[Pages S509-S520]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
S. 279. A bill to repeal certain sections of the Act of May 26, 1936,
pertaining to the Virgin Islands; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.

[[Page S510]]

______

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
S. 283. A bill to amend the Compact of Free Association Amendments
Act of 2003, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am joined by my colleague, and
the Ranking Member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Pete Domenici, on the introduction of two bills regarding the insular
areas affiliated with the United States. The text of both of these
bills is identical to the text of bills that passed the Senate by
unanimous consent on September 29, 2006.
The first bill, ``To Repeal Certain Sections of the Act of May 26,
1936 Pertaining to the Virgin Islands,'' would repeal sections of a
1936 law governing local U.S. Virgin Islands tax policy that were
thought to have been effectively repealed in 1952. That year, Congress
enacted the Virgin Islands Organic Act to establish local self-
government and to delegate certain local functions, including the
development and administration of local property taxes, to a newly
established local government. Notwithstanding this intent, in 2004, a
Federal court ruled that these sections of the Act of 1936 are still in
effect.
The text of the bill introduced today is identical to S. 1829, as
passed by the Senate four months ago. A hearing was held on that bill
on October 25, 2005, and it was reported from the Committee on April
20, 2006. Details on the background, purpose, and need for this
legislation is available in Senate Hearing 109-291, and in Senate
Report 109-236.
The second bill being introduced today, ``To Amend the Compact of
Free Association Amendments Act of 2003, and For Other Purposes,''
would make several relatively minor, clarifying, and technical changes
to Public Law 108-188 which approved the Compact of Free Association
between the U.S. and the Marshall Islands, and the Compact between the
U.S. and Micronesia. The text of this bill is identical to S. 1830, as
passed by the Senate four months ago. A hearing was held on that bill
on October 25, 2005, and it was reported from the Committee on April
20, 2006. Details on the background, purpose, and need for this
legislation is available in Senate Hearing 109-291, and in Senate
Report 109-237.
Although relatively small and remote, the U.S.-affiliated insular
areas are the home for many U.S. citizens, or for communities with
which our Nation has special historical and political relationships.
Maintaining and strengthening these relationships is a particular
concern of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources because of its
jurisdiction over matters relating to the territories and freely
associated states. It is unfortunate that, last year, Senate passage of
these bills was delayed leaving insufficient time for enactment. I look
forward to working with members of the Committee and the Senate on
their prompt consideration this session, and to their enactment as soon
as possible.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the texts of the bills were ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 279

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF CERTAIN LAWS PERTAINING TO THE VIRGIN
ISLANDS.

(a) Repeal.--Sections 1 through 6 of the Act of May 26,
1936 (48 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), are repealed.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
takes effect on July 22, 1954.
____

S. 283

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Compacts of Free Association
Amendments Act of 2007''

SEC. 2. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS.

Section 101 of the Compact of Free Association Amendments
Act of 2003 (48 U.S.C. 1921) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence of subsection (a), by inserting
before the period at the end the following: ``, including
Article X of the Federal Programs and Services Agreement
Between the Government of the United States and the
Government of the Federated States of Micronesia, as amended
under the Agreement to Amend Article X that was signed by
those 2 Governments on June 30, 2004, which shall serve as
the authority to implement the provisions thereof''; and
(2) in the first sentence of subsection (b), by inserting
before the period at the end the following: ``, including
Article X of the Federal Programs and Services Agreement
Between the Government of the United States and the
Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, as
amended under the Agreement to Amend Article X that was
signed by those 2 Governments on June 18, 2004, which shall
serve as the authority to implement the provisions thereof''.

SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

Section 105(f)(1) of the Compact of Free Association
Amendments Act of 2003 (48 U.S.C. 1921d(f)(1)) is amended by
striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:
``(A) Emergency and disaster assistance.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), section
221(a)(6) of the U.S.-FSM Compact and section 221(a)(5) of
the U.S.-RMI Compact shall each be construed and applied in
accordance with the 2 Agreements to Amend Article X of the
Federal Programs and Service Agreements signed on June 30,
2004, and on June 18, 2004, respectively.
``(ii) Definition of will provide funding.--In the second
sentence of paragraph 12 of each of the Agreements described
in clause (i), the term `will provide funding' means will
provide funding through a transfer of funds using Standard
Form 1151 or a similar document or through an interagency,
reimbursable agreement.''.

SEC. 4. CLARIFICATIONS REGARDING PALAU.

Section 105(f)(1)(B) of the Compact of Free Association
Amendments Act of 2003 (48 U.S.C. 1921d(f)(1)(B)) is
amended--
(1) in clause (ii)(II), by striking ``and its territories''
and inserting ``, its territories, and the Republic of
Palau'';
(2) in clause (iii)(II), by striking ``, or the Republic of
the Marshall Islands'' and inserting ``, the Republic of the
Marshall Islands, or the Republic of Palau''; and
(3) in clause (ix)--
(A) by striking ``Republic'' both places it appears and
inserting ``government, institutions, and people'';
(B) by striking ``2007'' and inserting ``2009''; and
(C) by striking ``was'' and inserting ``were''.

SEC. 5. AVAILABILITY OF LEGAL SERVICES.

Section 105(f)(1)(C) of the Compact of Free Association
Amendments Act of 2003 (48 U.S.C. 1921d(f)(1)(C)) is amended
by inserting before the period at the end the following: ``,
which shall also continue to be available to the citizens of
the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau,
and the Republic of the Marshall Islands who legally reside
in the United States (including territories and
possessions)''.

SEC. 6. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

(a) Title I.--
(1) Section 177 agreement.--Section 103(c)(1) of the
Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003 (48 U.S.C.
1921b(c)(1)) is amended by striking ``section 177'' and
inserting ``Section 177''.
(2) Interpretation and united states policy.--Section 104
of the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003 (48
U.S.C. 1921c) is amended--
(A) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``the'' before
``U.S.-RMI Compact,'';
(B) in subsection (e)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) of paragraph
(8) , by striking ``to include'' and inserting ``and
include'';
(ii) in paragraph (9)(A), by inserting a comma after
``may''; and
(iii) in paragraph (10), by striking ``related to service''
and inserting ``related to such services''; and
(C) in the first sentence of subsection (j), by inserting
``the'' before ``Interior''.
(3) Supplemental provisions.--Section 105(b)(1) of the
Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003 (48 U.S.C.
1921d(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``Trust Fund'' and
inserting ``Trust Funds''.
(b) Title II.--
(1) U.S.-fsm compact.--The Compact of Free Association, as
amended, between the Government of the United States of
America and the Government of the Federated States of
Micronesia (as provided in section 201(a) of the Compact of
Free Association Amendments Act of 2003 (117 Stat. 2757)) is
amended--
(A) in section 174--
(i) in subsection (a), by striking ``courts'' and inserting
``court''; and
(ii) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``the'' before
``November'';
(B) in section 177(a), by striking ``, or Palau'' and
inserting ``(or Palau)'';
(C) in section 179(b), strike ``amended Compact'' and
inserting ``Compact, as amended,'';
(D) in section 211--
(i) in the fourth sentence of subsection (a), by striking
``Compact, as Amended, of Free Association'' and inserting
``Compact of Free Association, as amended'';
(ii) in the fifth sentence of subsection (a), by striking
``Trust Fund Agreement,'' and inserting ``Agreement Between
the Government of the United States of America and the
Government of the Federated States of Micronesia Implementing
Section 215 and Section 216 of the Compact, as Amended,
Regarding a Trust Fund (Trust Fund Agreement),'';

[[Page S511]]

(iii) in subsection (b)--

(I) in the first sentence, by striking ``Government of
the'' before ``Federated''; and
(II) in the second sentence, by striking ``Sections 321 and
323 of the Compact of Free Association, as Amended'' and
inserting ``Sections 211(b), 321, and 323 of the Compact of
Free Association, as amended,''; and

(iv) in the last sentence of subsection (d), by inserting
before the period at the end the following: ``and the Federal
Programs and Services Agreement referred to in section 231'';
(E) in the first sentence of section 215(b), by striking
``subsection(a)'' and inserting ``subsection (a)'';
(F) in section 221--
(i) in subsection (a)(6), by inserting ``(Federal Emergency
Management Agency)'' after ``Homeland Security''; and
(ii) in the first sentence of subsection (c), by striking
``agreements'' and inserting ``agreement'';
(G) in the second sentence of section 222, by inserting
``in'' after ``referred to'';
(H) in the second sentence of section 232, by striking
``sections 102 (c)'' and all that follows through ``January
14, 1986)'' and inserting ``section 102(b) of Public Law 108-
188, 117 Stat. 2726, December 17, 2003'';
(I) in the second sentence of section 252, by inserting ``,
as amended,'' after ``Compact'';
(J) in the first sentence of the first undesignated
paragraph of section 341, by striking ``Section 141'' and
inserting ``section 141'';
(K) in section 342--
(i) in subsection (a), by striking ``14 U.S.C. 195'' and
inserting ``section 195 of title 14, United States Code'';
and
(ii) in subsection (b)--

(I) by striking ``46 U.S.C. 1295(b)(6)'' and inserting
``section 1303(b)(6) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46
U.S.C. 1295b(b)(6))''; and
(II) by striking ``46 U.S.C. 1295b(b)(6)(C)'' and inserting
``section 1303(b)(6)(C) of that Act'';

(L) in the third sentence of section 354(a), by striking
``section 442 and 452'' and inserting ``sections 442 and
452'';
(M) in section 461(h), by striking ``Telecommunications''
and inserting ``Telecommunication'';
(N) in section 462(b)(4), by striking ``of Free
Association'' the second place it appears; and
(O) in section 463(b), by striking ``Articles IV'' and
inserting ``Article IV''.
(2) U.S.-rmi compact.--The Compact of Free Association, as
amended, between the Government of the United States of
America and the Government of the Republic of the Marshall
Islands (as provided in section 201(b) of the Compact of Free
Association Amendments Act of 2003 (117 Stat. 2795)) is
amended--
(A) in section 174(a), by striking ``court'' and inserting
``courts'';
(B) in section 177(a), by striking the comma before ``(or
Palau)'';
(C) in section 179(b), by striking ``amended Compact,'' and
inserting ``Compact, as amended,'';
(D) in section 211--
(i) in the fourth sentence of subsection (a), by striking
``Compact, as Amended, of Free Association'' and inserting
``Compact of Free Association, as amended``;
(ii) in the first sentence of subsection (b), by striking
``Agreement between the Government of the United States and
the Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands
Regarding Miliary Use and Operating Rights'' and inserting
``Agreement Regarding the Military Use and Operating Rights
of the Government of the United States in the Republic of the
Marshall Islands concluded Pursuant to Sections 321 and 323
of the Compact of Free Association, as Amended (Agreement
between the Government of the United States and the
Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands Regarding
Military Use and Operating Rights)''; and
(iii) in the last sentence of subsection (e), by inserting
before the period at the end the following: ``and the Federal
Programs and Services Agreement referred to in section 231'';
(E) in section 221(a)--
(i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``Section 231'' and inserting ``section 231''; and
(ii) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``(Federal Emergency
Management Agency)'' after ``Homeland Security'';
(F) in the second sentence of section 232, by striking
``sections 103(m)'' and all that follows through ``(January
14, 1986)'' and inserting ``section 103(k) of Public Law 108-
188, 117 Stat. 2734, December 17, 2003'';
(G) in the first sentence of section 341, by striking
``Section 141'' and inserting ``section 141'';
(H) in section 342--
(i) in subsection (a), by striking ``14 U.S.C. 195'' and
inserting ``section 195 of title 14, United States Code'';
and
(ii) in subsection (b)--

(I) in the third sentence of section 354(a), by striking
``section 442 and 452'' and inserting ``sections 442 and
452'';
(J) in the first sentence of section 443, by inserting ``,
as amended.'' after ``the Compact'';
(K) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) of section
461(h)--
(i) by striking ``1978'' and inserting ``1998''; and
(ii) by striking ``Telecommunications'' and inserting
``Telecommunication Union''; and
(L) in section 463(b), by striking ``Article'' and
inserting ``Articles''.

SEC. 7. TRANSMISSION OF VIDEOTAPE PROGRAMMING.

Section 111(e)(2) of title 17, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``or the Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands'' and inserting ``the Federated States of Micronesia,
the Republic of Palau, or the Republic of the Marshall
Islands''.

SEC. 8. PALAU ROAD MAINTENANCE.

The Government of the Republic of Palau may deposit the
payment otherwise payable to the Government of the United
States under section 111 of Public Law 101-219 (48 U.S.C.
1960) into a trust fund if--
(1) the earnings of the trust fund are expended solely for
maintenance of the road system constructed pursuant to
section 212 of the Compact of Free Association between the
Government of the United States of America and the Government
of Palau (48 U.S.C. 1931 note); and
(2) the trust fund is established and operated pursuant to
an agreement entered into between the Government of the
United States and the Government of the Republic of Palau.

SEC. 9. CLARIFICATION OF TAX-FREE STATUS OF TRUST FUNDS.

In the U.S.-RMI Compact, the U.S.-FSM Compact, and their
respective trust fund subsidiary agreements, for the purposes
of taxation by the United States or its subsidiary
jurisdictions, the term ``State'' means ``State, territory,
or the District of Columbia''.
______

By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms.
Snowe, Mr. Obama, and Mr. Durbin):
S. 280. A bill to provide for a program to accelerate the reduction
of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by establishing a
market-driven system of greenhouse gas tradeable allowances, to support
the deployment of new climate change-related technologies, and to
ensure benefits to consumers from the trading in such allowances, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, on October 4 of last year, the Hadley
Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, which houses Great
Britain's leading climate scientists, projected that in the absence of
prompt action to curb global warming, extreme drought will spread
across one third of the Earth's land surface by the end of this
century.
On October 30, the head of the United Kingdom's Government Economic
Service forecasted that unchecked global warming will cost the world
between five and twenty percent of gross domestic product each year.
On December 4, the director of the U.S. Center for Disease Control's
National Center for Environmental Health cited global warming as ``the
largest looming public health challenge we face.'' Insect-borne
diseases such as malaria are expected to spike as tropical ecosystems
expand; hotter air will exacerbate the air pollutants that send our
children to the hospital with asthma attacks; food insecurity from
shifting agricultural zones will spark border wars; and storms and
coastal flooding from sea-level rise will cause mortality and
dislocation.
On December 14, in fact, the journal Science published a peer-
reviewed study projecting that unchecked global warming could cause sea
levels to rise between a half meter and one-and-a-half meters above
1990 levels by the end of this century. A sealevel rise in the middle
of that range would submerge every city on the East Coast of the United
States, from Miami to Boston.
And on December 27, the Interior Department proposed to list the
polar bear as threatened with extinction due to Arctic ice melt from
global warming.
When even erstwhile skeptics cite melting habitat as the reason polar
bears are now threatened, I say the global warming debate is over. The
American people want action, and they want it now.
As you know, Senator McCain and I have brought our legislation to
solve global warming to a vote in this chamber twice already, first in
2003 and then again in 2005. On the same day that the Senate failed for
a second time to pass our bill, in June 2005, this body fortunately did
pass Senator Bingaman's resolution that the Congress should enact ``a
comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based
limits on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop, and reverse
the growth of such emissions.''

[[Page S512]]

Today I am reintroducing an improved version of my and Senator
McCain's Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act. As the last version of
the Act did, the version I introduce today carries the co-sponsorship
of Senators Obama and Snowe. I am proud to say that improvements to the
bill have now attracted the additional co-sponsorship of Senators
Lincoln and Collins. Very shortly, I understand, Representatives Olver
and Gilchrest will reintroduce this bill's companion in the House.
The 2005 version of the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act would
have capped U.S. greenhouse gas emissions at year 2000 levels without
mandating further reductions. The new bill will gradually lower the
emissions cap, such that it reaches approximately one third of 2000
levels by 2050. Those long-term reductions will forestall catastrophic,
manmade climate change, provided the world's other major economies
follow suit within the next decade. Like the 2005 version, the
reintroduced bill will control compliance costs by allowing companies
to trade, save, and borrow emissions credits, and by allowing them to
generate ``offset'' credits by inducing noncovered businesses, farms,
and others to reduce their emissions or capture and store greenhouse
gases. The reintroduced bill, however, will increase the availability
of borrowing and offsets in order to control costs further.
This bill will be referred to the Environment and Public Works
Committee, where I will chair a subcommittee on climate change.
Colleagues of mine on that committee, including our esteemed chairwoman
and my good friend, Senator Boxer, will have their own strong proposals
for curbing global warming. I look forward to working with them to get
comprehensive legislation reported favorably to the floor in a
bipartisan manner. Senator Bingaman, the chairman of the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, has invested a great deal of work and
expertise in a comprehensive climate bill of his own. I believe Senator
Bingaman will be highly influential in this process, and I look forward
to working with him closely to solve this problem.
With American know-how we can and will solve this problem. We will
use the power of the free market to promote the rapid and widespread
deployment of advanced technologies and practices for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. And we will do so without weakening the
economic position of the United States or otherwise imposing hardship
on its citizens.
I would like to close by extending my heartfelt thanks to the
distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, for placing legislation to
curb global warming among his top ten priorities for this Congress, and
for memorializing that commitment with the introduction, as S. 6, of
the National Energy and Environmental Security Act, a bill that I was
proud to co-sponsor.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Lieberman
today, along with our co-sponsors, Senators Snowe, Obama, Collins, and
Lincoln, in introducing the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of
2007. This legislation is designed to significantly reduce the Nation's
greenhouse gas emissions to prevent the dangerous impacts of climate
change, enhance our national security and maintain the strength to our
economy. It would be accomplished through a combination of trading
markets and the deployment of advanced technologies.
As I have stated on previous occasions, the design of this
legislation is an evolving process. The legislation we are introducing
today represents yet another step in that effort. Since our last vote
on this legislation, Senator Lieberman and I have continued work on
this proposal with the goal of producing the most innovative,
meaningful, and economically feasible measure that can be embraced by
the Senate. We believe the changes which we have made since we first
introduced climate change legislation in the 108th Congress puts us on
the path to achieving this goal, and we intend to make further
improvements to this comprehensive legislation in the days ahead.
We have continually worked with scientists, industry,
environmentalists, as well as the faith-based community, to ensure that
we are fully addressing the serious problem of global warming. We
continue to learn more about the science and the impacts of climate
change on a daily basis. We continue to work with economists and
industry experts to ensure that our emissions goals do not hamstring
our economic objectives. In particular, we continue to learn more about
the power of the markets to control costs as emission credit trading
continues in Europe and here in the U.S. I am confident that given the
will, the Federal Government can be a lead advocate for ensuring that
America is doing its part to reduce global warming, and join in the
global effort that is needed to address this world-wide environmental
issue.
I want to mention the efforts of States like California, which has
already enacted legislation requiring mandatory reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions, and the Northeast States of Connecticut, Delaware,
Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont, which are also
seeking to limit emissions from power plants. Over 300 U.S. mayors have
signed an agreement to reduce emissions in their cities.
As these State plans and legislation are implemented, they will offer
Congress and the Administration unique opportunities to review and
incorporate lessons learned from these efforts into Federal
legislation. Despite the improvements we have made in this version of
our bill to be environmentally responsible and to minimize economic
costs, we will continue to pursue new and innovative ideas that will
further these objectives, and we will modify our bill accordingly.
The legislation we submit today is designed to protect our
environment from the impacts of the climate change resulting from the
buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, improve our national
security by reducing reliance on fossil fuels that often carry with
them geopolitical costs, and position our economy to become a world
leader in the expanding markets for development and deployment of new
energy efficient technologies and renewable energy sources. It proposes
the utilization of the ``cap and trade'' approach and promotes the
commercialization of technologies that can significantly reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, mitigate the impacts of climate change, and
increase the nation's energy independence. And it will help to keep
America at the cutting edge of innovation where the jobs and trade
opportunities of the new economy are to be found. It will also serve to
protect our country and the world from the security threat posed by
populations whose health, livelihood, and variability are potentially
threatened by global rising temperatures and altered environments.
In fact, the cap and trade provisions and the technology title are
complementary parts of a comprehensive program that will allow us to
usher in a new energy era, an era of responsible and innovative energy
production and use that will yield enormous environmental, economic,
and diplomatic benefits. The cap and trade portion provides the
economic driver for existing and new technologies capable of supplying
reliable and clean energy and making the best use of America's
available energy resources. Because of the multiple benefits promised
by this comprehensive program, we expect that the new bill will attract
additional support for the vital purposes of the Climate Stewardship
and Innovation Act. We simply need the political will to match the
public's concern about climate change, desire for national security,
the economic interests of business and consumers, and American
technological ingenuity and expertise.
As I mentioned, we continue to learn more about the science of
climate change and the dangerous precedence of not addressing this
environmental problem. The science tells us that urgent and significant
action is needed. Our National Academies of Sciences, along with the
national academies from the other G8 nations, China, India, and Brazil,
has said in a joint statement that ``there is now strong evidence that
significant global warming is occurring.'' and ``[t] he scientific
understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify
nations taking prompt action.''
We recognize that many fear the costs of taking action. But there are
costs to delay as well. Failure to implement significant reductions in
net

[[Page S513]]

greenhouse gas emissions in the near term will yield only more climate
change and a much harder job in the future. Our comprehensive
legislation is one approach to a productive, secure, and clean energy
future. But it is only one approach and we welcome other proposals--let
a thousand flowers bloom.
Significant reductions in greenhouse gases--well beyond those
required by this bill--are feasible over the next 15-20 years using
technologies available today. Also, the most important technological
deployment opportunities to reduce emissions over the next two decades
lie with energy efficient technologies and renewable energy sources,
including nuclear, solar, wind, and bio-fuels. For example, in the
electric power sector, which accounts for one-third of U.S. emissions,
major pollution reductions can be achieved by improving the efficiency
of existing fossil fuel plants, adding new reactors designs for nuclear
power, expanding use of renewable power sources, and significantly
reducing electricity demand with the use of energy-saving technologies
currently available to residential and commercial consumers. These
clean technologies need to be promoted and that is what spurs our
action today.
Let me take a moment to address a section of our legislation that has
been the target of some concerns by environmentalists and others--
concerns that I believe are entirely unwarranted. The provisions in our
bill to promote nuclear energy are an important part of the
comprehensive technology package.
I know that some of our friends here in the Senate and in the
environmental community maintain strong objections to nuclear energy,
even though today it supplies nearly 20 percent of the electricity
generated in the U.S. and much higher proportions in places such as
France, Belgium, Sweden and Switzerland--countries that are not exactly
known for their environmental disregard. The fact is, nuclear energy is
CLEAN. It produces ZERO emissions, while the burning of fossil fuels to
generate electricity produces approximately 33 percent of the
greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere, and is a major
contributor to air pollution affecting our communities.
The idea that nuclear power should play no role in our future energy
mix is an unsustainable position, particularly given the urgency and
magnitude of the threat posed by global warming which most regard as
the greatest environmental threat to the planet.
The International Energy Agency estimates that the world's energy
consumption is expected to rise over 65 percent within the next fifteen
years. If the demand for electricity is met using traditional coal-
fired power plants, not only will we fail to reduce carbon emissions as
necessary, but the level of carbon in the atmosphere will skyrocket and
intensify the greenhouse effect and the global warming it produces.
As nuclear plants are decommissioned, the percentage of U.S.
electricity produced by this zero-emission technology will actually
decline. Therefore, at a minimum, we must make efforts to maintain
nuclear energy's level of contribution, so that this capacity is not
replaced with higher-emitting alternatives.

No doubt, some people will object to the idea of the Federal
Government playing any role in helping demonstrate and commercialize
new and beneficial energy technologies, and particularly nuclear
designs. We understand the power of markets to spur innovation and our
proposals is built on this fundamental lesson. But the fact remains
that the market playing field has been highly uneven--fossil fuels have
been subsidized for many decades at levels that can scarcely be
calculated. The enormous economic costs of damage caused by air
pollution and greenhouse gas emissions to the environment and human
health are not factored into the price of power produced by fossil-
fueled technologies. Yet, it's a cost that we all bear, too often in
terms of ill-health and diminished quality of life. That is simply a
matter of fact.
It is also inescapable that the ability to avoid internalizing these
costs placed produces at a great advantage over clean competitors.
Based on that fact, and in light of the enormous environmental and
economic risk posed by global warming, I believe that providing zero
and low emission technologies such as nuclear a boost into the market
place so that these clean technologies can be utilized as soon as
possible is responsible public policy, and a matter of simple public
necessity, particularly, as we work to promote America's energy
independence.
The Navy has operated nuclear powered submarines for more than 50
years and has an impressive safety and performance record. The Naval
Reactors program has demonstrated that nuclear power can be done
safely. One of the underpinning of its safety record is the approach
used in its reactor designs, which is to learn and built upon previous
designs. Unfortunately for the commercial nuclear industry, they have
not had the opportunity to use such an approach since the industry has
not been able to build a reactor in over the past 25 years. This lapse
in construction has led us to where we are today with the industry's
aging infrastructure. As we have learned from other industries, this in
itself represents a great risk to public safety.
As Senator Lieberman and I have continued working for passage of
legislation to address climate change in a meaningful way, it has
become clear to us that any responsible climate change measure must
contain five essential components:
First, it must have rational, mandatory emission reduction targets
and timetables. It must be goal oriented, and has both environmental
and economic integrity. We need policy that will produce necessary
outcomes, not merely check political boxes. The goal must be feasible
and based on sound science, and this is what we have tried to do in
this bill.
Second, it must utilize a market-based cap and trade system. It must
limit greenhouse gas emissions and allows the trading of emission
credits to drive enterprise, innovation and efficiency. This is the
central component of our legislation. Voluntary efforts will not change
the status quo, taxes are counterproductive, and markets are more
dependable than regulators in effecting sustainable change.
Third, it must include mechanisms to minimize costs and work
effectively with other markets. The ``trade'' part of ``cap and trade''
is such a mechanism, but it's clear it must be bolstered by other
assurances that costs will be minimized. I am as concerned as anyone
about the economic impacts associated with any climate change
legislation. I know that many economists are developing increasingly
sophisticated ways to project future costs of compliance. Lately, we
have seen the increased interest in this area of research. As we learn
more from these models about additional action items to further reduce
costs, we intend to incorporate them. Already, based upon earlier
economic analysis, we have added ``offsets'' provisions in this bill in
an effort to minimize costs and to provide for the creation of new
markets. And, I assure my colleagues, we will continue to seek new and
innovative ways to further minimize costs.
Fourth, it must spur the development and deployment of advanced
technology. Nuclear, solar, and other alternative energy must be part
of the equation and we need a dedicated national commitment to develop
and bring to market the technologies of the future as a matter of good
environmental and economic policy. There will be a growing global
market for these technologies and the U.S. will benefit greatly from
being competitive and capturing its share of these markets. This
legislation includes a detailed technology title that would go a long
way toward meeting this goal. Unlike the Energy bill, it would be
funded using the proceeds from the auctioning of allowable emission
credits, rather than from the use of taxpayers' funds or appropriations
that will never materialize.
And fifth, it must facilitate international efforts to solve the
problem. Global warming is an international problem requiring an
international effort. The United States has an obligation to lead. Our
leadership cannot replace the need for action by countries such as
India and China. We must spur and facilitate it. We have added
provisions that would allow U.S. companies to enter into partnerships
in developing countries for the purpose of conducting projects to
achieve certified emission reductions, which may be traded on the
international market.

[[Page S514]]

These five components represent a serious challenge that will require
a great deal of effort, the concentration of substantial intellectual
power, and the continued efforts of our colleagues and those in the
environmental, industry, economic, and national security communities.
We look forward to collaborating in this effort as we continue to shape
our legislation to its most effective form.
The status quo is a strong and stubborn force. People and
institutions are averse to change, even when that change is critical
for their own well-being, and that of their children and grandchildren.
If the scientists are right and temperatures continue to rise, we could
face environmental, economic, and national security consequences far
beyond our ability to imagine. If they are wrong and the Earth finds a
way to compensate for the unprecedented levels of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere, what will we have accomplished? Cleaner air; greater
energy efficiency, a more diverse and secure energy mix, and U.S.
leadership in the technologies of the future. There is no doubt;
failure to act is the far greater risk.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer, with my colleagues
Senators Lieberman, McCain, Obama, Lincoln, and Collins, S. 280, the
bipartisan Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act that requires the
United States to take actions to reduce manmade greenhouse gas
emissions for the protection of both our environment and our economy.
This legislation takes concrete steps by using a fair, market-based
system to once and for all demonstrate leadership on climate change and
reduce emissions in the United States. Furthermore, it will do so
without weakening the economic position of the United States or
otherwise imposing hardship on its citizens.
Ongoing peer-reviewed scientific and economic research demonstrates
that climate change is one of the most significant environmental and
economical issues of the 21st century, impacting the planet's weather
patterns, resulting in more severe, sustained storm systems, floods,
heat waves, and droughts. Yet, I have grave concerns that the lack of
domestic climate change policy is akin to Nero's approach, fiddling as
the planet warms.
With overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is
adversely impacting the health of our planet, the time has come for the
Congress to step up and take action. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas
emissions that enter the atmosphere today from all sectors of our
society will last for generations to come threatening our oceans, our
environment and the economic well-being of our country and the world.
It is beyond dispute that we cannot afford the price of inaction.
The urgency is clear as climate change is no longer an abstract
concept. Sea levels are rising, polar ice caps are melting. Indeed,
earlier this month the Bush administration listed the polar bear a
threatened species. Department of Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne
stated, ``Polar bears are one of nature's ultimate survivors. They're
able to live and thrive in one of the world's harshest environments,
but there's concern that their habitat may literally be melting away.''
The listing document says that the polar bear's ice habitat that is
used as platforms for hunting, mating and resting could vanish within
half a century.
The majestic polar bear of the Arctic may well be the symbol of
climate change just as the bald eagle was when Rachel Carson published
her stunning book ``Silent Spring'' in 1962 that linked the DDT
pesticide to the fate of our national symbol--and created an
environmental conscious for the country.
It is obvious that new and longer term ideas for securing both
domestic and international cooperation are necessary as we cannot get
to the heart of this global problem without the world's major economies
taking domestic actions. Clearly, as the causes of climate change are
global and the atmosphere knows no boundaries, the challenge can only
be met with all the countries of the world working together.
That is why when asked by three major independent think tanks--the
Center for American Progress in the U.S., the Institute for Public
Policy Research in the U.K. and the Australia Institute--I accepted the
co-chairmanship of the high-level International Climate Change
Taskforce--the ICCT--to chart a way forward on climate change on a
parallel track with the Kyoto Protocol process. The report from this
Taskforce, Meeting the Climate Challenge, recommends ways to involve
the world's largest economies in the effort, including the U.S. and
major developing nations, focusing on creating new agreements to
achieve the deployment of clean energy technologies, and a new global
policy framework that is both inclusive and fair.
The Taskforce, along with Co-chair, the Rt. Honorable Stephen Byers
of the U.K., includes an international, cross-party, cross-sector
collaboration of leaders from public service, science, business and
civil society from both developed and developing countries. We set out
a pathway to solve climate change issues in tandem--collaboratively
finding common ground through recommendations that are both ambitious
and realistic to engage all countries, and, critically, including those
not bound by the Kyoto Protocol and major developing countries. We hope
our proposals will be a prelude to the international dialogue and,
ultimately, set the score for lasting change.
The Report calls for the establishment of a long-term objective of
preventing global average temperature from rising more than 3.6 degree
Fahrenheit, 2 degrees Centigrade, above the pre-industrial level by the
end of the century.
The Taskforce arrived at the 2 degrees Centigrade--or 3.6 degree
Fahrenheit--temperature increase goal on the basis of an extensive
review of the relevant scientific literature that shows that, as the
ICCT Report states, ``Beyond the 2 degree Centigrade level, the risks
to human societies and ecosystems grow significantly. It is likely, for
example, that average temperature increases larger than this will
entail substantial agricultural losses, greatly increases numbers of
people at risk of water shortages, and widespread adverse health
impacts.''
Our Report goes on to say that, ``Climate science is not yet able to
specify the trajectory of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse
gases that corresponds precisely to any particular global temperature
rise. Based on current knowledge, however, it appears that achieving a
high probability of limiting global average temperature rise to 2
degrees C will require that the increase in greenhouse-gas
concentrations as well as all the other warming and cooling influences
on global climate in the year 2100, as compared with 1750, should add
up to a net warming no greater than what would be associated with a
CO<inf>2</inf> concentration of about 400 parts per million (ppm)''.
This goal of the ICCT comports well with the Climate Stewardship and
Innovation Act we are introducing today because the legislation creates
a domestic market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce manmade carbon
dioxide emissions with specific targets to meet specific dates. The
bill will also make the U.S. a partner in the vast community of
developed countries who have adopted national mandatory cap-and-trade
systems for carbon emissions. I believe it will also bring emerging
economies to the international negotiating table, such as China, who is
predicted to surpass the U.S. as the largest emitter of greenhouse
gases by 2010--China who is putting on line one carbon-spewing coal-
fired power plant each week.
Achieving success for climate change legislation that calls for
realistic reductions of greenhouse gases by setting certain targets
means disabusing skeptics and opponents alike of cherished mythologies
that environmental protection and economic growth are mutually
exclusive. The irony is both are actually increasingly interdependent
and will only become more so as the 21st century progresses. Robust
companies dedicated to reducing emissions are proof-positive ``going-
green'' represents a burgeoning sector of our economy, not the drain
and hindrance we've been led to believe for so many years. This bill
accommodates for the early actions these companies have taken to reduce
emissions.
And to their credit--the most progressive U.S. companies have reduced
emissions even further than required in the Climate Stewardship and
Innovation Act. In an act of economic acumen, they are hedging their
bets by

[[Page S515]]

adopting internal targets. And, these companies are saving money by
reducing their energy consumption and positioning themselves to compete
in the growing global market for climate-friendly technologies. Any
cost-conscious CFO--or forward-thinking CEO for that matter--should
admit that to prevent pollution now will most certainly cost less than
cleaning it up later.
The economics of prevention and stewardship resonate more when you
consider property that erodes because of rising sea levels, farm land
that fails to yield crops and becomes barren and arid, and revenue
opportunities squandered because of dwindling fishing stocks caused by
hotter temperatures. These represent real costs to the bottom line--not
to mention irreparable damage to our health and quality of life. We
procrastinate on these policy imperatives at the peril of both our
country and our planet. Congress is quite facile at deferring costs to
the future, often with enormous consequences. No one was more aware of
this tendency than Abraham Lincoln, who--in his Message to Congress in
1862--offered this challenge to the legislative branch, ``The dogmas of
the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is
piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our
case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.''
We have a choice between an ever more treacherous path of greater
environmental damage and economic harm, or an upward path to a better
future for our planet, and enhanced competitiveness for our industries.
I urge my colleagues to join with those of us who believe we should
move forward by taking appropriate actions now for global warming
reductions so that we may leave behind a better environment that was
bestowed to us.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, more than 18 months ago I stood in this
Chamber to express my support for a previous version of the Climate
Stewardship and Innovation Act, and to urge the support of my
colleagues. On that day, I said that there are moments when we have the
chance to take a new course that will leave our children a better
world. However, in the interim, Congress has chosen not to act. In the
interim, our Nation, and others around the world, continued to release
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at increasing rates.
With each passing year, as we choose not to act, the air we breathe
contains ever more carbon dioxide, resulting from our use of fossil
fuels. If we continue on our present course, human endeavors could
cause a rise in temperature equivalent to the change between the last
ice age and today. The decisions we make now on greenhouse gas
emissions will have effects in the second half of this century, and
into the next. The consequences of our inaction will be devastating for
our children and grandchildren, and will be even worse for the poorest
global populations.
Climate change is not reflected just in the fact that last year was
the warmest year on record in the United States, or in the recent
proposal that polar bears be listed as an endangered species because
Arctic ice is melting. Those are just symptoms. The bigger problem is
that global climate change will, in this century and the next, have
effects on human health, on access to water, and on production of food.
Our inaction may reflect a misunderstanding of scientific evidence,
even though such evidence accumulates, year by year, showing that
climate change is a global threat resulting from human activity.
Perhaps our inaction betrays an uncertainty about our ability to
address this problem. Or perhaps our inaction is simply a result of
inertia, a lack of political will in facing a difficult problem.
Whatever the basis of our inaction, I am convinced that we must now
act. Every delay makes a solution more distant, and more difficult. I
am also convinced that the best solution takes the form of the Climate
Stewardship Act, which addresses the real costs and consequences of our
current patterns of energy use, establishing a framework for a market-
based solution which relies on American will, ingenuity, and
technological expertise to mitigate climate change.
This bill establishes limits for greenhouse gas emissions well into
the 21st century. To remain below these limits, the bill encourages the
market to determine how best to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
rewarding cost-effective approaches using a system of tradeable
allowances.
Revenues generated from this program will be used to help the
industries and individuals most affected by the limits. These revenues
will also fund research and development of efficient energy
technologies, such as green buildings, high-power batteries for hybrid
cars, safer nuclear plants to generate electricity, large scale
biofuels facilities, renewable sources, and advanced coal power plants
that capture the carbon dioxide they generate. This program will spur
American innovation, creating business opportunities as new markets are
created in low-carbon technologies and services.
I am proud to join Senators Lieberman and McCain in introducing this
legislation, and I urge others to join this effort. I also look forward
to the support of the American people as we move together to confront
the very real threat to future generations of global climate change.
______

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
S. 282. A bill to-amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to reduce
over a 5-year period the interest rate on certain undergraduate student
loans; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support the ``College Student Relief Act.'' In 1958, spurred on by the
launch of the Russian satellite, Sputnik, Congress passed the National
Defense Education Act in order to ensure that through education, the
United States would stay ahead of the Soviet Union in the space race.
Because of the low interest loans offered through the National Defense
Education Act, countless students were able to obtain a college
education and help move America forward. I could never have attended
Georgetown University and law school were it not for the government
loans.
It is unquestionable that higher education plays a critical role in
the future of our children. Over the course of a lifetime, a college
graduate will earn over $1 million more than those without college
degrees. In addition to the individual benefits of a college education,
investing in and producing more college-educated Americans is vital to
our Nation's growth. Economists estimate that the increase in the
education level of the United States labor force between 1915 and 1999
directly resulted in at least 23 percent of the overall growth in U.S.
productivity. To keep America at the economic forefront in the 21st
Century, we must recognize the value of investing in higher education
and provide students with the assistance they need so that they can
compete in the global economy.
As college costs continue to skyrocket, attaining a college education
is becoming an even bigger hurdle for many American students. Millions
of eligible students never even make it to college because of financial
barriers. Over the last five years, tuition, fees, room and board at
four-year public colleges and universities increased by 42 percent.
More than two-thirds of four- year college students now borrow to pay
for school, and their average debt more than doubled between 1993 and
2004. According to the Congressional Advisory Committee on Student
Financial Assistance, financial barriers will prevent 4.4 million high
school graduates from attending a four-year public college over the
next decade, and prevent another two million eligible students from
attending college at all.
Last year, Republicans missed an opportunity to prevent higher
student loan interest rates from going into effect. On July 1, 2006,
student loan interest rates went from a 5.3 percent variable rate to a
6.8 percent fixed rate for student borrowers. We can address this
situation and take the first step towards helping millions of college
students across the Nation realize the American dream--achieving a
college education.
That's why I'm introducing the College Student Relief Act of 2007.
The bill cuts interest rates on subsidized student loans in half and
will help lower the interest rates for 5.5 million college students.
The bill phases in interest rate cuts over five years, from a 6.8
percent fixed rate to a 3.4 percent fixed

[[Page S516]]

rate for undergraduate borrowers of new subsidized student loans. Once
fully implemented, these cuts will save the typical borrower--with
$13,800 in need-based loan debt--approximately $4,400 in interest costs
over the life of his or her loan.
Smart, hard-working kids deserve a chance to go as far as their
talents will take them; however, large education debt changes the
future in ways that cannot be quantified. Career plans are changed.
Lifestyles are restricted. Home and auto purchases are put on hold.
Family plans may be delayed to accommodate debt payments.
Let me share a few stories with you that illustrate the effects of
carrying large education debt. When Stacie Odhner-Sibley and her
husband made the decision ten years ago that she would go back to
school and obtain her Bachelor's degree in order to provide a better
future for their family, she was the first in her family to go to
college. Fast forward to today. Stacie now has her Bachelor's degree
and a Master's degree in School Guidance and Counseling. While this is
the happy part of Stacie's story, the sad part is that Stacie and her
husband are considering uprooting their three children and selling
their home because they can't afford both student loans and a mortgage.
The saddest part of Stacie's story is that the money her family would
realize from the sale of their home won't even pay off the student
loans. It will only be enough to take off some of the financial
pressure they otherwise would be feeling.
Katie Miller is a student at Southern Illinois University at
Edwardsville. Katie's story is not uncommon. She works part-time and
her parents are unable to provide her with any financial assistance.
She is extremely grateful for the financial aid she receives and
recognizes that without it, she would not be able to go to school even
though she is struggling to pay for food, insurance and other basic
necessities.
Summer Boyd is an elementary teacher in Decatur, IL. She graduated
from Millikin University in 2003 with $65,000 in student loans. As with
Katie, Summer's parents could not afford to help pay for her college
education. So, for the next 25 years, Summer will be paying over $500
each month toward her student loans. She doesn't mind paying for her
education; however, the heavy burden of her student loan debt is
already affecting her future plans. She and her husband want to have
children, but for the time being, they must continue to scrape by each
month and can only hope to someday be able to afford children.
Young people like Stacie, Katie and Summer should not face such high
penalties because they had the desire and determination to pursue
higher education.
An investment in our children's education is an investment in our
Nation's future. We must do what we can today to ensure that America
remains a global leader in the future. Our Nation will be richer--not
just economically, but also culturally and socially--for having given a
higher priority to making college affordable.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 282

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``College Student Relief Act
of 2007''.

SEC. 2. APPLICABLE INTEREST RATES.

Section 427A(l) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1077a(l)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and subject to
paragraph (4)'' after ``Notwithstanding subsection (h)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Special rule for subsidized undergraduate loans.--
Notwithstanding subsection (h), with respect to any loan
made, insured, or guaranteed under this part (other than a
loan made pursuant to section 428B, 428C, or 428H) to or for
an undergraduate student for which the first disbursement is
made on or after--
``(A) July 1, 2007, the applicable rate of interest shall
be 6.12 percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan;
``(B) July 1, 2008, the applicable rate of interest shall
be 5.44 percent on such balance;
``(C) July 1, 2009, the applicable rate of interest shall
be 4.76 percent on such balance;
``(D) July 1, 2010, the applicable rate of interest shall
be 4.08 percent on such balance; and
``(E) July 1, 2011, the applicable rate of interest shall
be 3.40 percent on such balance.''.
______

By Mr. KERRY:
S. 288. A bill to amend titles 10 and 14, United States Code, to
provide for the use of gold in the metal content of the Medal of Honor;
to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this week Cpl Jason Dunham was posthumously
recognized for his bravery in Iraq with the Congressional Medal of
Honor. Corporal Dunham exemplified the valor and selflessness of an
American service member. As a leader of his Marine Corps rifle squad
Corporal Dunham encountered an Iraqi insurgent along the Iraq/Syria
border. Corporal Dunham wrestled the insurgent to the ground when he
become aware that he was about to throw a grenade he had been hiding.
Without a moment's hesitation, Corporal Dunham sacrificed himself and
threw himself on the grenade, using his body as a shield for the rest
of his unit. He died from the wounds he sustained from the blast--but
his act of heroism saved two Marine lives.
Today I reintroduce a bill that would ensure that this Nation more
appropriately honors our veterans and soldiers like Corporal Dunham.
This bill requires the use of 90 percent gold in the Congressional
Medal of Honor instead of gold-plated brass, as is currently used.
The Medal of Honor is the highest award our country bestows for valor
in action against an enemy force. These are ordinary soldiers who
performed extraordinary deeds in battle, often giving what President
Lincoln termed ``the final full measure'' in doing so.
Corporal Dunham in receiving this honor joins many other noble
service members. This is the medal won by Marine Corps pilot, CPT Joe
Foss, who in less than 30 days of combat over Guadalcanal, shot down 23
enemy planes, three in one engagement, and is credited with turning-
back an entire Japanese bombing mission before it could drop a single
bomb.
This is the medal won by Army PVT Edward Moskala who set aside his
personal safety one night on the island of Okinawa to assault two
machine gun nests, provide cover for his unit as it withdrew, and
rescue fallen comrades amidst a hail of enemy fire before finally
suffering a mortal wound.
This is the medal won by PMFC Francis Pierce, Jr., who on the island
of Iwo Jima exposed himself repeatedly to enemy fire to save the lives
of Marines he accompanied, traversing open terrain to rescue comrades
and assaulting enemy positions that endangered his wounded comrades.
This is the medal won by Air Force CPT Hilliard A. Wilbanks who made
repeated strafing runs over an advancing enemy element near Dalat,
Republic of Vietnam on February 24, 1967. Captain Wilbanks' aircraft,
it should be noted, was neither armed nor armored. He made the assaults
by sticking his rifle out the window and flying low over the enemy. His
action saved the lives of friendly forces, but it cost him his own.
Corporal Dunham has now been added to this esteemed group of heroes.
Their brave acts are more than just inspirational stories, they are
sacrifices made by real men and women that serve their country with
pride.
This is a time in history when we are asking more and more from our
men and women in uniform. They answer this call every time with honor
and sacrifice. We should make the medals we award them for these acts
commensurate with their dedication.
Regrettably, the medal itself, though gold in color, is actually
brass plated with gold. It costs only about $30 to craft the award
itself. As a veteran I recognize the value of the Medal does not lie in
its composition but the sacrifices and service that merited it.
However, this is a small way that we can express our gratitude to these
heroes by giving them a medal that shows the depth of our appreciation.
Compared with other medals, the Congressional Medal of Honor, which
is meant to be one of the country's highest honors, falls woefully
short. Congress awards foreign dignitaries, famous singers, and other
civilians, with medals that cost up to $30,000. For our

[[Page S517]]

veterans that give so much of themselves to this country you will agree
that we can do better.
Put simply, this legislation will forge a medal more worthy of the
esteem with which the nation holds those few who have earned the
Congressional Medal of Honor through valor and heroism beyond compare.
______

By Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Webb,
Mr. Casey, and Mr. Rockefeller):
S. 289. A bill to establish the Journey Through Hallowed Ground
National Heritage Area, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Journey
Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area Act, S. 289, a piece of
legislation that seeks to designate some of Virginia's, indeed
America's, most historic and beautiful lands as a national heritage
area.
As I am sure my colleagues are aware, national heritage areas are
intended to encourage residents, government agencies, nonprofit groups,
and private partners to collaboratively plan and implement programs and
projects to recognize, preserve, and celebrate many of America's
defining landscapes. Today, there are 37 national heritage areas spread
out across the United States.
In Virginia, we are lucky enough to have a landscape that is worthy
of the recognition and celebration that a national heritage area
designation would afford it. Stretching through four states, and
generally following the path of the Old Carolina Road, today's Route
15, the Journey Through Hallowed Ground is home to some of our Nation's
greatest historic, cultural, and natural treasures. The region's riches
read like a star-studded list of American History: Monticello,
Montpelier, Manassas, Gettysburg. The list goes on. In all, there are
eight presidential homes, 15 National Historic Landmarks, 47 historic
districts, and the largest collection of Revolutionary and Civil War
battlefields in the country. It is an area, literally, where America
happened.
With the help and tutelage of the National Park Service, this
proposed heritage area would be managed by the Journey Through Hallowed
Ground Partnership, a nonprofit entity whose sole purpose is to trumpet
the magnificence of the hallowed ground's offerings. I am confident
that the Partnership will be tremendous promoters and wonderful
stewards of the resources within the Route 15 corridor. Already, the
partnership has spent years heralding the Region's spectacular natural
and historical resources, and they have worked hard to get this area
the designation and recognition it deserves.
Mr. President, no area in America could possibly be more deserving of
the national heritage area designation than the region affectionately
known as the Journey Through Hallowed Ground. Therefore, I urge my
colleagues to join me in support of this legislation, and I thank you
for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Journey Through Hallowed
Ground National Heritage Area Act.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I am proud to support the Journey Through
Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area Act. Today, that bill is being
introduced by my esteemed colleague, Senator Warner, along with myself
and other Members of the Senate. A bipartisan group also has introduced
this bill in the House of Representatives.
This bill will designate the corridor that runs between Gettysburg,
PA, and Charlottesville, VA, as a National Heritage Area. Within this
proposed area, there are numerous sites of historic importance,
including eight Presidential homes. This hallowed ground is a
geographic area of immense beauty, history, and cultural significance,
which will be protected under the terms of this bill.
For me, this hallowed ground has special personal significance,
drawing me back to thoughts of my ancestors who settled and worked much
of this land centuries before. I cannot visit this part of the country
without harkening back to the tough, resilient women on buckboard
wagons, hard men with rifles walking alongside, and kids tending cattle
as they made their way down the mud trail called the Wilderness Road.
As I wrote in my book ``Born Fighting,'' my ancestors--the Scots-
Irish--were a proud, adventurous people who left their native lands for
the early American colonies in the 18th century. The majority of these
courageous pioneers settled along the Appalachian Mountains from
Pennsylvania southward into Virginia and beyond. Ultimately, they
migrated westward, in the process helping to shape America's
independent, individualistic, unbridled culture.
This bill will help preserve the legacy of these early settlers for
future generations. Moreover, this bill is a truly patriotic piece of
legislation--one that will help us capture the rich diversity and
historic experiences of our American forefathers and mothers.
______

By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Stevens):
S. 290. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a tax credit to rural primary health providers; to the Committee on
Finance.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the ``Rural
Physicians' Relief Act of 2007.'' This important legislation will bring
needed assistance to physicians who provide primary health services to
rural America.
Physicians who provide health care in the most rural locations in
America face challenges unlike their more urban counterparts. Often
great distances, remote locations, limited transportation, and harsh
climate--combine to make health care delivery extremely difficult to
say the very least. Patient populations are small and spread out across
extremely remote areas. As a result, many of these areas tend to be the
most medically underserved areas in the Nation.
In my State of Alaska, a State that is larger than the States of
California, Texas and Montana combined, nearly one-quarter of the
State's population live in communities and villages that are only
reachable by boat or aircraft. In fact, Alaska has fewer roads than any
other State--even fewer roads than Rhode Island. And, unlike Rhode
Island where over 90 percent of the roads are paved, less than 20
percent of the roads are paved in Alaska.
This means that approximately 75 percent of Alaskan communities are
not connected by road to another community with a hospital. This means
that all medical supplies, patients and providers must travel by air.
These remote populations tend to be among the poorest in the State.
Air travel equates to excessively high health care costs--generally 70
percent higher than costs in the Lower 48 States. In short, ``rural''
takes on a new definition in Alaska.
In Alaska, patient access to health care is exacerbated because our
State also faces a chilling crisis--we have 25 percent to 30 percent
fewer physicians than our population needs. In fact, Alaska has one of
the smallest numbers of physicians per capita in the country. We need a
minimum of 500 more doctors just to be at the national average of
physicians per capita. An American Medical News article recently
declared Alaska's precarious situation: ``Alaska has long ranked among
the worst states in terms of physician supply.''
Our physician shortage crisis will only worsen. There is an expected
retirement of at least 118 physicians in Anchorage alone in the next 10
years. In the 1990s, there were 130 new doctors each year. Now that
figure has dropped to only 31 new physicians since 2001. Outside of
Anchorage, one in every eight physician positions is vacant.
Additionally, many physicians are forced out of the Medicare and
Medicaid programs because reimbursement rates simply do not cover the
cost to treat those patients. With Alaska's growing population,
especially of our elderly, this shortage will lead to the severe health
care access crisis for all Alaskans.
On top of harsh physical challenges, Alaska's rural population also
faces significant human challenges. These rural patient populations are
often in the greatest need for primary health care services. Heart
disease, stroke and other cardiovascular diseases are the leading
causes of death in Alaska. Women in our state have higher death rates
from stroke than do women nationally; and mortality among Native

[[Page S518]]

Alaskan women is dramatically on the rise, whereas, it is actually
declining among Caucasian women in the Lower 48. The prevalence of
chronic disease such as diabetes and even tuberculosis is increasing
faster in Alaska than any other state. Each of these health concerns is
magnified because access to health care--especially in rural Alaska--
remains our greatest challenge.
The legislation that I introduce today with Senator Stevens seeks to
lessen this problem. It will both assist physicians who currently
practice in rural America and will provide an incentive to encourage
physicians to practice in these remote and underserved areas.
Specifically, it would give a physician who is a primary health
services provider a $1,000 tax credit for each month that he/she
provides services in a designated ``frontier'' area. Furthermore,
physicians who treat a high percentage of patients from frontier areas
would also be eligible for the tax credit.
My hope is to encourage physicians to practice medicine in rural
Alaska and throughout rural America. Creating incentives that offset
the high cost of providing care in the most remote areas of nation will
go far in recruiting physicians to the areas that are most in need of
their services.
______

By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Lott,
Mr. Vitter, and Mr. Cochran):
S. 292. A bill to establish a bipartisan commission on insurance
reform; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my
colleagues and cosponsors Senators Mary Landrieu, Trent Lott, David
Vitter, and Thad Cochran as we introduce the Commission on Catastrophic
Disaster Risk and Insurance Act of 2007.
As we know all too well, the last few years have brought a
devastating cycle of natural catastrophes in the United States. In 2004
and 2005, we witnessed a series of powerful hurricanes that caused
unthinkable human tragedy and property loss. In my own home State of
Florida, eight catastrophic storms in 15 months caused more than $31
billion in insured damages. Now Florida is witnessing skyrocketing
insurance rates, insurance companies are canceling hundreds of
thousands of policies, and the State's catastrophe fund is depleted.
The inability of the private insurance markets to fully handle the
fallout from these natural disasters has made our Nation's property and
casualty insurance marketplace unstable. This instability has forced
the Federal Government to absorb billions of dollars in uninsured
losses, at a huge cost to all American taxpayers.
Let me be clear--these issues will not just affect Florida or the
coastal States. Natural catastrophes can strike anywhere in our
country. In the few decades, major disasters have been declared in
almost every State. Congress has struggled with these issues time and
time again, but nothing much has gotten accomplished. It's time for a
comprehensive approach to solving our Nation's property and casualty
insurance issues.
This bill would create a Federal commission--made up of a group of
the best experts in the Nation--to quickly recommend to Congress the
best approach to addressing catastrophic risk insurance. In the 1990s,
when I was Insurance Commissioner for the State of Florida, I created a
similar commission, and within months, the commission acted, and many
of its key recommendations became State law.
We need a comprehensive approach that will make sure the United
States is truly prepared for the financial fallout from natural
disasters. I know this complicated process won't be easy for us--but
let's roll up our shirtsleeves and get it done.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 292

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Commission on Catastrophic
Disaster Risk and Insurance Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, which struck the
United States in 2005, caused over $200 billion in total
economic losses, including insured and uninsured losses.
(2) Although private sector insurance is currently
available to spread some catastrophe-related losses
throughout the Nation and internationally, most experts
believe there will be significant insurance and reinsurance
shortages, resulting in dramatic rate increases for consumers
and businesses, and the unavailability of catastrophe
insurance.
(3) The Federal Government has provided and will continue
to provide billions of dollars and resources to pay for
losses from catastrophes, including hurricanes, volcanic
eruptions, tsunamis, tornados, and other disasters, at huge
costs to American taxpayers.
(4) The Federal Government has a critical interest in
ensuring appropriate and fiscally responsible risk management
of catastrophes. Mortgages require reliable property
insurance, and the unavailability of reliable property
insurance would make most real estate transactions
impossible. In addition, the public health, safety, and
welfare demand that structures damaged or destroyed in a
catastrophe be reconstructed as soon as possible. Therefore,
the inability of the private sector insurance and reinsurance
markets to maintain sufficient capacity to enable Americans
to obtain property insurance coverage in the private sector
endangers the national economy and the public health, safety,
and welfare.
(5) Multiple proposals have been introduced in the United
States Congress over the past decade to address catastrophic
risk insurance, including the creation of a national
catastrophic reinsurance fund and the revision of the Federal
tax code to allow insurers to use tax-deferred catastrophe
funds, yet Congress has failed to act on any of these
proposals.
(6) To the extent the United States faces high risks from
catastrophe exposure, essential technical information on
financial structures and innovations in the catastrophe
insurance market is needed.
(7) The most efficient and effective approach to assessing
the catastrophe insurance problem in the public policy
context is to establish a bipartisan commission of experts to
study the management of catastrophic disaster risk, and to
require such commission to timely report its recommendations
to Congress so that Congress can quickly craft a solution to
protect the American people.

SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT.

There is established a bipartisan Commission on
Catastrophic Disaster Risk and Insurance (in this Act
referred to as the ``Commission'').

SEC. 4. MEMBERSHIP.

(a) Members.--The Commission shall be composed of the
following:
(1) The Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
or a designee of the Director.
(2) The Administrator of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration or a designee of the
Administrator.
(3) 12 additional members or their designees of whom one
shall be--
(A) a representative of a consumer group;
(B) a representative of a primary insurance company;
(C) a representative of a reinsurance company;
(D) an independent insurance agent with experience in
writing property and casualty insurance policies;
(E) a State insurance regulator;
(F) a State emergency operations official;
(G) a scientist;
(H) a faculty member of an accredited university with
experience in risk management;
(I) a member of nationally recognized think tank with
experience in risk management;
(J) a homebuilder with experience in structural
engineering;
(K) a mortgage lender; and
(L) a nationally recognized expert in antitrust law.
(b) Manner of Appointment.--
(1) In general.--Any member of the Commission described
under subsection (a)(3) shall be appointed only upon
unanimous agreement of--
(A) the majority leader of the Senate;
(B) the minority leader of the Senate;
(C) the Speaker of the House of Representatives; and
(D) the minority leader of the House of Representatives.
(2) Consultation.--In making any appointment under
paragraph (1), each individual described in paragraph (1)
shall consult with the President.
(c) Eligibility Limitation.--Except as provided in
subsection (a), no member or officer of the Congress, or
other member or officer of the Executive Branch of the United
States Government or any State government may be appointed to
be a member of the Commission.
(d) Period of Appointment.--
(1) In general.--Each member of the Commission shall be
appointed for the life of the Commission.
(2) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Commission shall not
affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner as
the original appointment was made.

[[Page S519]]

(e) Quorum.--
(1) Majority.--A majority of the members of the Commission
shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may hold
hearings.
(2) Approval actions.--All recommendations and reports of
the Commission required by this Act shall be approved only by
a majority vote of a quorum of the Commission.
(f) Chairperson.--The majority leader of the Senate, the
minority leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, and the minority leader of the House of
Representatives shall jointly select 1 member appointed
pursuant to subsection (a) to serve as the Chairperson of the
Commission.
(g) Meetings.--The Council shall meet at the call of its
Chairperson or a majority of its members at any time.

SEC. 5. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.

The Commission shall--
(1) assess--
(A) the condition of the property and casualty insurance
and reinsurance markets in the aftermath of Hurricanes
Katrina, Rita, and Wilma in 2005, and the 4 major hurricanes
that struck the United States in 2004; and
(B) the ongoing exposure of the United States to
earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, and floods; and
(2) recommend and report, as required under section 6, any
necessary legislative and regulatory changes that will--
(A) improve the domestic and international financial health
and competitiveness of such markets; and
(B) assure consumers of the--
(i) availability of adequate insurance coverage when an
insured event occurs; and
(ii) best possible range of insurance products at
competitive prices.

SEC. 6. REPORT.

(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the
appointment of Commission members under section 4, the
Commission shall submit to the President and the Congress a
final report containing a detailed statement of its findings,
together with any recommendations for legislation or
administrative action that the Commission considers
appropriate, in accordance with the requirements of section
5.
(b) Considerations.--In developing any recommendations
under subsection (a), the Commission shall consider--
(1) the catastrophic insurance and reinsurance market
structures and the relevant commercial practices in such
insurance industries in providing insurance protection to
different sectors of the American population;
(2) the constraints and opportunities in implementing a
catastrophic insurance system that can resolve key obstacles
currently impeding broader implementation of catastrophe risk
management and financing with insurance;
(3) methods to improve risk underwriting practices,
including--
(A) analysis of modalities of risk transfer for potential
financial losses;
(B) assessment of private securitization of insurances
risks;
(C) private-public partnerships to increase insurance
capacity in constrained markets; and
(D) the financial feasibility and sustainability of a
national catastrophe pool or regional catastrophe pools
designed to provide adequate insurance coverage and increased
underwriting capacity to insurers and reinsurers;
(4) approaches for implementing a public insurance scheme
for low-income communities, in order to promote risk
reduction and explicit insurance coverage in such
communities;
(5) methods to strengthen insurance regulatory requirements
and supervision of such requirements, including solvency for
catastrophic risk reserves;
(6) methods to promote public insurance policies linked to
programs for loss reduction in the uninsured sectors of the
American population;
(7) methods to strengthen the risk assessment and
enforcement of structural mitigation and vulnerability
reduction measures, such as zoning and building code
compliance;
(8) the appropriate role for the Federal Government in
stabilizing the property and casualty insurance and
reinsurance markets, with an analysis--
(A) of options such as--
(i) a reinsurance mechanism;
(ii) the modernization of Federal taxation policies; and
(iii) an ``insurance of last resort'' mechanism; and
(B) how to fund such options; and
(9) the merits of 3 principle legislative proposals
introduced in the 109th Congress, namely:
(A) The creation of a Federal catastrophe fund to act as a
backup to State catastrophe funds (S. 3117);
(B) Tax-deferred catastrophe accounts for insurers (S.
3115); and
(C) Tax-free catastrophe accounts for policyholders (S.
3116).

SEC. 7. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

(a) Hearings.--The Commission or, at the direction of the
Commission, any subcommittee or member of the Commission,
may, for the purpose of carrying out this Act--
(1) hold such public hearings in such cities and countries,
sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony,
receive such evidence, and administer such oaths or
affirmations as the Commission or such subcommittee or member
considers advisable; and
(2) require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and
testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books,
records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, tapes,
and materials as the Commission or such subcommittee or
member considers advisable.
(b) Issuance and Enforcement of Subpoenas.--
(1) Issuance.--Subpoenas issued under subsection (a) shall
bear the signature of the Chairperson of the Commission and
shall be served by any person or class of persons designated
by the Chairperson for that purpose.
(2) Enforcement.--In the case of contumacy or failure to
obey a subpoena issued under subsection (a), the United
States district court for the judicial district in which the
subpoenaed person resides, is served, or may be found may
issue an order requiring such person to appear at any
designated place to testify or to produce documentary or
other evidence. Any failure to obey the order of the court
may be punished by the court as a contempt of that court.
(3) Confidentiality.--
(A) In general.--Information obtained under a subpoena
issued under subsection (a) which is deemed confidential, or
with reference to which a request for confidential treatment
is made by the person furnishing such information--
(i) shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of
title 5, United States Code; and
(ii) shall not be published or disclosed unless the
Commission determines that the withholding of such
information is contrary to the interest of the United States.
(B) Exception.--The requirements of subparagraph (A) shall
not apply to the publication or disclosure of any data
aggregated in a manner that ensures protection of the
identity of the person furnishing such data.
(c) Authority of Members or Agents of the Commission.--Any
member or agent of the Commission may, if authorized by the
Commission, take any action which the Commission is
authorized to take by this Act.
(d) Obtaining Official Data.--
(1) Authority.--Notwithstanding any provision of section
552a of title 5, United States Code, the Commission may
secure directly from any department or agency of the United
States any information necessary to enable the Commission to
carry out the purposes of this Act.
(2) Procedure.--Upon request of the Chairperson of the
Commission, the head of that department or agency shall
furnish the information requested to the Commission.
(e) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United
States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions
as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
(f) Administrative Support Services.--Upon the request of
the Commission, the Administrator of General Services shall
provide to the Commission, on a reimbursable basis, any
administrative support services necessary for the Commission
to carry out its responsibilities under this Act.
(g) Gifts.--
(1) In general.--The Commission may accept, use, and
dispose of gifts or donations of services or property.
(2) Regulations.--The Commission shall adopt internal
regulations governing the receipt of gifts or donations of
services or property similar to those described in part 2601
of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations.

SEC. 8. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.

(a) Compensation of Members.--Each member of the Commission
who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government
shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent
of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for GS-18 of the
General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5, United States
Code, for each day (including travel time) during which such
member is engaged in the performance of the duties of the
Commission. All members of the Commission who are officers or
employees of the United States shall serve without
compensation in addition to that received for their services
as officers or employees of the United States.
(b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Commission shall
be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from their homes or regular places of
business in the performance of services for the Commission.
(c) Subcommittees.--The Commission may establish
subcommittees and appoint persons to such subcommittees as
the Commission considers appropriate.
(d) Staff.--Subject to such policies as the Commission may
prescribe, the Chairperson of the Commission may appoint and
fix the pay of such additional personnel as the Chairperson
considers appropriate to carry out the duties of the
Commission.
(e) Applicability of Certain Civil Service Laws.--
Subcommittee members and staff of the Commission may be--
(1) appointed without regard to the provisions of title 5,
United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive
service; and
(2) paid without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and
subchapter III of chapter 53 of that title relating to
classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that an
individual so appointed may not receive pay in

[[Page S520]]

excess of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for GS-18
of the General Schedule under section 5332 of that title.
(f) Experts and Consultants.--In carrying out its
objectives, the Commission may procure temporary and
intermittent services of consultants and experts under
section 3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, at rates for
individuals which do not exceed the daily equivalent of the
annual rate of basic pay prescribed for GS-18 of the General
Schedule under section 5332 of that title.
(g) Detail of Government Employees.--Upon request of the
Chairperson of the Commission, any Federal Government
employee may be detailed to the Commission to assist in
carrying out the duties of the Commission--
(1) on a reimbursable basis; and
(2) such detail shall be without interruption or loss of
civil service status or privilege.

SEC. 9. TERMINATION.

The Commission shall terminate 60 days after the date on
which the Commission submits its report under section 6.

SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry
out the purposes of this Act.

____________________