Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I am saying before I agree to that specific time I would like to be sure to protect Senator Cantwell.

Mr. BINGAMAN. That would essentially replace the LIHEAP provisions with a sense of the Senate.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, in response to the question, my understanding is Senator Cantwell, from Washington, did want to speak on this LIHEAP issue. I don't feel comfortable just agreeing we are going to lock her out of that opportunity. I think we have been advising people that the LIHEAP issue had been put aside for some period of time. Until we can consult with her, at least, and find out--as I understand it, the Senator is suggesting we go ahead and go to a vote on the Gregg amendment?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the comments of the leader. I know of his strong commitment to this underlying amendment. I will say what everyone in the Senate knows, which is his reputation, a well-earned reputation, for straight dealing. He indicated to me before I offered the amendment that he would be compelled to oppose it, and I certainly understand. I am anxious to accommodate some of the concerns he has raised. With that in mind, I send a modification of the amendment to the desk.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I am glad to ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me explain what I did with the modification. I dealt with the issue Senator Daschle raised about his concern that the language in the previous amendment, as I offered it with Senator Sununu, allowed the Secretary to act on the basis of a prediction about what was going to happen. That language was in the bill, and I just modified the bill to provide that the President--let me clarify that nothing in this amendment gives the Secretary authority to act. This amendment only gives the President authority to act. The President can only act on the basis of a determination made by his or her Secretary of Energy. Now, with the modification, it would be a determination made by his or her Secretary of Energy that this ethanol mandate, in fact, has resulted in an increase in the average cost of gasoline to end users or it has resulted in a significant interruption or has resulted in an increase in the average cost by at least 10 cents per gallon as a result of the mandate. In response to that concern Senator Daschle raised, I want to be clear that we have dealt with that in the modification I have just sent to the desk. Let me also address briefly the other issues Senator Daschle raised. He indicated the need for this is not there because, in fact, the Energy Information Agency in the Department of Energy has said this mandate will result in an increase in the price of gas per gallon of less than one-half of 1 cent per gallon, and the California Energy Commission has also concluded that there is no appreciable increase that will result from this mandate. First of all, if you look into the analyses that were done both by the Department of Energy and the California Energy Commission, they were looking over the long term and saying over the long term there will not be, in their view, a substantial increase in the price of gasoline as a result of this mandate. That may well be true. Our amendment does not deal with the long term. Our amendment tries to deal with the short term, and that is where there is a price spike, where there is a supply disruption that causes the price to go up an additional 10 cents per gallon because of the ethanol mandate, if that occurs, and it may well not occur. So there is a difference between the studies that they did, which are long term, and the issue we are trying to deal with, which is short term. I also point out that another sort of flaw in the argument, at least in my view, is that we are now saying we do not need to put this extra safety valve in the legislation because we have a prediction by the Energy Information Agency and we have a prediction by the California Energy Commission that this will not be needed down the road. It may well not be needed, and certainly I am not here to predict that it will be needed. I am just saying this is a good insurance policy. This is a good safety valve. The Energy Information Agency has been known to make mistakes in their predictions. As to the California Energy Commission, although I am not totally familiar with all of their work, I would venture to say they have probably made a few mistakes in their predictions. I do not know exactly where they were on their predictions with regard to the price of electricity in California a few years ago, but they may well have missed the mark in predicting what that price was going to be, and they might well have wished there was some similar authority to this in place that could have been exercised or had been exercised when that crisis hit. So I think this is good government practice, and clearly under most circumstances the appropriate course is to give public notice, to have opportunity for comment and hearings, have all the sides, all the interest groups come in and give their point of view. That is a good course. But if the price of ethanol has gone up substantially or there has been a supply disruption or there has been something that has occurred that has caused the price of gasoline to jump more than 10 cents that is directly traceable to this mandate, I believe the wise course is for us to give authority to the President to take action if he or she decides to take action. As I say, there is nothing in this amendment that requires anyone to do anything. This amendment merely gives people authority to take action if a crisis occurs, if a price spike occurs, if they determine that action is appropriate. It is possible, in some future administration, that there will be a Secretary of Energy who is opposed to ethanol perhaps, but I assume that the American people are going to elect Presidents in the future who reflect their views on most issues. If they do not reflect their views, then of course the voters have the opportunity to hold them accountable when there is a follow-on election. Clearly, I think we are mandating a substantial increase in the use of ethanol. I am not opposing that in this amendment, but I am saying let us at least be a little bit humble about our own ability to predict what might occur in the future. If, in fact, there is a significant price spike because of some problem in transitioning to this new fuel mixture, if there is some price spike as a result of interruptions in supply, then let's have the President, with the authority, deal with the situation, and let's not just say, okay, we are going to require that they go through the normal hoops, give public notice and comments, have hearings, and all of that. I think there is certainly a time for all of that, but there is also a time to take action. When the American people elect a President, they expect the President to have authority to act when the circumstance requires. That is what our amendment would do, and we hope very much it will be agreed to. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first, I thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Domenici, for his comments. I agree with his request that we move ahead with amendments. I know there are many Senators with amendments they want to offer. I think the logical thing to do is to try to deal with all of the ethanol-related amendments at this stage in the consideration of the bill. I hope that by offering an ethanol- related amendment now, on behalf of myself and Senator Sununu, we can begin the process of considering these amendments in a thoughtful way and, hopefully, work through them over the next day or two. Amendment No. 851 To Amendment No. 850 Mr. President, with that, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. It is an amendment to amendment No. 850 that Senator Domenici offered on behalf of Senator Frist and others.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following individuals from my office be allowed floor privileges during the duration of the Energy bill over the next several days and perhaps weeks: Jesse Watson, Fayla Lucero, Evan Cochnar, Kelly-Renae Edwards, Nick Goldberg, Joshua Medina, Chet Roach, Daniel Peters, and Elaine Blest.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent that Wendy Miller, who is a fellow with Senator Lieberman's office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the pendency of S. 14.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that I believe will provide the necessary incentives to improve State efforts in the use of recycled materials in highway construction and maintenance. The use of recycled materials in highways is an established process in certain parts of the United States, with some States using recycled materials on a regular basis. These materials include fly ash, bottom ash, rubber products from old tires, and reprocessed concrete and asphalt pavements. Less commonly used recycled commodities include glass and plastic. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials has recently approved specifications for the use of biomass, including small diameter timber, providing an additional avenue for use of recycled material. The list of accomplishments is impressive, but its application is limited. Many States could do much more with the use of recycled materials in their highway systems. Challenges faced by States in the use of recycled material in highways are attributed to several factors. Some State Departments of Transportation are unaware of the different types of recycled materials that are available in today's construction industry. Others do not have the technical expertise to take advantage of the broad range of recycled materials and techniques. Some may not have developed the necessary procurement infrastructure to include the use of recycled materials in highway construction. To assist States in overcoming these obstacles and to provide necessary incentives for the expansion of this economically and environmentally viable practice, I am introducing the Recycled Roads Act of 2003. The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to establish a recycled roads incentive grant program to encourage the use of recyclable material in the construction of Federal-aid highways by States and Indian tribes. The program will provide two types of grants. The first type, which is funded up to $125,000 per year, will be for a State or Indian tribe to use in employing a coordinator to promote the use of recyclable material in Federal-aid highway construction. The second type, which is funded up to $1,400,000 per year, will be for a State or Indian tribe to use to carry out projects and activities to promote the expanded use of recycled material in Federal-aid highway construction and maintenance. Total funding for both grants is $123,525,000 per year. The case for expanded use of recycled materials in road construction is clear. Dr. T. Taylor Eighmy, Director of the University of New Hampshire Recycled Materials Resource Center, from an article entitled ``The Road to Reuse'' published in the professional journal Civil Engineering, states the case well: ``Why should we as a society continue to dispose of materials that may have inherent engineering value and suitable environmental properties and continue to rely on nonrenewable natural resources in constructing the U.S. infrastructure? Indeed, these materials may become increasingly deserving of consideration as we tackle deteriorating infrastructure problems in the United States. And the use of recycled materials in lieu of natural materials may provide additional environmental benefits through better performance and lower cost because there would be less need to mine, process, and transport traditional materials. ``Applications for recycled materials within the highway environment include both bound and unbound uses: asphalt pavements, portland cement concrete pavement, granular bases and subbases, stabilized bases, embankments, structural fills, flowable fills, soil cover and erosion control, and appurtenances. Materials such as reclaimed asphalt pavement, RAP, are widely recycled using both in-place and off-site recycling methods. More than 45 States use RAP. The National Asphalt Paving Association reported in April 2000 that RAP has one of the highest recycling rates in the United States--close to 80 percent. About 73 million tons are recycled each year, saving the taxpayers about $300 million annually.'' The example of RAP is one of our best success stories in the use of recycled materials in roads. However, there is much more that can be done. As Dr. Eighmy explains, ``. . . the number of states that use recycled materials varies significantly, as do the approaches states take in conducting beneficial use determinations, particularly on less traditional materials. There is a general sense that states with higher industrial activities use more of the resulting by-products. . . . There also appears to be a relation between a state's commitment to recycling and the maturity of the beneficial use program in that state.'' The Federal Highway Administration produced a policy on recycled materials in February of 2002, which strongly encourages the use of existing recyclable materials in highway construction and maintenance. As stated in the policy, ``Recycling presents environmental opportunities and challenges, which, when appropriately addressed, can maximize the benefits of reuse. The use of most recycled materials poses no threat or danger to the air, soil, or water. Furthermore, careful design, engineering and application of recycled materials can reduce or eliminate the need to search for and extract new, virgin materials from the land. ``The engineering feasibility of using recycled materials has been demonstrated in research, field studies, experimental projects and long-term performance testing and analysis. Significant advances in technology over the past decade have increased the types of recycled materials in use and the range of their applications. When appropriately used, recycled materials can effectively and safely reduce cost, stave time, offer equal or in some cases, significant improvement to performance qualities, and provide long-term environmental benefits.'' The Federal Highway Administration policy is supported by both science and a common sense approach to the needs of building and maintaining our national highway system. This bill provides the necessary incentives to expand these beneficial recycling practices, and increase the associated environmental and engineering impacts. In addition, this legislation was developed in consultation with several stakeholders from the Federal and state governments, and non- governmental organizations. The State of New Mexico, and the non-profit organizations Environmental Defense and the Surface Transportation Policy Project have provided letters expressing their support for this legislation. I ask all Senators to support the Recycled Roads Act of 2003. I look forward to working with the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, to incorporate his bill into the full 6-year reauthorization of the transportation bill. I would also like to thank Jeff Steinborn from my office in Las Cruces, New Mexico for his diligent work in developing the initial concept for this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the article from September 2001 professional society journal Civil Engineering entitled ``The Road to Reuse'' by Dr. T. Taylor Eighmy, the February 2002 Federal Highway Administration policy on recycled materials, and letters of support from the State of New Mexico, Environmental Defense, and the Surface Transportation Policy Project be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Schumer and Senator Lincoln, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator for yielding. Amendment No. 845 to Amendment No. 539 (Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to accelerate the increase in the refundability of the child tax credit, and for other purposes)

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator and would ask one final question. I think he would agree that solid-state lighting is in its research infancy. While it holds a promise to make white light illumination 10 times more efficient than today's light bulb, it is imperative that the DOE implement this program quickly, and transfer the pre-competitive research to industry, so that our country can retain its leadership position in lighting--a field that Thomas Edison started.

Mr. BINGAMAN. If the Senator would yield for a further question, I would like to know whether he also agrees that our intention is that academia, national laboratories and other research organizations should perform most of the fundamental research, while commercial entities, especially alliance companies, should perform most of the development and demonstration work. The selection of DOE laboratories should be based on demonstrated technical accomplishments in the field of solid-state lighting, particularly inorganic and organic light-emitting diodes.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Section 914 of this legislation directs the Secretary of Energy to establish a research and development program on solid- state lighting. I worked on this provision with the Senator from New Mexico, the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and I thought it would be useful to have his agreement that this program should not be a traditional grant, contract or cooperative agreement effort. The Department of Energy, DOE, should administer this program in partnership with an alliance of solid-state lighting industry partners who will act to guide and evaluate the research.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, will the manager of the legislation yield for a question?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me speak very briefly and indicate my strong support for the Senator from Arkansas and her effort. I think clearly we need to address this major failing of the previously passed tax bill, and we need to do so in a way that is fiscally responsible. That is exactly what the Senator from Arkansas has proposed--to find a way to pay for the refundability of the child tax credit. That is what she proposed earlier in the bill. That is what the Senate agreed to earlier in the bill. That is clearly what we ought to do at this point. I regret that we were not able to do that this afternoon. But I hope the opportunity to do so will recur at some point in the near future and we can, once again, do what we believe should be done to try to bring more equity to that tax package which was passed and signed by the President.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I appreciate that. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I certainly have no objection to anything the chairman said, but I would like to clarify, the votes are to start at 4:30 p.m. today; is that what the unanimous-consent agreement provides?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Improved Nutrition and Physical Activity or IMPACT Bill that Senator Frist has introduced with myself and Senators Dodd, DeWine, Clinton, Warner, Murray, Lugar, Landrieu, and Sessions. This is a bill that is critical in this era of chronic disease, as it addresses the mounting public health concerns of obesity, overweight, eating disorders, and their related diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Approximately 61 percent of adults and 13 percent of children and adolescents in our Nation today are overweight or obese. These individuals have a significantly greater risk of diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and stroke than their healthy weight peers. Another 5 to 10 percent of Americans are suffering from eating disorders that can also manifest themselves in a number of physical and psychological illnesses including heart disease, osteoporosis, kidney failure, depression, anxiety, and suicide. Unfortunately, these rates of overweight, obesity, and eating disorders are rising in both adult and child populations. Since obesity is a health problem that disproportionately impacts medically underserved populations, it is rapidly increasing the medical burden on these already overburdened populations. The economic implications of the obesity epidemic are equally disturbing. The estimated direct and indirect annual cost of obesity in the United States is now 117 billion dollars--exceeding the cost of tobacco-related illnesses. These costs will only continue to climb unless we make a concerted effort to stem this dangerous tide by initiating primary and secondary prevention programs. It is this conclusion that led the United States Surgeon General to issue a Call to Action listing the treatment and prevention of obesity as a top national priority. It is this conclusion that has led Secretary Thompson to implement the Steps to a Healthier US initiative. And it is this reality that makes passing the IMPACT bill a critical step towards improving our nation's future health and well-being. Obesity and eating disorders are complex diseases and as such require comprehensive multidisciplinary solutions. IMPACT aims to move us toward those solutions by addressing these diseases on a number of levels. First, it aims to prepare the health care community to deal with obesity from prevention to diagnosis to intervention by adding obesity, overweight, and eating disorders to the list of priority conditions to be addressed in the health professions Title VII training grants. Second, IMPACT supports community-based solutions to increase physical activity and improve nutrition on a number of levels. It provides funding for demonstration projects in communities, schools, health care organizations, and other qualified entities that promote fitness or healthy nutrition. It authorizes the CDC to collect fitness and energy expenditure information from children. It directs AHRQ to review any new information relating to obesity trends among various sub-populations and include such information in its health disparities report. It allows states to use their Preventive Services Block Grant money for community education on nutrition and increased physical activity. It instructs the Secretary to report on what research has been done in the area of obesity, what has been learned from this research, and what future research should be conducted. And finally, it asks the secretary to report on the effectiveness of the Youth Media Campaign in changing children's behaviors and reducing obesity. IMPACT is supported by a wide variety of public and private organizations. The National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity or NANA, an organization including more than 250 national, state, and local organizations and the single largest coalition in the U.S. dedicated to promoting healthy eating and physical activity and reducing obesity states, ``NANA strongly supports your efforts to reduce obesity and improve eating and activity habits in the U.S. through the IMPACT bill.'' Other organizations that have stated their support include the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the Council for States and Territorial Epidemiologists, the Society for Nutrition Education, and the American Dietetic Association. This legislation is an excellent first step in the fight for improved health, but it is not the only step we must take. We need to assist our schools in providing healthy nutrition options and expanding physical activity programs. We need to grow the workforce so that people have access to the healthcare professionals they need to prevent, diagnose, and treat obesity and eating disorders. We need to look at Medicare and Medicaid and insure that they provide the services necessary to help people prevent and treat obesity and its complications so that we reduce the burden of these diseases in these vulnerable populations. And we need to promote research in the areas of obesity prevention and treatment so that we can offer people better and more effective interventions in the future. These are not small goals but they are critical to our nation's health. I will continue to work on additional legislation that will take the next steps toward addressing these and other related concerns. For today, I would like to ask all of my colleagues to join me in taking this very important first step toward reducing obesity and eating disorders by supporting this important legislation. By passing this bill we can truly IMPACT the health of our nation.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that I believe will provide the necessary incentives to improve State efforts in the use of recycled materials in highway construction and maintenance. The use of recycled materials in highways is an established process in certain parts of the United States, with some States using recycled materials on a regular basis. These materials include fly ash, bottom ash, rubber products from old tires, and reprocessed concrete and asphalt pavements. Less commonly used recycled commodities include glass and plastic. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials has recently approved specifications for the use of biomass, including small diameter timber, providing an additional avenue for use of recycled material. The list of accomplishments is impressive, but its application is limited. Many States could do much more with the use of recycled materials in their highway systems. Challenges faced by States in the use of recycled material in highways are attributed to several factors. Some State Departments of Transportation are unaware of the different types of recycled materials that are available in today's construction industry. Others do not have the technical expertise to take advantage of the broad range of recycled materials and techniques. Some may not have developed the necessary procurement infrastructure to include the use of recycled materials in highway construction. To assist States in overcoming these obstacles and to provide necessary incentives for the expansion of this economically and environmentally viable practice, I am introducing the Recycled Roads Act of 2003. The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to establish a recycled roads incentive grant program to encourage the use of recyclable material in the construction of Federal-aid highways by States and Indian tribes. The program will provide two types of grants. The first type, which is funded up to $125,000 per year, will be for a State or Indian tribe to use in employing a coordinator to promote the use of recyclable material in Federal-aid highway construction. The second type, which is funded up to $1,400,000 per year, will be for a State or Indian tribe to use to carry out projects and activities to promote the expanded use of recycled material in Federal-aid highway construction and maintenance. Total funding for both grants is $123,525,000 per year. The case for expanded use of recycled materials in road construction is clear. Dr. T. Taylor Eighmy, Director of the University of New Hampshire Recycled Materials Resource Center, from an article entitled ``The Road to Reuse'' published in the professional journal Civil Engineering, states the case well: ``Why should we as a society continue to dispose of materials that may have inherent engineering value and suitable environmental properties and continue to rely on nonrenewable natural resources in constructing the U.S. infrastructure? Indeed, these materials may become increasingly deserving of consideration as we tackle deteriorating infrastructure problems in the United States. And the use of recycled materials in lieu of natural materials may provide additional environmental benefits through better performance and lower cost because there would be less need to mine, process, and transport traditional materials. ``Applications for recycled materials within the highway environment include both bound and unbound uses: asphalt pavements, portland cement concrete pavement, granular bases and subbases, stabilized bases, embankments, structural fills, flowable fills, soil cover and erosion control, and appurtenances. Materials such as reclaimed asphalt pavement, RAP, are widely recycled using both in-place and off-site recycling methods. More than 45 States use RAP. The National Asphalt Paving Association reported in April 2000 that RAP has one of the highest recycling rates in the United States--close to 80 percent. About 73 million tons are recycled each year, saving the taxpayers about $300 million annually.'' The example of RAP is one of our best success stories in the use of recycled materials in roads. However, there is much more that can be done. As Dr. Eighmy explains, ``. . . the number of states that use recycled materials varies significantly, as do the approaches states take in conducting beneficial use determinations, particularly on less traditional materials. There is a general sense that states with higher industrial activities use more of the resulting by-products. . . . There also appears to be a relation between a state's commitment to recycling and the maturity of the beneficial use program in that state.'' The Federal Highway Administration produced a policy on recycled materials in February of 2002, which strongly encourages the use of existing recyclable materials in highway construction and maintenance. As stated in the policy, ``Recycling presents environmental opportunities and challenges, which, when appropriately addressed, can maximize the benefits of reuse. The use of most recycled materials poses no threat or danger to the air, soil, or water. Furthermore, careful design, engineering and application of recycled materials can reduce or eliminate the need to search for and extract new, virgin materials from the land. ``The engineering feasibility of using recycled materials has been demonstrated in research, field studies, experimental projects and long-term performance testing and analysis. Significant advances in technology over the past decade have increased the types of recycled materials in use and the range of their applications. When appropriately used, recycled materials can effectively and safely reduce cost, stave time, offer equal or in some cases, significant improvement to performance qualities, and provide long-term environmental benefits.'' The Federal Highway Administration policy is supported by both science and a common sense approach to the needs of building and maintaining our national highway system. This bill provides the necessary incentives to expand these beneficial recycling practices, and increase the associated environmental and engineering impacts. In addition, this legislation was developed in consultation with several stakeholders from the Federal and state governments, and non- governmental organizations. The State of New Mexico, and the non-profit organizations Environmental Defense and the Surface Transportation Policy Project have provided letters expressing their support for this legislation. I ask all Senators to support the Recycled Roads Act of 2003. I look forward to working with the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, to incorporate his bill into the full 6-year reauthorization of the transportation bill. I would also like to thank Jeff Steinborn from my office in Las Cruces, New Mexico for his diligent work in developing the initial concept for this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the article from September 2001 professional society journal Civil Engineering entitled ``The Road to Reuse'' by Dr. T. Taylor Eighmy, the February 2002 Federal Highway Administration policy on recycled materials, and letters of support from the State of New Mexico, Environmental Defense, and the Surface Transportation Policy Project be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Improved Nutrition and Physical Activity or IMPACT Bill that Senator Frist has introduced with myself and Senators Dodd, DeWine, Clinton, Warner, Murray, Lugar, Landrieu, and Sessions. This is a bill that is critical in this era of chronic disease, as it addresses the mounting public health concerns of obesity, overweight, eating disorders, and their related diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Approximately 61 percent of adults and 13 percent of children and adolescents in our Nation today are overweight or obese. These individuals have a significantly greater risk of diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and stroke than their healthy weight peers. Another 5 to 10 percent of Americans are suffering from eating disorders that can also manifest themselves in a number of physical and psychological illnesses including heart disease, osteoporosis, kidney failure, depression, anxiety, and suicide. Unfortunately, these rates of overweight, obesity, and eating disorders are rising in both adult and child populations. Since obesity is a health problem that disproportionately impacts medically underserved populations, it is rapidly increasing the medical burden on these already overburdened populations. The economic implications of the obesity epidemic are equally disturbing. The estimated direct and indirect annual cost of obesity in the United States is now 117 billion dollars--exceeding the cost of tobacco-related illnesses. These costs will only continue to climb unless we make a concerted effort to stem this dangerous tide by initiating primary and secondary prevention programs. It is this conclusion that led the United States Surgeon General to issue a Call to Action listing the treatment and prevention of obesity as a top national priority. It is this conclusion that has led Secretary Thompson to implement the Steps to a Healthier US initiative. And it is this reality that makes passing the IMPACT bill a critical step towards improving our nation's future health and well-being. Obesity and eating disorders are complex diseases and as such require comprehensive multidisciplinary solutions. IMPACT aims to move us toward those solutions by addressing these diseases on a number of levels. First, it aims to prepare the health care community to deal with obesity from prevention to diagnosis to intervention by adding obesity, overweight, and eating disorders to the list of priority conditions to be addressed in the health professions Title VII training grants. Second, IMPACT supports community-based solutions to increase physical activity and improve nutrition on a number of levels. It provides funding for demonstration projects in communities, schools, health care organizations, and other qualified entities that promote fitness or healthy nutrition. It authorizes the CDC to collect fitness and energy expenditure information from children. It directs AHRQ to review any new information relating to obesity trends among various sub-populations and include such information in its health disparities report. It allows states to use their Preventive Services Block Grant money for community education on nutrition and increased physical activity. It instructs the Secretary to report on what research has been done in the area of obesity, what has been learned from this research, and what future research should be conducted. And finally, it asks the secretary to report on the effectiveness of the Youth Media Campaign in changing children's behaviors and reducing obesity. IMPACT is supported by a wide variety of public and private organizations. The National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity or NANA, an organization including more than 250 national, state, and local organizations and the single largest coalition in the U.S. dedicated to promoting healthy eating and physical activity and reducing obesity states, ``NANA strongly supports your efforts to reduce obesity and improve eating and activity habits in the U.S. through the IMPACT bill.'' Other organizations that have stated their support include the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the Council for States and Territorial Epidemiologists, the Society for Nutrition Education, and the American Dietetic Association. This legislation is an excellent first step in the fight for improved health, but it is not the only step we must take. We need to assist our schools in providing healthy nutrition options and expanding physical activity programs. We need to grow the workforce so that people have access to the healthcare professionals they need to prevent, diagnose, and treat obesity and eating disorders. We need to look at Medicare and Medicaid and insure that they provide the services necessary to help people prevent and treat obesity and its complications so that we reduce the burden of these diseases in these vulnerable populations. And we need to promote research in the areas of obesity prevention and treatment so that we can offer people better and more effective interventions in the future. These are not small goals but they are critical to our nation's health. I will continue to work on additional legislation that will take the next steps toward addressing these and other related concerns. For today, I would like to ask all of my colleagues to join me in taking this very important first step toward reducing obesity and eating disorders by supporting this important legislation. By passing this bill we can truly IMPACT the health of our nation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Domenici. I will just very briefly summarize the views I expressed in much greater detail when we began this bill back in May. My own view is there is much in this legislation that has come before the Senate which I support. Unfortunately, there are also provisions in here I do not support, and there are provisions left out of the bill that I believe are important to include in any kind of comprehensive energy bill we might pass through the Senate. On that basis, I did not support the form of the legislation that came out of the Energy Committee. I am hoping during the debate here on the Senate floor we can correct the problems that I believe exist, that we can add some provisions that will improve the bill as regards increased efficiency in the use of energy, that will improve the bill as regards increased diversity in the sources of energy, that will improve the bill as regards a consideration of climate change issues, along with our energy policy. There are a variety of issues that need to be addressed, some that need to be corrected. I look forward to the chance to debate those issues in detail as we get into the amendments. The chairman's intention, perhaps, is to try to begin dealing with the low-income home energy assistance issue today. I hope we can move ahead on that. It is an extremely important provision of the bill. But I look forward to working with the chairman to try to move this legislation forward. In my view, it is important the Congress act in this area. It is important the country modernize the laws that affect our energy supply and energy usage. It has been many years since we have done that in any comprehensive way. So I hope we can make progress. I know that is the chairman's fondest hope. I certainly join in that and intend to do all I can to cooperate. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.