Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I believe the second amendment that we will be voting on here right after lunch or right after noon is the amendment that Senator Durbin and I are proposing related to privatized toll roads. When a State privatizes an existing toll road, it shifts to a private company all responsibility for operations and maintenance in exchange for a cash payment, essentially. Under existing law, privatized toll roads are still included in the calculation of how much each State receives in Federal highway funds. In my view, it does not make good sense for a State to be credited with Federal highway funding needed to maintain that road once it has been shifted out of the public sphere to a private entity and the private entity has taken on the legal responsibility to operate and maintain the road. The amendment would simply remove these privatized toll roads from consideration when we allocate highway funds. The amendment is very narrow. It applies only when a State sells off an existing toll road. It does not apply at all to any new construction. When I say it sells off an existing toll road, I mean that it enters into a lease--in most cases a lease of 75 years or more--with a private entity to operate a toll road and collect the tolls and maintain the road. The amendment has the support of the American Automobile Association and the American Trucking Association. I think it is good legislation. It also has the support of the Owner-Operators Independent Drivers Association and American Highway Users Alliance. This is a modest change in the law governing the allocation of Federal funds for highways, but I think it is a commonsense proposal that should be supported by the Members of the Senate. I hope very much we can adopt this amendment when it comes to a vote. As I say, it is not the first amendment that we are going to consider for this bill; it is the second of the two votes prior to the recess for the weekly caucuses. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up the amendment I have just been speaking about, amendment No. 1759, and ask that the clerk report the amendment by number.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. When any of our States privatize an existing toll road, it, of course, shifts the responsibility to operate and maintain that toll road to a private entity and gets a cash payment in return. Under existing law, these privatized toll roads continue to be included in the calculation for receipt of Federal highway funds. I do not think that makes any sense. This is a commonsense amendment to correct that. This amendment simply ensures that privatized toll roads are removed from consideration when we allocate Federal highway funds. As I say, I think it makes a lot of sense and should apply equally to all States. I urge support for the Bingaman-Durbin amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the hearing scheduled before Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, previously announced for March 14, has been rescheduled and will now be held on Tuesday, March 20, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room SD 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nominations of Adam Sieminski, to be Administrator of the Energy Information Administration, Marcilynn Burke to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Anthony Clark to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and John Norris to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510 6150, or by e-mail to Allison_Seyferth@energy .senate.gov. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224 7571 or Allison Seyferth at (202) 224 4905.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in 2008, Congress passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which established the Troubled Asset Relief Program. That act also included a historic 5-year program to fund two important programs that support rural counties across the country. The county payments program included increased and more equitably distributed funding for the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self- Determination Act, which provides payments to more than 700 counties in 42 States for public roads, schools, and collaborative forest restoration projects. In addition and for the first time in many years it fully funded the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program, which provides payments to 1,850 local governments in 49 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. Both programs have provided a life line for struggling rural counties around the country during the recent recession. In October of 2011, I introduced the County Payment Reauthorization Act of 2011 to extend the benefits of the county payments programs we funded in 2008 for another 5 years. That bill, S. 1687, currently has 32 cosponsors, including 8 Republicans and an Independent. Congressman Heinrich has introduced a companion measure in the House: H.R. 3599. Today, I would like to express my support for Senator Baucus's amendment No. 1825 to extend funding for the two programs by 1 year. Many of us believe that a multiyear extension is critical to provide the budgetary certainty that our rural counties need, so it is unfortunate that we could not get sufficient bipartisan support to move forward with a multiyear extension. In addition to important funding, the amendment would make a few improvements to the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self- Determination Act that we have developed on a bipartisan basis. In fiscal year 2011, it appears that a number of counties in five States failed to submit elections by the date required by section 102(d)(3)(A) of the act. The result was that approximately $2.5 million in title II and III funding was returned to the Treasury, as required by the act. At least some of the counties had compelling reasons for failing to make a timely election, and the amendment provides $2.5 million to the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out projects in those counties consistent with the purpose of the authorized uses of title II project funds. Since some counties don't participate in title II projects, such projects would not be subject to other specific requirements of title II. However, they are intended to be carried out consistent with the spirit of title II, which emphasizes collaborative forest projects. Our expectation is that the Secretary will work closely and collaboratively with those counties in spending that money to further the purposes reflected in those counties' untimely elections. To avoid such problems going forward, the amendment requires the Governor of each eligible State as opposed to each of the more than 700 counties to formally submit title I, II, and III elections for all of their eligible counties by no later than September 30 of each fiscal year. Our hope is that this change, along with improved outreach by the Forest Service, will result in timely elections for the remainder of the Secure Rural Schools Program. Nevertheless, if a Governor does fail to submit an election for any county, the amendment provides that the county will be presumed to have elected to expend 80 percent of its funding through title I. As with the $2.5 million provided to the counties that missed the fiscal year 2011 deadline, the remainder of the county's payment would go to the Secretary concerned for the purpose of entering into and implementing cooperative agreements with willing Federal agencies, State and local governments, private and nonprofit entities, and landowners for protection, restoration, and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat, and other resource objectives consistent with the purposes of the act on Federal land and on non-Federal land in the county where projects would benefit the resources on Federal land. Again, our expectation is that the Secretary will work closely and collaboratively with such counties and, where they exist, their resource advisory committees, in spending that money. We also have added a provision to title II to permit resource advisory committees to expend not more than 10 percent of project funds on administrative expenses if they so choose. That amendment provides additional flexibility to allow the committees to operate more effectively and efficiently. I would like to thank Senator Baucus for his leadership in putting together the necessary offsets for this important amendment and Senator Murkowski for her cooperation in developing the authorizing provisions that are included in the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I wish to speak for a few minutes about gasoline prices, which my colleague from Utah talked about a few minutes ago, also about domestic oil and gas production, and also about access to federally owned oil and gas resources. These are issues that have been raised by numerous Senators on this Transportation bill. They are issues of critical importance to our country's economy, to national security, and to resource management. I have been increasingly concerned that the issues we are debating and the facts that are being put out there are often not the true facts. There is widespread misunderstanding of what needs to be done to deal with this set of issues, in my opinion. Let me start with the issue that is most important to most Americans; that is, the price of gasoline at the pump--the price of oil and then, of course, the price of gasoline. We need to understand clearly what is causing these prices, and we need to be direct with our constituents about what is causing these prices. Let me state as clearly as I can what I believe is really without dispute among experts; that is, we do not face cycles of high gasoline prices in the United States because of a lack of domestic production, and we do not face these cycles of high gasoline prices because of the lack of access to Federal resources or because of some environmental regulation that is getting in the way of us obtaining cheap gasoline. As was made clear in a hearing we had in the Senate Energy Committee in January, the prices we are paying for oil and the products refined from oil, such as gasoline, are set on the world market. They are relatively insensitive to what happens here in the United States with regard to production. Instead, the world price of oil and our gasoline prices are affected more by events beyond our control, such as instability in Libya last year or instability in Iran and concerns about oil supply from Iran this year. First, I have two charts that I think make this point very clearly. I believe this first chart I have in the Chamber is very instructive. This is entitled ``Weekly Retail Price for Premium Unleaded Gasoline, Including Taxes Paid.'' There are two lines on the chart. The top line contains the weekly retail prices in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. You can see how that has fluctuated. This is through January of last year. The comparable prices paid in the United States are reflected in this bottom line. And, of course, the lower prices are because we pay much less in taxes than do these other countries. So it is a useful chart that I think makes a couple of important points. The first point it makes is that the price patterns are remarkably similar in all countries; that is, the prices for gasoline in all of these countries reflect the world price of oil. Second, while the patterns are similar, the U.S. price is significantly lower because of the lower taxes we pay in this country. The second chart I have in the Chamber shows U.S. domestic oil production and U.S. gasoline prices between 1990 and 2011. Here, the red line is the change in domestic production year over year. The blue line is gasoline prices. What is striking about the chart is the lack of relationship between the two lines. Even with U.S. production increasing, as it was at some points, oil prices also were increasing and gasoline prices were increasing. So while domestic oil production plays an important role in the energy security and the economy of our country, its contribution to the world oil balance is not sufficient to bring global oil prices down. For this reason, increased domestic production unfortunately will not bring down gasoline prices in our country. We also need to understand the status of domestic production. Here again, the facts are often misunderstood. For example, we have heard the claim that the United States and the Obama administration have turned away from producing the domestic oil and gas resources we possess. The facts are very much to the contrary. At the hearing we had in January in the Energy Committee, James Burkhard, a managing director of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, described our situation in this country as the ``great revival'' of U.S. oil production. He provided this next graph, which clearly demonstrates what we are experiencing in the United States. This graph shows the net change in production of petroleum liquids in the United States and in other major oil-producing countries between 2008 and 2011. The U.S. increase is shown by this very large column here on the left. We can see that our increase in production is far greater than that of any other country in the world. The United States is now the third largest oil producer in the world, after Russia and Saudi Arabia. Another chart on domestic production is also instructive. This chart shows total U.S. oil production between 2000 and 2011. It clearly demonstrates that current increases in oil production are reversing several years of decline in that production. We have not had to change any environmental laws or limit protections that apply to public lands in order to get these increases. This next chart shows the percentage of our liquid fuel consumption that is imported, including the projections the Energy Information Administration has made out to 2020. The trend is very encouraging. In 2005 we imported almost 60 percent of the oil we consumed. Now we import about 49 percent of the oil we consume. The Energy Information Administration projects that these imports will continue to decline to around 38 percent by 2020. This is an enormous improvement that we would not have thought possible even a few years ago. Now, let me say a few words about natural gas because that is also something which greatly affects utility bills in this country and, of course, is very important to our economy. The good news continues as we look at natural gas. This graph shows U.S. natural gas production between 2000 and 2011. As we can see, there has been a dramatic increase in recent years. As we have heard from the International Energy Agency, headquartered in Paris, U.S. gas production grew by more than 7 percent in 2011. Our natural gas reserves are such that the United States is expected to become an overall net exporter of natural gas in the next decade. And natural gas inventories are now at record highs--20 percent above their level at the same time last year. In fact, there is so much natural gas being produced, frankly, some producers are shutting-in production. They are waiting and hoping that prices improve before they actually sell the natural gas they are able to produce today. This next chart contains production data for the world's largest natural gas producers for the years 2008 through 2010. There are three bars here. The green bar is 2010 production, the most recent data available. This chart shows that in 2009, the United States surpassed Russia and became literally the world's leader in natural gas production. The green bar shows that trend continued in 2010. So, unlike oil, the price of natural gas is not set on the world market. For natural gas, our enormous domestic resources and increased production have a significant effect on the price American consumers have to pay on their utility bills especially. Natural gas prices are near historic lows, and this is important to consumers who depend on this fuel for electricity, for heating. It is good for manufacturers who depend on natural gas. It is good for our economy overall. Further evidence of our extremely robust domestic oil and gas production is the fact that the number of oil and gas drilling rigs active in the United States exceeds that of most of the rest of the world. As of last week, there were 1,981 rigs actively exploring for or developing oil and natural gas in the United States. The best comparable figure we have for rigs operating internationally is 1,871. This does not include Russia. It does not include China. It is probably safe to say, though, that more oil and gas drilling is occurring here in the United States than in any other country in the world. Despite our relatively modest resource base for conventional petroleum, the industry in the United States has led the world in developing state-of-the-art technology for oil and gas exploration and production, tapping both conventional formations and unconventional resources, such as shale and tight sands. To use a boxing metaphor, we are ``punching above our weight'' in oil and gas production, thanks to the technology lead our companies have developed, and it is a success story our country should celebrate. Even in light of this good news on domestic production, we hear claims that the Obama administration has withheld access to the oil and gas that is available on Federal lands and the Outer Continental Shelf. So we in Congress are urged to mandate that virtually all federally owned oil and gas resources be leased for development more quickly without regard to any impact that might have on other resources or economic interests, without any scientific analysis that is currently required. Again, however, the facts tell us a different story. Secretary Salazar testified before our Energy Committee on February 28 that oil production from the Outer Continental Shelf has increased by 30 percent since 2008. It is now at 589 million barrels--in 2010. Annual oil production onshore on Federal lands increased by over 8 million barrels between 2008 and 2011. It is now over 111 million barrels of production. Industry has been given access to millions of acres, much of which they either have not leased--not chosen to lease--or they have not put into production. In 2009, 53 million acres of the resource-rich central and western Gulf of Mexico were offered for lease. Industry chose to lease only 2.7 million out of that 53 million acres. In 2010, 37 million acres of the gulf were offered. Only 2.4 million acres were actually leased in that year. In June of 2012, 3 months from now, the administration will offer another 38 million acres in the central Gulf of Mexico for lease. The Interior Department estimates that these areas could produce 1 billion barrels of oil and 4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The administration has recently proposed a leasing plan for 2012 through 2017 that would make at least 75 percent of the undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas resources on the Outer Continental Shelf available for lease. So even when the industry leases these resources, it often does not move to produce oil or gas from these areas they have leased. Onshore, out of 38 million acres currently under lease, the industry has about 12 million acres actually producing. Offshore, there are a total of 35 million acres under lease. Six million acres of that is actually in production. As of September 2011, industry held over 7,000 permits to drill onshore that were not being used. I have heard it stated that only 2 percent of the acres in the Outer Continental Shelf are currently leased and that this is evidence of lack of access to the resources. In my view, this is a misleading way to think about the current situation. Just as oil is not found uniformly everywhere on land but instead is concentrated where the geology is favorable, the same is true offshore. The total acreage on the Outer Continental Shelf is huge. It is 1.7 billion acres. Much of it does not have oil and gas reserves that can be tapped economically. Oil and gas occurs in the greatest quantities in only a few areas, such as the central and western Gulf of Mexico. It is those productive regions in which the industry expresses interest and which are the primary areas where leasing is occurring that the Obama administration plan would cover. The total 1.7 billion acres is not a useful metric without consideration of which of those acres actually have significant oil and gas resources that are economically recoverable. Much more relevant is the amount of the resources that are being made available. As I pointed out, Secretary Salazar has testified that the proposed 5-year oil and gas leasing plan they have put forward would make more than 75 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf resources available for development. The bottom line is, an increased amount of Federal acres and resources onshore and offshore are being made available to industry. Production on federally owned resources continues to increase. The increase in this production can be even greater if industry would lease and explore and produce on a greater percentage of the lands that are offered to them for lease, the lands that are believed to have some of the highest oil and gas resource potential. Before I close, let me return for a moment to the issue of gasoline prices. It is clear we are increasing our domestic production significantly but that gasoline prices continue to rise. So we need to look for other solutions. This does not mean we are powerless to help reduce the price of gasoline. We know what we need to do. If we want to reduce our vulnerability to world oil prices and to volatility of world oil prices, the most important measure we can take is to find ways to use less oil. One of our colleagues gave a good speech a few years ago in which he advocated that we produce more and use less. We are doing a pretty good job of producing more, and we need to do a better job of using less. We can do much better in this ``use less'' part of the equation without affecting the quality of life in this country. We can do that by being more efficient in our use of fuel, by diversifying our sources of transportation fuel away from oil. We have taken some first steps along this path, notably in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. It passed the Senate with a strong bipartisan vote. That law required us to make our vehicles more efficient and to shift toward relying more on renewable fuel, and it is working. Demand is down. Biofuel use is up. Consumers save money on fuel for their vehicles. Our percentage of imported oil has dropped by over 10 percent. How do we continue on this path forward toward reducing oil use and dependence? I think there are three areas we can focus on. First, we need to enable further expansion of our renewable fuel industry, which is currently facing infrastructure and financing constraints. Second, we need to move forward the timeline for market penetration of electric vehicles. Finally, we need to make sure we use natural gas vehicles in as many applications as make sense based on that technology. Every barrel of oil that we are able to displace in the transportation sector and that we therefore do not need to consume makes our economy stronger. Obviously, it also helps our personal pocketbooks. It makes us less available to the volatility of the current marketplace. This is not to say we should not keep drilling and that the Obama administration should not continue to move forward with its plans to bring even more supplies into the market. We lead the world in innovative exploration and production technology. It is helpful to our economy and our national security to increase domestic supply, and that is exactly what is happening. But in the many debates we will have in the future over issues related to gasoline prices, we need to recognize the key issue very clearly is not lack of access to federally owned oil and gas resources. Our public lands contain many resources and uses that Americans value. We do not need to sacrifice science or balance the protection of these other resources and economic interests in order to have robust domestic production. The long-term solution to the challenge of high and volatile oil prices is to continue to reduce our dependence on oil. This is a strategic vision that President George W. Bush, who had previously worked in the oil industry, clearly articulated in his State of the Union speech in 2006. We subsequently proved in Congress in 2007, the year after that State of the Union speech, that we have the ability to make significant changes in our energy consumption and that it is possible to mobilize a bipartisan consensus to do that. The bipartisan path the Senate embraced in 2007 is still the right approach today. As part of whatever approach we take to energy and transportation in the weeks and months ahead, we need to be honest with our constituents about what works, and we need to keep moving in the direction that we began moving in with that 2007 bill. We need to allow the facts and not the myths to be our best guide. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Hannah Breul, who is a detailee from the Department of Energy working on the staff of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources this year, be granted floor privileges during today's session of the Senate.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, March 14, 2012, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nominations of Adam Sieminski, to be Administrator of the Energy Information Administration, Marcilynn Burke to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Anthony Clark to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and John Norris to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510 6150, or by email to allison_seyferth@ energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224 7571 or Allison Seyferth at (202) 224 4905.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me take a few minutes to describe this legislation for my colleagues and, hopefully, urge them to seriously consider the legislation. It is introduced by me with several cosponsors: Senator Wyden, Senator Sanders, Senator Mark Udall of Colorado, Senator Franken, Senator Coons, Senator Kerry, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Tom Udall from my home State of New Mexico. All of those individuals strongly support what we are trying to do in this legislation. I particularly want to thank the staff of the Senate Energy Committee for the hard work they put into developing this proposal, and particularly Kevin Rennert, who worked very hard on this proposal and got a lot of very useful input from many sectors and many individuals. This is a simple plan to modernize the power sector and guide it toward a future in which more and more of our electricity is generated with cleaner and cleaner energy. The purpose of the legislation is to make sure that, as we continue to grow and power our economy, we leverage the clean resources we have available today and also provide a continuing incentive to develop the cheaper, cleaner technologies that will be needed in the future. We want to make sure we drive continued diversity in our energy sources and allow every region of the country to deploy clean energy using the appropriate resources for that region. We want to make sure we do all of this in a way that supports homegrown innovation and manufacturing and that keeps us competitive in the global clean energy economy. The plan we are putting forward with this legislation would implement a clean energy standard, or CES for short. Let me describe how it works. Starting in 2015, the largest utilities in the country would meet the clean energy standard by showing that a certain percentage of the electricity they sell is produced from clean energy sources. The initial percentage for 2015 is within the capabilities of those utilities today, and each year after 2015 they would be required to sell a little bit more of their electricity from clean sources. They can do so either by making incremental adjustments to their own energy mix to become cleaner and more efficient or by purchasing clean energy from those who provide it at the lowest cost or by purchasing credits on an open and transparent market. To be considered clean, a generator must either be a zero carbon source of energy, such as, renewables and nuclear power, or a generator must have a lower carbon intensity than a modern, efficient coal plant. By carbon intensity, I mean the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per megawatt hour of electricity generated. Generators with low or no carbon intensity receive credits based on that criterion. For example, renewables will receive a full credit per megawatt hour. Most natural gas generators would qualify for something around a half credit, and the more efficient natural gas generators would be incentivized compared to less efficient generators. A coal powerplant would receive some credits if it lowered its carbon intensity by installing carbon-capture technologies, by co-firing with renewable biomass. Accounting for clean in this way means the cleanest resources have the greatest incentive. Also, it means every generator has a continuing incentive to become even more efficient. As the standard increases over time, the generation fleet will transition naturally toward cleaner and cleaner sources to meet it. The clean energy standard sets an overall goal for clean energy, but the optimal and the cheapest set of technologies to use will be determined by the free market. The rate of transition is predictable and it is achievable and the rules of the road are transparent and they are clear. In addition to driving cleaner electricity generation in the power sector, the clean energy standard also rewards industrial efficiency. Combined heat and power units generate electricity while also capturing and using the heat for other purposes, and these units are treated as clean generators under this proposal for the clean energy standard. This will help to deploy this kind of efficiency throughout our country and will provide another source of inexpensive clean energy. Let me also describe what this proposal does not do. The clean energy standard does not put a limit on overall emissions. It does not limit the growth of electricity generation to meet the demands of a growing economy. All that the clean energy standard requires is that the generation we do use in future years and that we add to our fleet gradually becomes cleaner over time. The clean energy standard does not cost the government anything, and it does not raise money for the government to use either. If any money does come to the Treasury as a result of the program because of refusal to participate or to comply, that money would go directly back to the particular State from which it came to fund energy-efficiency programs. Finally, the clean energy standard will not hurt the economy. This past fall I asked the Energy Information Administration to analyze a number of clean energy standard policy options. The results of their study showed a properly designed clean energy standard would have almost zero impact on gross domestic product growth and little or no impact on nationally averaged electricity rates for the first decade of the program. The Energy Information Administration analysis did show that a clean energy standard would result in a substantial deployment of new clean energy and carbon reductions between 20 percent and 40 percent in the power sector by 2035, which is the timeframe provided for in the proposal. I have asked the Energy Information Administration to update their modeling to reflect this final proposal that we are introducing today, and when they have completed that analysis in the next few weeks I plan to hold hearings on the proposal to further explore the benefits and effects of the clean energy standard in the Energy Committee. The goal of the clean energy standard is ambitious. It is a doubling of clean energy production in this country by 2035. But analysis has shown that the goal is achievable and affordable. Meeting the clean energy standard will yield substantial benefits to our health and to our economy and to our global competitiveness, and, of course, to our environment. The bill we are introducing today is simple. It sets a national goal for clean energy. It establishes a transparent framework that lets resources compete to achieve that goal based on how clean they are, and then it gets out of the way and lets the market and American ingenuity determine the best path forward. I think this is a very well thought out proposal and one that deserves the attention of all colleagues. I hope they will look at it seriously, and I hope we can attract additional supporters and cosponsors as the weeks proceed in the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me take a few minutes to describe this legislation for my colleagues and, hopefully, urge them to seriously consider the legislation. It is introduced by me with several cosponsors: Senator Wyden, Senator Sanders, Senator Mark Udall of Colorado, Senator Franken, Senator Coons, Senator Kerry, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Tom Udall from my home State of New Mexico. All of those individuals strongly support what we are trying to do in this legislation. I particularly want to thank the staff of the Senate Energy Committee for the hard work they put into developing this proposal, and particularly Kevin Rennert, who worked very hard on this proposal and got a lot of very useful input from many sectors and many individuals. This is a simple plan to modernize the power sector and guide it toward a future in which more and more of our electricity is generated with cleaner and cleaner energy. The purpose of the legislation is to make sure that, as we continue to grow and power our economy, we leverage the clean resources we have available today and also provide a continuing incentive to develop the cheaper, cleaner technologies that will be needed in the future. We want to make sure we drive continued diversity in our energy sources and allow every region of the country to deploy clean energy using the appropriate resources for that region. We want to make sure we do all of this in a way that supports homegrown innovation and manufacturing and that keeps us competitive in the global clean energy economy. The plan we are putting forward with this legislation would implement a clean energy standard, or CES for short. Let me describe how it works. Starting in 2015, the largest utilities in the country would meet the clean energy standard by showing that a certain percentage of the electricity they sell is produced from clean energy sources. The initial percentage for 2015 is within the capabilities of those utilities today, and each year after 2015 they would be required to sell a little bit more of their electricity from clean sources. They can do so either by making incremental adjustments to their own energy mix to become cleaner and more efficient or by purchasing clean energy from those who provide it at the lowest cost or by purchasing credits on an open and transparent market. To be considered clean, a generator must either be a zero carbon source of energy, such as, renewables and nuclear power, or a generator must have a lower carbon intensity than a modern, efficient coal plant. By carbon intensity, I mean the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per megawatt hour of electricity generated. Generators with low or no carbon intensity receive credits based on that criterion. For example, renewables will receive a full credit per megawatt hour. Most natural gas generators would qualify for something around a half credit, and the more efficient natural gas generators would be incentivized compared to less efficient generators. A coal powerplant would receive some credits if it lowered its carbon intensity by installing carbon-capture technologies, by co-firing with renewable biomass. Accounting for clean in this way means the cleanest resources have the greatest incentive. Also, it means every generator has a continuing incentive to become even more efficient. As the standard increases over time, the generation fleet will transition naturally toward cleaner and cleaner sources to meet it. The clean energy standard sets an overall goal for clean energy, but the optimal and the cheapest set of technologies to use will be determined by the free market. The rate of transition is predictable and it is achievable and the rules of the road are transparent and they are clear. In addition to driving cleaner electricity generation in the power sector, the clean energy standard also rewards industrial efficiency. Combined heat and power units generate electricity while also capturing and using the heat for other purposes, and these units are treated as clean generators under this proposal for the clean energy standard. This will help to deploy this kind of efficiency throughout our country and will provide another source of inexpensive clean energy. Let me also describe what this proposal does not do. The clean energy standard does not put a limit on overall emissions. It does not limit the growth of electricity generation to meet the demands of a growing economy. All that the clean energy standard requires is that the generation we do use in future years and that we add to our fleet gradually becomes cleaner over time. The clean energy standard does not cost the government anything, and it does not raise money for the government to use either. If any money does come to the Treasury as a result of the program because of refusal to participate or to comply, that money would go directly back to the particular State from which it came to fund energy-efficiency programs. Finally, the clean energy standard will not hurt the economy. This past fall I asked the Energy Information Administration to analyze a number of clean energy standard policy options. The results of their study showed a properly designed clean energy standard would have almost zero impact on gross domestic product growth and little or no impact on nationally averaged electricity rates for the first decade of the program. The Energy Information Administration analysis did show that a clean energy standard would result in a substantial deployment of new clean energy and carbon reductions between 20 percent and 40 percent in the power sector by 2035, which is the timeframe provided for in the proposal. I have asked the Energy Information Administration to update their modeling to reflect this final proposal that we are introducing today, and when they have completed that analysis in the next few weeks I plan to hold hearings on the proposal to further explore the benefits and effects of the clean energy standard in the Energy Committee. The goal of the clean energy standard is ambitious. It is a doubling of clean energy production in this country by 2035. But analysis has shown that the goal is achievable and affordable. Meeting the clean energy standard will yield substantial benefits to our health and to our economy and to our global competitiveness, and, of course, to our environment. The bill we are introducing today is simple. It sets a national goal for clean energy. It establishes a transparent framework that lets resources compete to achieve that goal based on how clean they are, and then it gets out of the way and lets the market and American ingenuity determine the best path forward. I think this is a very well thought out proposal and one that deserves the attention of all colleagues. I hope they will look at it seriously, and I hope we can attract additional supporters and cosponsors as the weeks proceed in the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public of an addition to a previously announced hearing before the Subcommittee on National Parks. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, March 7, 2012, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. In addition to the other measures previously announced, the Committee will also consider: S. 2131, a bill to reauthorize the Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area, the Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area, and the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor; and S. 2133, a bill to reauthorize the America's Agricultural Heritage Partnership in the State of Iowa. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510 6150, or by email to Jake_McCook@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact David Brooks (202) 224 9863 or Jake McCook (202) 224 9313. commitee on indian affairs

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before Subcommittee on National Parks. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, March 7, 2012, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 29, a bill to establish the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area; S. 1150, a bill to establish the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area in the State of Pennsylvania; S. 1191, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to carry out a study regarding the suitability and feasibility of establishing the Naugatuck River Valley National Heritage Area in Connecticut; S. 1198, a bill to reauthorize the Essex National Heritage Area; S. 1215, a bill to provide for the exchange of land located in the Lowell National Historical Park; S. 1589, a bill to extend the authorization for the Coastal Heritage Trail in the State of New Jersey; S. 1708, a bill to establish the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park; H.R. 1141, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating prehistoric, historic, and limestone forest sites on Rota, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, as a unit of the National Park System. H.R. 2606, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to allow the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in the Gateway National Recreation Area, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510 6150, or by email to Jake__McCook@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact David Brooks (202) 224 9863 or Jake McCook (202) 224 9313.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 13, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room SD 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the ``Report of the Independent Consultant's Review with Respect to the Department of Energy Loan and Loan Guarantee Portfolio.'' Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510 6150, or by email to Abigail__Campbell@energy.senate .gov. For further information, please contact Michael Carr at 202 224 8164 or Colin Hayes at (202) 224 4797 or Abigail Campbell at 202 224 1219.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I come to the floor, along with my colleague Senator Udall, to honor Ben Lujan, who is the longtime speaker of the New Mexico House of Representatives. After tirelessly representing District 46 in our State legislature for 37 years--the last 12 years of that 37 years as speaker of the house--Ben is retiring. He is doing so to pursue his fight against lung cancer. I am certain he will bring the same strength and tenacity and courage to that battle that he has brought to every other endeavor he has taken on throughout his life. Throughout his long career, he has fought fiercely to ensure that the needs of his fellow New Mexicans were being addressed. He has worked hard to improve the quality of New Mexico's school system. He has fought for the rights of our workers, and he has worked hard at strengthening our economy. I know I speak for all of his colleagues in our State legislature when I say that his service and strength throughout his recent personal difficulties have been an inspiration to all, and his fighting spirit will be missed once he leaves our legislature. His exemplary work ethic is something to which we should all aspire. He was born into a family of nine children, the son of a sheepherder in the small town of Nambe in northern New Mexico. In 1957 he began working as an ironworker at Los Alamos National Laboratory. It was from these experiences that he learned the importance of always striving to do better, to do more, not only for his family but for his community and for his beloved State. In 1970 he began his extraordinary public service when he was elected to Santa Fe's County Commission. He aspired to have a wider impact, and he ran for the New Mexico House of Representatives in 1975. After nearly a quarter of a century in the house, he was elected by his colleagues as the speaker of the house in 2001. His devotion is a characteristic that is reflected in all aspects of his life, public and private. He and his wife Carmen have been married for 52 years. His children--Shirley, Jackie, Jerome, and Ben Ray--are a testament to the values with which they were raised. In fact, we are fortunate to have his son Ben Ray as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives representing the Third District of New Mexico. Tom and I have had the good fortune to serve with Ben Ray in the New Mexico delegation, and he represents our State extremely well. All of us whose lives have been enriched by Ben Lujan's work in bettering our State owe him a debt of gratitude for his service. His illness has not hindered his dedication and hard work for our State, as he continued running the house of representatives in our State throughout the current session of our legislature, which is expected to end today. I am joined with all New Mexicans and Senator Udall in extending my gratitude to the speaker for his extraordinary work for the people of New Mexico. We are, indeed, fortunate to have had a man of his character serving our State in such an exemplary way and in such an important position for so many years. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Aoife Delargy, who is an intern in my office, be granted floor privileges during the pendency of S. 1813, the surface transportation bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 6, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room SD 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the President's Proposed Budget for fiscal year 2013 for the Forest Service. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, room 304 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510 6150, or by email to Jake_McCook@energy.senate .gov. For further information, please contact please contact Scott Miller (202) 224 5488 or Jake McCook (202) 224 9313.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I want to talk about another subject; that is, five of the executive branch nominations that are pending before the Senate today. To put this in context, every day when the Senate is in session, one of the documents that is put on every desk here in the Senate Chamber is what is called the Executive Calendar. The Executive Calendar is a listing of all the nominations that have been reported by the various committees of the Senate for consideration by the full Senate. These are, of course, nominations that the President has made and asks the Senate to agree with. So there is usually a list of these executive nominations. I have become particularly concerned in recent weeks that this list has grown and grown and grown. In fact, there are now 79 appointments that the President has made, nominations that the President has made, that have been approved by the various committees of the Senate but have not been brought up and voted on here in the Senate itself. That, to me, is an unfortunate result and one with which we need to concern ourselves. I want to particularly talk about five of these nominations for important offices in the Department of Energy. We have Secretary of Energy Steven Chu coming before the Energy Committee on Thursday to talk about the President's proposed budget as it affects the Department of Energy in the upcoming year. These are nominations for management positions in his Department, he is very much in favor of us moving ahead. Each of these offices--these five I am talking about here--has important responsibilities. Together, the five of them make up a large part of the management structure of the Department of Energy. A frequent observation I hear on the Senate floor about energy policy in our country is that the United States needs to have an ``all of the above'' approach to energy. I do not know how we can execute an ``all of the above'' strategy for energy when we have vacancies in the key government offices that oversee fossil energy, nuclear energy, renewable energy, energy efficiency, small and minority business access to energy programs, and we have a vacancy in the legal counsel office for the Department of Energy as well. The President has nominated five outstanding individuals to fill these ``all of the above'' energy posts. Our committee, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, held hearings on each of the nominees, has examined their qualifications, and I am pleased to report that the committee reported all five of these nominees unanimously, recommending to the full Senate that we approve them. The most senior of the five positions is the office of the Under Secretary of Energy. The Under Secretary's responsibilities include energy efficiency, renewable energy, fossil energy, nuclear energy, and electricity. This position has been vacant for nearly a year and a half. The President has nominated Dr. Arun Majumdar to this important post. Dr. Majumdar is currently the Director of ARPA-E, the Advanced Research Projects Agency located at the Department of Energy. The Senate confirmed Dr. Majumdar to the position he now holds at ARPA-E as the Director of ARPA-E in October of 2009. He is currently serving as the Under Secretary on an acting basis, and serving as Secretary Chu's senior adviser. Dr. Majumdar is a highly distinguished scientist and engineer. Before he came to Washington, he was the associate laboratory director for Energy and Environment at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. He was a professor of mechanical engineering and materials sciences and engineering at The University of California at Berkeley. He holds a dozen patents. He has authored close to 200 scientific papers. He has served as an adviser to both the National Science Foundation and the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, as well as startup companies and venture capital firms in Silicon Valley. He holds a doctorate from UC Berkeley, and he is a member of the National Academy of Engineering. So it is clear to anyone who looks at his qualifications that he is an eminently qualified scientist, and, frankly, we are very fortunate to have someone of his caliber willing to serve as the Under Secretary of Energy. The second nomination I want to talk about is for the general counsel's position at the Department. This is, of course, the Department's top legal officer. This position has been vacant since last March--nearly a year. The President has nominated Gregory Woods to be the general counsel. Mr. Woods is currently the deputy general counsel in the Department of Transportation. He was previously a partner in a New York law firm. He was a trial lawyer in the Department of Justice before that. The third office I want to speak about is the Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy. This important office is responsible for research and development programs that cover coal, oil, and natural gas. It is a position that has been vacant for over a year. The President has nominated Charles McConnell to be the next Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy. Mr. McConnell is currently the Chief Operating Officer of the Office of Fossil Energy. Before coming to the Department of Energy, he spent 2 years as a vice president at Battelle Energy Technology and 31 years before that at Praxair, Inc., a Fortune 500 company that produces industrial gases. The fourth vacant office I want to speak briefly about is that of the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. This office is responsible for programs designed to increase the production and use of solar and wind and geothermal and biomass and hydrogen and ethanol fuels, for improving energy efficiency in the transportation and building and industrial and utility sectors, and for administering programs that provide financial assistance to State energy programs and weatherization for low-income housing. For this position, the President has nominated Dr. David Danielson. Dr. Danielson is currently a program director at ARPA-E. Before that he was a clean energy venture capitalist specializing in financing of solar and wind and biofuels and carbon capture and storage and advanced lighting projects. He holds a doctorate in material science and engineering from MIT. The fifth and final office I want to mention is that of the Director of Minority Economic Impact, which is responsible for advising the Secretary on the effects of energy policies on minority business enterprises and educational institutions and communities and on ways to ensure that minorities are afforded an opportunity to participate fully in the Department's programs. This position has been vacant for nearly 2 years. The President has nominated LaDoris Harris to head the office. Ms. Harris is currently the president and chief executive officer of Jabo Industries, a minority-woman-owned management consulting firm that specializes in energy and information technology and the health care industry. She has previously been an executive with General Electric and has held executive and management positions at ABB and at Westinghouse before that. All five of these nominees are outstanding individuals who are especially well-qualified for the positions for which they have been nominated. These are important positions. They need to be filled. All five nominations were unanimously reported, as I indicated before, by our Energy and Natural Resources Committee this last fall. Four of them have been on the calendar--the Senate's Executive Calendar--since November 10. The fifth was added on December 15. I am not aware of a single objection that has been raised--any objection on any substantive basis for any one of these. In my view, they all deserve to be confirmed, and Secretary Chu deserves to have them confirmed so that he can implement the policies and the laws we are enacting in a responsible way. I will ask consent now to go ahead and approve these nominees and see if we can get at least these 5 out of the 79 who are on the Executive Calendar approved. Hopefully, that will allow Senators to see that there is a way to get some of these executive nominees approved as well. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 493, 494, 495, 496, and 527; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no interviewing action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, maybe if I could just be clear as to exactly what action the Senator from Kentucky is requesting of the Secretary--I know he indicated that he had contacted the Secretary or written to the Secretary and had not heard back. But is there some specific action that the Secretary is being asked to take that we can clarify so that we would know whether this is a request that could be accommodated?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, let me just indicate to my colleague from Kentucky that I am encouraged to hear that this is an action that could be taken without any cost to the taxpayer. I think that is obviously important. I do not know all of the arguments for and against the action the Senator is advocating or requesting. But we certainly will look into that. Let me ask one additional question, if I could. If we are able to accommodate the Senator from Kentucky with regard to this request he has made to the Secretary of Energy, is that the only objection he is aware of to the approval of these five nominees or are we going to have additional Senators coming to the floor raising additional objections in the future, even if this action is taken?