looking at a broader portofolio of energy said: We ought to expand the standard. Today's mantra in energy, whether it is the Senators from New Mexico or this Senator, who is one of the senior members of the Energy Committee, is: Clean. America will not build new energy production unless it is clean. That is what RPS was originally heading us toward--cleaner renewable energies. So why shouldn't we expand that portfolio from wind and bio to some additional new forms--new nuclear, very clean; new hydro, yes, but limited; coal sequestration or carbon sequestration, clean; efficiencies, less use, less demand. Shouldn't they also be in this new portfolio? I say yes. America, when they understand it, would say yes.

Right now there is a niche market, a very narrow one, for limited use in certain capacities and greater use in others. I see windmills coming up across my State today. Why? Because we have wind, and they are subsidized. There is an advantage to do so. But you don't see windmills coming up in Florida and other places in the South because there is not the kind of prevailing winds that sustain a 25- to 30-percent production efficiency of these particular kinds of units.

Senator Domenici has just arrived. I will let him pick up the debate because he has led with this issue. I have been a supporter of it and have helped develop this issue. I believe it is time we modernize, move to clean energy, and reward the utilities that produce clean energy. It does not disadvantage an RPS. It simply expands and modernizes it into the concept of energy we are looking for today in the American energy portfolio.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I will speak for a few moments. The Senator from Tennessee is here and waiting for some charts to visit about the issue that is before us, RPS versus CPS standards, that drive the marketplace toward cleaner fuels, renewable fuels, and a variety of different packages.

A few moments ago, I mentioned, when the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, produced a letter from the American Wind Energy Association, that in part I believe CPS, based on their point of view, had been somewhat mischaracterized by that letter. Now, here is someone who supports wind. The Senator from Idaho strongly supports wind. We see windmills, large windmills, going up across Idaho. The Senator from Tennessee would come out there and say: Oops, there goes the landscape. There goes the vista. The Senator from Idaho is a little concerned about that, too, because some of those beautiful high plateaus of Idaho are now being dotted with windmills.

At the same time, there is no question that wind remains a valuable source, and we are subsidizing it and supporting it. But I don't think we ought to bias the marketplace toward it entirely, and that is why you now see a new standard offered as a second-degree amendment called CPS, clean portfolio standard.

When I say that, let me make the point that is important, that I think is critical. The American Wind Energy Association, when they mischaracterized clean portfolio standard, did so in the following ways: The proposed CPS clearly requires carbon capture and storage. They say it does not. The word ``sequestration'' means carbon capture and storage, and you don't get a credit for it until you do it. I think that is clear. I think that was a mischaracterization. CPS clearly states that any additional clean technologies beyond already highlighted would require the Secretary of Energy to determine, if they apply through a rulemaking process. In other words, no easy rides and no opt-out.

We have 23 States that have some form of RPS, renewable portfolio standard. They have done it on their own. The Senator from New Mexico makes that point very clearly. There is a desire in our country today to move us toward renewables and a cleaner portfolio standard, but there is no opt-out in CPS. They come to the Secretary, and the Secretary certifies that which they already have, if it fits within the portfolio that is being proposed as a CPS. There is no State opt-out in that provision. CPS allows the States with existing clean portfolio programs to certify.

I think that is a very important and necessary statement to make. I don't

see that as an opt-out, I see that as conforming, giving credits to, and causing those who have already taken the initiative not to be penalized. It is arguable that the RPS that is being proposed in the Bingaman amendment would cause them to have to reshape or conform because they are all a little different or they couldn't gain as much credit under an RPS as they could a CPS. But that we don't know. What we do know is, no State opts out.

We are now talking about a Federal standard against a myriad of State standards in which 23 States have already established some form of renewable portfolio. There is no uniformity in that 23-State standard, so, as I said, it is very difficult to comply with the standard. CPS is flexible enough, that it will not allow States to opt out.

Deduct nukes from the base. By adding nuclear--new nuclear--we will have a much broader portfolio than I think Senator Bingaman's RPS. Adding nuclear does not detract from the accomplishments of that bill. It modernizes the bill. It brings us to where America's thoughts are today, not where America's clean thoughts started in the mid-1990s. Let's get modern.

Yes, there are a lot of interest groups that have vested interests in the old standard. There are a lot of interest groups in this town and around the Nation that move very slowly. They move the body politics of their organizations slowly so they have to argue what was then instead of what is now. What is now in the minds of the average American who looks at new technology is: Is it clean? And if it is clean, it is acceptable. If it isn't clean, it isn't.

Idaho is privileged at being right at the top of the States of the Nation in nonemitting sources, clean air, and less carbon. We are very proud of that--Vermont and Idaho. Last year, Idaho, a State that has largely accepted production in all forms, said no to a coal-fired plant. They said no because it wasn't as clean as they wanted it to be. But if it were a plant that could sequester, if it were a plant that were clean, and it was coal, why shouldn't it count today in a new standard?

Why shouldn't the marketplace incentivize cleanliness--nonemitting sources--instead of the old nonemitting sources of the past--wind and biomass? But biomass, under current technologies, emits some CO2. It is much cleaner than most, but depending on the technology involved, is not a perfect form, if you will, compared to wind. But it is renewable, so under that definition, while it is not as clean as we would like it to be, and it will be in the future because it is renewable, it fits into the old standard.

I think those are profound arguments that bring us to where we are today. And I would like to say to the American Wind Energy Association: You are not disadvantaged under CPS, but you are not exclusive to the market. You have to share the riches of growth in a clean technology with other forms as they come along. Yes, you will be subsidized, but you will not have exclusivity.

I think for the West and for the marvelous open spaces and the vistas of the West, that is not all a bad idea. While I promote wind, and wind is now coming to Idaho, I don't think it ought to be exclusive in the market. As I have said before, and the maps have been shown, why disadvantage the Southeast? Why say to the Southeast you have to go buy it because you can't produce it? Let's give them an opportunity to be as clean as everyone else wants to be by giving them the advantages of all that is necessary.

Mr. President, I can't argue whether the Senator is or is not misreading. The intent is for the Secretary of DOE to certify that the State meets those standards, and if the State meets the standard that you and I would put forth, then why don't they have a chance to stand down for a time? It is a question of meeting the standard, not ignoring the standard.

Well, if it doesn't, I am one who would change that. It is clearly not my intent, nor I believe the intent of CPS, to allow States to opt out. It is to broaden the portfolio standard, not to opt out because I think, with 23 States now moving in that direction, there is a recognition of the value of some of this. If there needs to be a correction for your satisfaction as the chairman of the committee, I am certainly one who is willing to make that. But it was my understanding and my reading of the language that the Secretary of DOE has the right to certify, and in certifying could allow based on the standard met an opt-out.

Mr. President, we obviously have a disagreement as to what is or is not. But I think we both agree on a principle that we have just talked about.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Colin Jones, a DOE fellow from the Idaho National Lab, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of H.R. 6, the Energy bill before us.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that T.J. Kim, with the Committee on Environment and Public Works, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the Energy bill.

Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota and I over the years have coalesced around a variety of issues we have been successful on on some occasions in causing to become public policy. Earlier this year--and Senator Dorgan has already mentioned it--we coalesced around three concepts we thought were critically necessary in a current and future energy portfolio and, therefore, the public policy that drives it. We recognized that efficiency would be and must be a part of the equation, that clean energy, the biofuels, must be a part of the equation for the future to make us less dependent. But also something that must be a part of the equation is production of current known and future sources of hydrocarbons. In other words--I will quote the Senator from North Dakota--you can't conserve or drill your way out of the current $3-plus gas we have and the greater dependency we have on foreign nations to supply us, but a combination of both into the future brings us to where this great country ought to be from the standpoint of a national energy policy.

The Reid bill, the Bingaman bill that has been introduced on the floor, S. 1419, is about the future. You can stand on a hilltop and see it out there 25 or 30 years into the future. But the man or woman of the American economy today who is at the gas pump and filling his or her car or truck wants to know about tomorrow and next week and next year. Are gas prices going to continue to go up? What is the problem here? Why isn't this great Nation more self-sufficient? And for those who study energy a good deal and see a 60-percent reliance on foreign production, shouldn't we be worried about national security? Shouldn't we be worried about the emergence of petronationalism, about a little dictator down in Venezuela jerking the tail of a great country because he supplies 17 percent of our total foreign imports? Yes, we ought to be concerned about that. We ought to be angry about it.

The reason we grew complacent, the light switch would always produce a light or the gas pump would always produce inexpensive fuel, is because it has always been there. What a large part of Americans didn't know is that politically and in a public policy way we began to set in place a series of things over the last 20 years that flattened production, made it less profitable, created self-reliance, and didn't compete and keep up with the amount of consumed energy we were requiring of a growth economy. As a result, we hit the wall. The wall is $3-plus gas. All power bills are going up. Energy is a part of America's disposable income and is becoming an increasingly bigger part. Americans are sitting now scratching their heads and saying: Are we going to have to change our lifestyles because energy is going to cost a lot more?

My wife and I and a group of Senators, the week before last, traveled in Europe. As we landed at Andrews Air Force Base, got in our cars and headed home, I turned to my wife and said: I see we are back in the land of the big cars.

That is part of our addiction. We love our big cars. We had been traveling in Luxembourg, France, and Italy, and by definition, it is the land of the little car. Why? Because gas over there from a gallonage point of view is about $7.50 a gallon. It is at least double plus a little more of what we are currently paying today. As a result, Europeans significantly over the last 20 years have changed their lifestyles because they couldn't afford the energy. I am not going to apologize because America consumes a lot of energy. We are nearly 26 percent of the world economy. We consume 26 percent of the energy base. Why? Because we are 26 percent of the world economy. It takes energy to produce jobs, to produce products, to create an economy. We are driven by energy. It is going to cost more to stay at 26 percent if we don't develop good public policy that gets us through tomorrow and takes us into the future in a way that the consumer can understand and appreciate.

Consumers are angry today, and they have a right to be. They look at very large profits on the part of the oil companies and say: Look, it is their fault. Those profits are driven by demand and the ability to supply. There are no gas lines today because there is energy at the pump, but we are paying more for it. The Senator from North Dakota is

right, the politics of this issue would change again if there were long gas lines at the pump and they were paying $3-plus a gallon. So the supply is there in the current form, but 60 percent of it comes from a foreign nation somewhere in the world. Most of those supplies and those foreign nations are in very precarious political situations. It is a very unstable world out there from whence these supplies come. As a result, the futures market anticipates that and builds a margin in to offset the risk to deal with the demand.

What am I saying here? I am saying to the Senate today that S. 1419 is a piece of the total, but it isn't where we ought to be tomorrow. Tomorrow ought to be about energy security and energy production. You don't talk green, although you have to talk green and should talk green. You don't talk cellulosic ethanol being in production in 10 years at a rate of 15 billion gallons a year because it won't be, because the technology isn't there, although we are driving there. Energy efficiency, a CAFE standard, is a place we ought to go. I for the first time join with the Senator from North Dakota in a 4-percent mandatory efficiency. That takes us down the road. But that is out in the future. What about tomorrow? What about knowing where our current oil reserves are, the 15 or 20 billion barrels or more of oil that is in the Outer Continental Shelf that may be very accessible in a clean and environmentally sound way? What about expanding our refinery capacity? Because in this transitional period of the next two-and-a- half to three decades, where more cars will be electric, more cars will be hybrid, we will be producing 20 percent of our liquid transportation fuels from corn-based ethanol, cellulosic-based ethanol, to get to the 30 to 32 billion gallons a year. What about all of that? That is our future.

My consumers in Idaho want to know about tomorrow. The Reid-Bingaman bill has nothing to do with tomorrow. We simply cannot ignore the next 10 or 15 years and jump into the future. We have to continue to produce and we need to produce. We have to continue to refine the hydrocarbons to supply the gas, and we need to expand that capability. It better be on shore. It better not be in Venezuela or in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or someplace else that is at this moment, at best, politically unstable, let alone Iran and Iraq. That is where our dependence lies today. To fail to address that in the Senate is to fail to address the No. 1 question of a great nation: How do we stay great? How do we stay at 26 percent of the world GDP? How do we stay generous to the rest of the world? We produce and push a lot of new technology, and that is in part what the Reid bill is about. That is all going to be transparent and giveable to the rest of the world. When we lead on energy in all aspects, the rest of the world benefits because we share it.

Therefore, as this bill comes to the floor, there is a great deal that has to be done. We need a new RPS, renewable portfolio standard, wind, solar--a great idea, an old concept. Today's energy world is about cleanliness. Why not a new standard? Why not a clean portfolio standard instead of a renewable portfolio standard? Include wind, include solar, include sequestration of carbon, include efficiencies, include nuclear, include hydro. Let's get on with the business of being clean. If Senator Reid wants to come to the floor and talk about climate change, then he ought to be talking about all of those other things that drive the economy toward a cleaner energy future, not command and control but incentives, creativity, bringing off the laboratory shelf and into production the kind of things we know are already out there.

Coal to liquids, what is wrong with that? Some environmental groups are wringing their hands and saying: There might be a problem there. We know it will burn 90 percent cleaner. That is not a problem. It is only in the mind of some idealist that it isn't perfect. How do you get to perfection? You start by adjusting and changing and improving. Today we are tremendously proud of our ethanol production in corn. But it has been 20 years in refinement and development to the distillery that is set up tomorrow somewhere in the Midwest. It is going to be so much better than the distillery that went into production a decade and a half ago. That is what this bill ought to be about, and it isn't there today.

What about the tax incentives, and what is the Finance Committee going to do? None of that is there.

This chart illustrates the problem. Here is the line for demand; here is supply. This is the hydrocarbons. That is pretty simple. Where does this margin come from? Offshore, foreign countries. High risk, less national security. Why do a lot of military leaders and those who look in broader terms support what Byron Dorgan and Larry Craig did today in the SAFE bill and those three factors about production, efficiency, and biofuels? They support it because of national security, taking this out of the equation, getting us back into production.

You have heard me talk a lot over the past about the Outer Continental Shelf and the billions and billions of gallons of oil that is out there. We have allowed States to say no even though it is a national, Federal resource. Last year we picked up a little bit right here in lease sale 181, but here in the eastern gulf are phenomenal resources, billions and billions of barrels of oil that are very accessible, achievable in a sound environmental way, and we are still saying no. We are still saying, let a tinhorn dictator in Venezuela jerk us around.

Here is another problem. The Cubans have said: Come drill us. The world is coming. The world is drilling in Cuba today. Vietnam came in last week. Spain, Norway, Malaysia, and Canada are 45 miles off our shore drilling for oil, but we can't drill. It is the ultimate ``no'' zone of politics. The ``no'' zone went up decades ago when the technology wasn't there to achieve the environmental standards upon which we demand and insist. The technology is here today. But the politics of Florida won't allow us to touch this. So the American consumer simply says: OK. I am going to pay more. I am going to pay another 50 cents a gallon so Florida can have its political way or anywhere else, for that matter, along the eastern seaboard or as it relates to this equation over here, the western coast, Alaska. Or have we come to a turn in the road where technology allows us to go there in a clean way and bring down that dependency, allows us to thumb our nose, if you will, at the foreign sources?

Here is the other side of the equation. Nearly $300 billion a year leaves our shore to go to another country to buy their oil, and some of those countries are buying guns and shooting at us. How smart we aren't to allow that policy to continue to prevail.

That is part of the debate in the coming weeks as it relates to 1419. It is not a complete package. It is way out into the future. It is not about tomorrow. It is not about national security. It is not about production. If we don't have those factors in a bill, this Senate will not serve its public and the American consumer in a responsible way in sustaining and building a great nation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge a special milestone in the career of one of the truly great nuclear energy luminaries of our time. I am speaking of the retirement of Dr. James A. Lake of Idaho National Laboratory.

During his nearly quarter-century of service to Idaho National Laboratory--and by extension, to all of America--Dr. Lake has applied his exceptional technical and managerial expertise to some of this Nation's highest priority research and development initiatives in the nuclear energy arena. From leading the design team that developed an innovative ultra-high-flux research reactor concept early in his Idaho career, to guiding the establishment of the U.S./Russian International Centers for Environmental Safety later on, Dr. Lake's contributions have had an extraordinary impact.

As the elected president of the American Nuclear Society at the start of the 21st century, Dr. Lake did much to usher in the nuclear renaissance now sweeping the globe. In a single year, he personally visited 11 countries, a dozen universities, and more than 20 nuclear powerplants and nuclear facilities around the world. He also gave countless interviews with major television, newspaper, and magazine journalists--representing CNBC, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, BusinessWeek and others--to help them better understand nuclear power's unique abilities to dependably generate massive amounts of electricity--around the clock, rain or shine--without generating any of the greenhouse gases that are now of such global concern.

Beyond his contributions to INL and the American Nuclear Society, Dr. Lake has also left his indelible mark of excellence on countless other organizations and activities ranging from the American Association of Engineering Societies to the International Nuclear Societies Council. He holds patents on ``An Inherently Safe Fast Breeder Reactor'' and other key nuclear technologies and has more than 35 publications in refereed journals and conference proceedings.

Dr. James A. Lake--scientist, research leader, nuclear energy visionary, and gentleman--leaves a legacy of growth, safety, and success in the nuclear programs at INL, for which the laboratory, the great State of Idaho, and the Nation will be forever grateful. I extend my best wishes to Dr. Lake as he retires from INL and moves on to the next chapter of his remarkable life.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1202

Madam President, today I take that comment with respect and honor because I am here, like many of my colleagues, to join in speaking about the loss of Senator Craig Thomas, a friend from the neighboring State of Wyoming.

Over the course of years in working with Craig on the floor of the House and here in the Senate, I must tell you that notice of his death late yesterday evening was a real loss to me and my wife Suzanne. And I say to his wife Susan and their four children that we stand in quiet prayer for strength for you through this difficult time in the loss of a truly marvelous American.

The Senator from Colorado just mentioned the word ``cowboy,'' and I oftentimes, when at a gathering with Craig, if the opportunity arose where we were both speakers and I was to introduce him--and that happened on several occasions--I would say: And now, ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce the cowboy from Wyoming. And he would stand with a big smile on his face because he viewed that as a statement of respect. I think we westerners, who work closely together on issues that are uniquely western, appreciate and understand that expression.

Craig came to the House in 1989, just as I was leaving the House, so I got to know him then. And, of course, when he came to the Senate and came to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where we both grew in seniority, we began to work very closely together on so many issues that were important to the West but also issues that were important to the Nation.

CQ, Congressional Quarterly, in its Political Profiles of American Politicians, said this about Craig, and I think it is so typical of the man. They said:

While Thomas pursues his State's interests, he does it in a

quiet, methodical way that has made him remarkably few

enemies after nearly two decades in Congress. Known for his

courtesy and diplomacy, even on bitterly contested issues, he

is no pushover.

That is the Craig Thomas whom we all got to know. He could be tough in his position. He knew exactly where he was on almost all issues, and he very seldom gave ground. But he would give ground when he knew it would bring the issue to resolution. Now, I say that is the art of a talented policymaker, and Craig Thomas, representing his State of Wyoming and the Nation, was truly that.

He filled big shoes. When he came to the House, he filled the shoes of the departing Dick Cheney, and, of course, when he came over here, he filled the shoes of Malcolm Wallop, who was well known here as a very clear conservative and often very partisan Member of the Senate. But in filling those shoes--and more importantly, he brought his own boots--he made his own mark for his State and for the Nation. So whether it was park issues, whether it was natural resource issues, whether it was differences between that boundary line that sometimes is fairly indistinguishable out West between Idaho and Wyoming, Craig Thomas served the citizens of his State extremely well.

Oftentimes known as an open, multiple-use advocate, as both he and I are on the utilization of our public lands and their management, when it came to Yellowstone National Park and the Grand Teton National Park, they were something special in Craig's mind. Oftentimes I would say: Craig, you are siding with the environmentalists on that issue.

He would laugh or smile and say: Larry, nothing is too good in protecting Yellowstone National Park and the Grand Teton. They are the crown jewels in the Nation and they are a major part of my State.

While we were very seldom in disagreement, there were times when there was a bump-up now and then, as is typical amongst all of us who serve in the Senate, even though on most issues we found great compatibility.

I am one amongst all who will miss Craig Thomas. He was a friend of longstanding, a colleague. His wife Susan and my wife Suzanne had become good friends over the years, as so many of us do while working in the Senate. His life is taken from us and from the citizens of his State and from his family at a time when Craig Thomas was serving his State and his Nation well.

Again, to his wife and children, we are going to miss Craig a great deal in the Senate. I, personally, as a friend, will miss Craig Thomas.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1231

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

change of vote

Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to make, what I believe to be, vital and necessary changes to one of the most successful Federal-State partnership programs in the Nation today. I am speaking of the State Veterans Home Program at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

For those of my colleagues who do not know very much about this great program, the Federal-State partnership known as the State Home Program dates back nearly 120 years. It was August 7, 1888, when a $100 check from the Federal government helped the State of Connecticut offset the financial burden of caring for aging Civil War veterans. Since that time, of course, the program has greatly matured. And it has grown into the largest institutional provider of long-term care services for our Nation's aging veterans.

Today, the grant part of the program receives an annual appropriation of about $100 million. VA uses the money to pay for two-thirds of the costs of constructing State home beds pursuant to applications submitted by the States. After a home is built, the State operates the nursing facility and maintains the property for the benefit of veterans. VA, in turn, pays a daily stipend to the State of approximately $60 for each veteran in the home. The States then support the rest of the cost of care either by collecting some money from the veterans or through direct appropriation from the State legislature.

I realize that my description of this program may have some of my colleagues scratching their heads trying to find out why I believe the program needs to change and modernize. Let me explain.

As many of you know, during the 107th Congress, I served as chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. I did a lot of work on long- term care issues and held many hearings on the topic. What I learned is that there is a big shift across the country from the traditional institutional care to a less restrictive, family oriented, home and community based approach to care.

When I became chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I found that VA's system is strongly biased toward institutional care. We spend most of our long-term care budget on institutional beds.

I realize that nursing homes are sometimes the best place for a sick, aging person to be properly cared for. Therefore, clearly VA needs to provide that service. But, let's face it. All of us would prefer that we never end up in a nursing home. We would do everything within our power to remain in the comfort and safety of our homes and with our families.

The interesting thing about our human desire to remain in our own homes and out of nursing homes is that our human desire is also a positive financial desire. Noninstitutional long-term care services are much more cost-effective than care provided in an institutional setting. Providing people with long-term care options and the opportunity to remain in their homes for as long as possible is exactly what my legislation is about.

There is an old saying that goes ``when all you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like nails.'' Essentially what that means is, we use the tools we have to solve whatever problem arises, even if a different tool might be more appropriate.

For nearly 120 years, with little exception, the only tool available through the State Veterans Home Program has been a bed: an institutional nursing home bed. So, whenever a veteran in a local community has independent living challenges, the State home program has a tool to help them: it has a bed. My Legislation would give the State homes additional tools to offer our veterans.

My bill would establish a noninstitutional care State home grant program. The premise of the new program would be the same as the current institutional program. States would submit an application to construct a building or renovate part of an existing state home to offer noninstitutional services to veterans. The State would have to provide one-third of the cost for construction and then take ownership and operational responsibility for the building and the care after the facility opens.

Similar to the payment structure today, VA would provide a daily payment for each veteran who receives services from the facility.

My legislation would also make some changes in the state home grant program that would help it transition into a more modern care delivery system.

As my colleagues may be aware, under the current program, States submit applications to VA to receive construction assistance. If the State can demonstrate that the project meets VA's requirements for quality; that its use will be primarily for veterans; and that the State has its one-third matching funds, then VA approves the project and places it on list according to a statutory priority.

My bill would create a 2-year window, starting with the date of enactment, for States to submit their new bed applications. Similarly, it would create a 2-year window for any State to come up with matching funds for any approved application that currently lacks the required match. After the 2-year window, VA would be prohibited from accepting any new applications for new bed construction.

I believe the reason we need this change is simple. For fiscal year 2007, there are $808 million in grant proposals on VA's approved list. Approximately $490 million in project proposals are in priority one status, meaning that the States have provided the required one-third matching funds.

At the rate of $100 million per year provided by Congress to fund these grants, it will take nearly 9 more years for Congress to fund all of the current projects on the list. That, of course, is assuming that no new projects will be added to it. And construction of all of those projects would probably not be completed until about 15 years from now.

All of that may sound like long-term planning for future care needs. However, as I mentioned earlier, the Nation as a whole is moving away from institutionalizing the elderly.

Our aging years are supposed to be our golden years. We conjure up images of sitting on a porch, sipping tea with our spouse of 50 plus years watching the sun set. The reality, unfortunately, is that in many cases those years are spent separated from one another as one spouse is no longer able to fully care for the other. And the only option available for assistance is institutionalization. We can do better. And this bill will move us in that direction for our veterans.

I ask all of us to consider why we have a policy at VA that encourages spending nearly $1 billion building 5,300 more new beds in a system that already has about 20,000 beds when we as a nation are trying to move in a direction that provides home and community based care programs that keep the elderly in their homes and out of long-term care institutions. I think VA and the States should change course for the betterment of our Nation's heroes.

I believe that by phasing out the current institutional bias and focusing the

energy and finances of the program on noninstitutional alternatives, VA and the States will serve more veterans and keep those veterans in their homes, where they want to be, for a much longer time.

I realize that we will still probably fund 5 or 6 thousand more new beds in the State home program just because of the 2-year window. But I recognize that Senators and Representatives will strongly support the institutional grants so long as their State has an application pending. I do not blame the Members. I would do the same thing if Idaho had submitted an application. So, I want to give everyone's State a fair chance to participate in the program.

But, I also believe that we need to transition beyond beds. And if we fail to set out the transition soon, I believe we will find ourselves 20 years from now undertaking a painful study on what to do with 15,000 empty nursing home beds in all of our States. Noninstitutional service is simply the direction of long-term care and health care today because families want to be together and home is where they want to be.

VA's partnership with the States to provide long-term care to our Nation's veterans is an unmitigated success. We must continue to support the 20,000 beds we currently have. And we will. They provide the most compassionate, cost-effective institutional care in the Nation. But, we also must modernize the program.

We must keep up with the trends in health care that are pointing us in the direction of home and community-based services and away from institutions. We must change to find a way to serve more veterans with the same amount of resources. But, most importantly, we must modernize because it is the humane and right thing to do in responding to the wishes of our constituents to stay home in their later years and grow old with the people they love.

I urge all of my colleagues to join in this effort by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to make, what I believe to be, vital and necessary changes to one of the most successful Federal-State partnership programs in the Nation today. I am speaking of the State Veterans Home Program at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

For those of my colleagues who do not know very much about this great program, the Federal-State partnership known as the State Home Program dates back nearly 120 years. It was August 7, 1888, when a $100 check from the Federal government helped the State of Connecticut offset the financial burden of caring for aging Civil War veterans. Since that time, of course, the program has greatly matured. And it has grown into the largest institutional provider of long-term care services for our Nation's aging veterans.

Today, the grant part of the program receives an annual appropriation of about $100 million. VA uses the money to pay for two-thirds of the costs of constructing State home beds pursuant to applications submitted by the States. After a home is built, the State operates the nursing facility and maintains the property for the benefit of veterans. VA, in turn, pays a daily stipend to the State of approximately $60 for each veteran in the home. The States then support the rest of the cost of care either by collecting some money from the veterans or through direct appropriation from the State legislature.

I realize that my description of this program may have some of my colleagues scratching their heads trying to find out why I believe the program needs to change and modernize. Let me explain.

As many of you know, during the 107th Congress, I served as chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. I did a lot of work on long- term care issues and held many hearings on the topic. What I learned is that there is a big shift across the country from the traditional institutional care to a less restrictive, family oriented, home and community based approach to care.

When I became chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I found that VA's system is strongly biased toward institutional care. We spend most of our long-term care budget on institutional beds.

I realize that nursing homes are sometimes the best place for a sick, aging person to be properly cared for. Therefore, clearly VA needs to provide that service. But, let's face it. All of us would prefer that we never end up in a nursing home. We would do everything within our power to remain in the comfort and safety of our homes and with our families.

The interesting thing about our human desire to remain in our own homes and out of nursing homes is that our human desire is also a positive financial desire. Noninstitutional long-term care services are much more cost-effective than care provided in an institutional setting. Providing people with long-term care options and the opportunity to remain in their homes for as long as possible is exactly what my legislation is about.

There is an old saying that goes ``when all you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like nails.'' Essentially what that means is, we use the tools we have to solve whatever problem arises, even if a different tool might be more appropriate.

For nearly 120 years, with little exception, the only tool available through the State Veterans Home Program has been a bed: an institutional nursing home bed. So, whenever a veteran in a local community has independent living challenges, the State home program has a tool to help them: it has a bed. My Legislation would give the State homes additional tools to offer our veterans.

My bill would establish a noninstitutional care State home grant program. The premise of the new program would be the same as the current institutional program. States would submit an application to construct a building or renovate part of an existing state home to offer noninstitutional services to veterans. The State would have to provide one-third of the cost for construction and then take ownership and operational responsibility for the building and the care after the facility opens.

Similar to the payment structure today, VA would provide a daily payment for each veteran who receives services from the facility.

My legislation would also make some changes in the state home grant program that would help it transition into a more modern care delivery system.

As my colleagues may be aware, under the current program, States submit applications to VA to receive construction assistance. If the State can demonstrate that the project meets VA's requirements for quality; that its use will be primarily for veterans; and that the State has its one-third matching funds, then VA approves the project and places it on list according to a statutory priority.

My bill would create a 2-year window, starting with the date of enactment, for States to submit their new bed applications. Similarly, it would create a 2-year window for any State to come up with matching funds for any approved application that currently lacks the required match. After the 2-year window, VA would be prohibited from accepting any new applications for new bed construction.

I believe the reason we need this change is simple. For fiscal year 2007, there are $808 million in grant proposals on VA's approved list. Approximately $490 million in project proposals are in priority one status, meaning that the States have provided the required one-third matching funds.

At the rate of $100 million per year provided by Congress to fund these grants, it will take nearly 9 more years for Congress to fund all of the current projects on the list. That, of course, is assuming that no new projects will be added to it. And construction of all of those projects would probably not be completed until about 15 years from now.

All of that may sound like long-term planning for future care needs. However, as I mentioned earlier, the Nation as a whole is moving away from institutionalizing the elderly.

Our aging years are supposed to be our golden years. We conjure up images of sitting on a porch, sipping tea with our spouse of 50 plus years watching the sun set. The reality, unfortunately, is that in many cases those years are spent separated from one another as one spouse is no longer able to fully care for the other. And the only option available for assistance is institutionalization. We can do better. And this bill will move us in that direction for our veterans.

I ask all of us to consider why we have a policy at VA that encourages spending nearly $1 billion building 5,300 more new beds in a system that already has about 20,000 beds when we as a nation are trying to move in a direction that provides home and community based care programs that keep the elderly in their homes and out of long-term care institutions. I think VA and the States should change course for the betterment of our Nation's heroes.

I believe that by phasing out the current institutional bias and focusing the

energy and finances of the program on noninstitutional alternatives, VA and the States will serve more veterans and keep those veterans in their homes, where they want to be, for a much longer time.

I realize that we will still probably fund 5 or 6 thousand more new beds in the State home program just because of the 2-year window. But I recognize that Senators and Representatives will strongly support the institutional grants so long as their State has an application pending. I do not blame the Members. I would do the same thing if Idaho had submitted an application. So, I want to give everyone's State a fair chance to participate in the program.

But, I also believe that we need to transition beyond beds. And if we fail to set out the transition soon, I believe we will find ourselves 20 years from now undertaking a painful study on what to do with 15,000 empty nursing home beds in all of our States. Noninstitutional service is simply the direction of long-term care and health care today because families want to be together and home is where they want to be.

VA's partnership with the States to provide long-term care to our Nation's veterans is an unmitigated success. We must continue to support the 20,000 beds we currently have. And we will. They provide the most compassionate, cost-effective institutional care in the Nation. But, we also must modernize the program.

We must keep up with the trends in health care that are pointing us in the direction of home and community-based services and away from institutions. We must change to find a way to serve more veterans with the same amount of resources. But, most importantly, we must modernize because it is the humane and right thing to do in responding to the wishes of our constituents to stay home in their later years and grow old with the people they love.

I urge all of my colleagues to join in this effort by cosponsoring this legislation.