Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Ogallala Aquifer-- also known the High Plains Aquifer--region, an area that is impacted on a daily basis by groundwater pumping for agriculture. In fact, that region leads the Nation in the amount of groundwater pumped for irrigation purposes, with some 17 billion gallons per day being withdrawn for irrigation. I have for many years been concerned about the rapid groundwater depletion occurring in the southern portion of that aquifer. There are parts of the Ogallala underlying New Mexico that have seen a decline in water levels of more than 150 feet since groundwater pumping for agriculture first started.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I understand that the bill before the Senate will make resources available to address the problem of the declining groundwater resources in the Ogallala. It would be helpful to my colleague from Texas and me if the chairwoman and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee could confirm our understanding on certain aspects of the bill. First, am I correct that substantial funds under the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, EQIP, will continue to be made available for practices that result in the conservation of groundwater, including the use of more efficient irrigation systems and conversion to less water-intensive crops or dryland farming, which may, within the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture, include long-term grassland rotation?

Mr. BINGAMAN. With respect to the designation of critical conservation areas under section 2401 of the bill, I would encourage USDA to look to areas where they already have initiatives in place addressing the area. I understand that any funding under this program would be in addition to funding that would otherwise be available to the region under any other provision of the bill. Finally, it is my expectation and understanding that in determining whether an area would be designated as a critical conservation area and in determining the level of funding to be directed to the area, the Secretary would carefully consider areas where continued agricultural activities are threatened by groundwater depletion.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank them as well. Mr. President, in light of the comments we have just made, we will not call up the amendment. The managers can go to the next amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public an addition to a previously announced hearing before the Subcommittee on National Parks. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, June 27, 2012, at 3 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. 3078, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to install in the area of the World War II Memorial in the District of Columbia a suitable plaque or an inscription with the words that President Franklin D. Roosevelt prayed with the United States on June 6, 1944, the morning of D-Day. 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 Sara Tucker (202) 224 6224 or Jake McCook (202) 224 9313.

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 Subcommittee on National Parks. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, June 27, 2012, at 3 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. 1897, a bill to amend Public Law 101 377 to revise the boundaries of the Gettysburg National Military Park to include the Gettysburg Train Station; S. 2158, a bill to establish the Fox-Wisconsin Heritage Parkway National Heritage Area; S. 2229, a bill to authorize the issuance of right-of-way permits for natural gas pipelines in Glacier National Park; S. 2267, a bill to reauthorize the Hudson Valley National Heritage Area; S. 2272, a bill to designate a mountain in the State of Alaska as Mount Denali; S. 2273, a bill to designate the Talkeetna Ranger Station in Talkeetna, Alaska, as the Walter Harper Talkeetna Ranger Station; S. 2286, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain segments of the Farmington River and Salmon Brook in the State of Connecticut as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; S. 2316, a bill to designate the Salt Pond Visitor Center at the Cape Cod National Seashore as the ``Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Salt Pond Visitor Center''; S. 2324, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of the Neches River in the State of Texas for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic River System; S. 2372, a bill to authorize pedestrian and motorized vehicular access in Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area; and S. 3300, a bill to establish the Manhattan Project National Historical Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Los Alamos, New Mexico, and Hanford, Washington. 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 please contact Sara Tucker (202) 224 6224 or Jake McCook (202) 224 9313.

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, June 19, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room SD 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the potential for induced seismicity from energy technologies, including carbon capture and storage, enhanced geothermal systems, production from gas shales, and enhanced oil recovery. 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 Meagan_Gins@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Kevin Rennert at 202 224 7826, Kelly Kryc at 202 224 0537, or Meagan Gins at 202 224 0883.

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 Thursday, June 14, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on competitiveness and collaboration between the U.S. and china on clean energy. 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 Meagan_Gins@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Jonathan Black at (202) 224 6722 or Meagan Gins at (202) 224 0883.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is one that is a bipartisan amendment. Senator Vitter is cosponsoring this with me, also Senators Franken, Shaheen, Kohl, Tom Udall, Tim Johnson, Klobuchar, Merkley, Sanders, and the Presiding Officer, Senator Brown. This amendment addresses the very same issue that the Senator from Maine was talking about; that is, how do we bring down the price of prescription drugs? How do we get competition into the market for prescription drugs? We have a circumstance today in which an anticompetitive, anticonsumer practice is engaged in, and our amendment will change the law so that practice can no longer be engaged in. The practice I am talking about is the entering into so-called pay-for-delay settlements between brand-name drugs--brand-name pharmaceutical companies and generic manufacturers. These pay-for-delay settlements have the effect of delaying timely access to generic drugs. These agreements between companies shield billions of dollars in sales each year from effective competition. The pharmaceutical companies benefit from this lack of competition and they do so at the expense of consumers and they do so at the expense of the Federal Government, since the Federal Government is a very large consumer and purchases a substantial amount of prescription drugs for the military and in other ways. A preliminary estimate from the CBO indicates that this amendment will reduce direct spending by hundreds of millions of dollars at a minimum. Frankly, I believe it will, in fact, save us billions of dollars annually at the Federal Government level. The CBO also indicates that the amendment will reduce the average cost for prescription drugs and lower the cost of health insurance plans. Early access to generic drugs is a key to saving money in the health care system. Kaiser Family Foundation has found this. They concluded that spending in the United States for prescription drugs reached $259.1 billion in 2010. That is nearly six times as much as we spent on prescription drugs in 1990. Since generic drugs are on average four times less expensive--or another way to put that is one-quarter of the cost of the brand-name alternatives--they can be a very important source for reducing the cost in our health care system. To actually receive these savings, consumers have to have access to these generic drugs and have access to them in a timely manner. In 1984, Congress passed the bipartisan Hatch-Waxman Act to create market-based incentives for generic pharmaceutical companies to bring their drugs to market as quickly as possible. The purpose of the law was to incentivize the early generic drug competition while preserving incentives for pioneer companies to develop innovative new medicines. Unfortunately, pay-for-delay settlements between brand-name drugs that already have their products in the market and generic pharmaceutical manufacturers who have not yet brought their products to market have become commonplace, and these agreements, these so-called settlements, have stifled competition and delayed access to generic drugs at a significant cost to everyone who is involved in the health care system. There is a table I want to put up. It relates to three particular drugs, and I will talk about the second two of these drugs because this gives some context to what I am concerned about. This second drug is Lipitor. Everybody knows about Lipitor. It is a cholesterol-lowering drug. It is familiar to most people. It is the best-selling pharmaceutical ever in the history of the world. According to a 2008 New York Times report, a pay-for-delay settlement delayed generic entry into that market--the entry of a generic version of Lipitor--by 20 months. The same report stated the generic version of the drug was estimated to sell for less than one-third the cost of the brand-name Lipitor. It pointed out that the brand-named Lipitor had earned $12.7 billion in sales the year before. According to a letter sent to the FDA Director Hamburg last year from some of my colleagues in the Senate indicating that the Federal Government was spending $2.4 billion a year on Lipitor, they estimated that bringing a generic version to market would generate somewhere between $4 billion and $6.7 billion in savings annually to people who are purchasing this drug in this country. The second example is Provigil. This is a sleep disorder drug. Due to the pay-for-delay settlement entered into there, a generic version of Provigil just came to market this year. Had this amendment we are offering as part of this bill been law, generics very likely would have entered the market 6 years ago with the expiration of exclusivity. The chief executive officer of Cephalon--which is the brand-name manufacturer of Provigil--is quoted as saying: We were able to get six more years of patent protection. That's $4 billion in sales that no one expected. In other words, the Provigil case represents 6 years and millions of dollars of lost savings to consumers, the largest consumer being the U.S. Government and particularly the U.S. military. I have a chart that relates to the U.S. military's potential savings from this amendment. This translates this into dollars that are being paid out by the U.S. military as part of the defense budget, which we are going to be passing later this year. Assuming that a generic version of Provigil would have been released in 2006, the Department of Defense alone would have saved $159 million from this one drug between 2006 and 2011. That is over $150 million from a single prescription drug. If enacted, this amendment would foster more generic competition, would bring generic drugs to the market sooner, and would do so in a manner that is consistent with the original intent of the Hatch-Waxman Act. Passage of the amendment would significantly cut prescription drug costs for American consumers and help reduce the Federal deficit. Let me also allude to an article on the front page of the New York Times. I know some of my colleagues take exception to the New York Times occasionally, but this is an article entitled ``New Fervor for Cutting Costs Among Hospitals and Insurers.'' The reporter is Reed Abelson. About three paragraphs into the article, he states: After years of self-acknowledged profligacy, hospitals, doctors and health insurers say there is a strong effort under way to bring medical costs under control. I was struck by that phrase ``self-acknowledged profligacy in the health care system.'' I think that is what we have engaged in, in the Congress, frankly, is self-acknowledged profligacy in the health care system. This amendment will help to correct that. The amendment has the strong support of AARP, of Families USA, Consumer Federation of America, U.S. PIRG, Consumers Union, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, AFL CIO, AFSME, Walmart, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, among other groups and organizations. If my colleagues favor competition, this amendment helps to promote competition. If we want to see reduced costs to the taxpayer for health care, then this amendment helps to reduce the cost to the taxpayer. If we want to reduce what patients and hospitals and insurance companies have to pay for prescription drugs, this amendment helps to do that as well. I think this is something that is long past time we corrected this problem. This is a great opportunity for us to do so. I believe it is one of the first amendments that will be considered on this legislation. I hope my colleagues will put aside whatever other considerations they might have had in the past and go ahead and vote for this correction in Federal law. This is a problem, frankly, that we passed legislation that provided the opportunity--unfortunately. It was not intended. But an unintended consequence of the earlier legislation that we passed, the Hatch-Waxman Act, was to allow this kind of blocking, these kinds of pay-for-delay settlements to be entered into. We can correct that today. I hope very much we will. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield the floor. Mr. SCHUMER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2111.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I thank Senator Vitter for his comments and for his strong support of this amendment. I thank all of the other cosponsors of the legislation. If we are interested in promoting competition in the health care field so that we can keep prices down, then we need to support this amendment. That is exactly what this does. Under our law in this country, we provide exclusive rights to a company that develops a drug to sell that drug during the time the patent is in effect. But what we are concerned with here is that after that patent is no longer valid, companies are still extending their exclusivity, extending their time when they don't have any competition by entering into these agreements. So we think they can settle their disputes--we don't have a problem there--but they cannot keep other generic manufacturers from coming to the market who also have demonstrated the invalidity of a patent. If we are worried about the cost of health care to the Federal Government--the Federal Government is paying too much for prescription drugs because of this flaw in the Hatch-Waxman Act that we are trying to correct. If we are worried about keeping prices down for hospitals, insurance companies, and consumers, this amendment will help to do that. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I wanted to speak about an amendment which I intend to offer once we do get on this Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act. This is an important amendment. I want to advise my colleagues and all who are listening about it so they can, hopefully, look into it and wind up supporting it. This is an amendment that Senator Vitter has worked with me on, as well as Senators Franken, Shaheen, Kohl, Tom Udall, Tim Johnson, Klobuchar, Merkley, Sanders, and Sherrod Brown. The amendment has the strong support of many organizations that are focused on the cost of prescription drugs. Here is a list: AARP, AFL CIO, Walmart, Families USA, Consumer Federation of America, U.S. PIRG, Consumers Union, Center for Medicare Advocacy, AFSME, National Legislative Association on Prescription Drug Prices, the Alliance for Retired Americans, various other companies and organizations--the New Mexico Pharmacy Association strongly supports this legislation. This amendment addresses the root cause of anticompetitive, anticonsumer settlements that are entered into between brand-name and generic pharmaceutical manufacturing companies. The effect of these settlements they enter into is to delay timely access that consumers would have to generic drugs. This practice is commonly referred to as pay for delay. It costs American consumers and it costs the Federal Government billions of dollars each year in higher drug costs. According to the Federal Trade Commission, in 2010, pay-for-delay agreements, limiting access to affordable generic drugs, protected $20 billion in sales from brand-name pharmaceutical companies. That was at the expense of consumers who would have been able to pay much less for those same drugs. Ensuring access to affordable medication is an essential aspect of addressing the growth in health care spending. Prices for brand-name prescription drugs have continued to outpace inflation, and overall spending on prescription drugs has also increased sharply. These statistics are amazing to me. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that in 2008, spending in the United States for prescription drugs was $234.1 billion. That is nearly six times what it was in 1990. Since generic drugs are, on average, one-fourth of the price of their brand-name alternatives, they can be an important source of affordable prescription drugs for many Americans. But to actually achieve the savings for consumers, those generics have to reach market in a timely manner. In 1984, Congress passed the bipartisan Hatch-Waxman Act to create market-based incentives for generic pharmaceutical companies to bring their drugs to market as quickly as possible. The express purpose of that law was to incentivize early generic drug competition while preserving incentives for pioneer companies to develop innovative new medicines. Instead, the pay-for-delay settlements that our amendment tries to address--these pay-for-delay settlements between brand-name and generic pharmaceutical manufacturers have become commonplace. These settlements stifle competition. They delay access to generic drugs at significant costs to consumers and to the Federal Government. In these settlements, the first filer generic drug company agrees to delay market entry in exchange for monetary or other rewards. This has the effect of blocking all subsequent generic filers in coming to market. This is a complicated issue. I would like to take a few minutes to explain how these agreements work under existing law and also how our amendment would solve this problem as we see it. Under current law, first-to-file generic drug applicants are rewarded with 180 days of market exclusivity. Exclusivity is awarded only to generic companies that are the first to file. It is not available to subsequent filers even if they successfully invalidate a patent and are ready to come to market immediately. So subsequent generic filers can only enter the market after the first generic filer has enjoyed its 180 days of market exclusivity. So under the pay-for-delay settlements, the first filer generic company essentially parks its exclusivity; that is, it blocks all other generic manufacturers from coming to market until 6 months after the market entry date. This is true regardless of the strength of the patent or the readiness of subsequent generic filers to come to market. So this means under pay-for-delay settlements, first filer generic companies receive a reward from brand-name companies for delaying market entry, usually a cash reward, a very substantial amount. They also get a reward from the current statute, this 180-day exclusivity period, and brand-name companies get to extend their monopolies beyond what was originally intended under the Hatch-Waxman legislation. Consumers are left footing the bill and left with no option but to buy the more expensive drugs and to keep buying it, even after the generic should have come to market. ``Pay for delay'' settlements also typically include an agreement that the first-filer generic company can accelerate its entry into the market in the event that a subsequent filer invalidates the patent in question. In such cases, the subsequent filer triggers the first filer's exclusivity. Put simply, there is no incentive for subsequent generic filers to fight to invalidate weak patents and come to market as soon as possible, even when they believe strongly that they would win their case in court. In other words, whereas the original intent of Hatch-Waxman was to reward companies that were the first to file and actually bring their drugs to market, currently the reward goes to the first company to submit the necessary paperwork. Bringing the generic drug to market immediately has become an option that can be negotiated away. To fix the ``pay for delay'' problem, the law needs to be changed so that first filers who enter into ``pay for delay'' settlements can no longer block generic subsequent filers who successfully challenge patents from entering the market and bringing affordable drugs to consumers. The amendment we are offering provides this solution or this fix in the following three ways: First of all, the amendment grants the right to share exclusivity to any generic filer who wins a patent challenge in the district court. This means that if a subsequent filer successfully challenges a patent, even after a first filer has entered into a ``pay for delay'' settlement with a brand-name company, that subsequent filer has a right to share exclusivity with the first filer. This provision provides an incentive for subsequent filers to challenge patents and stimulates competition. Second, the amendment we are offering maximizes the incentive for all generic challengers to bring products to market at the earliest possible time by holding generic settlers to the deferred entry date agreed to in the settlements they have signed. Third, our amendment creates more clarity regarding litigation risks by requiring brand-name companies to make a decision to litigate a patent challenge within the 45-day window provided for in the Hatch- Waxman Act. This ``use it or lose it'' provision enhances market certainty by eliminating the option for brand names to litigate patent challenges well after a generic has come to market. Finally, I think it is important to point out that the amendment we are offering does not interfere with the rights of the parties to settle their patent litigation if they choose to do so. There have been numerous antitrust experts and consumer groups that have identified the Hatch-Waxman Act's structural flaw--the one I have been describing here--as the source of the ``pay for delay'' problem and have called for a legislative solution. In addition, in 2003 Senator Hatch himself expressed concern that the flaw remained despite an attempt to fix it by including a ``use it or lose it'' provision in the Medicaid Modernization Act of 2003. Senator Hatch emphasized that the law should be changed to reward, and not penalize, generic companies that successfully invalidate a patent and are ready to come to market. Let me further underscore the need for this amendment with some concrete examples. I have a chart here that I think will make the point I am trying to make. This table shows three drugs included in ``pay for delay'' settlements. And this is just three; there are many of these settlements entered into each year. The delay to market in years for each of the three drugs--the three drugs are Altace, Lipitor, and Provigil--the delay period the settlements called for in one case is 2 years; in another case 1\1/2\ years; and in the other 6 years. The estimated lost savings to consumers is here. Let me describe each of these a little bit. The first drug is King Pharmaceutical's Altace. A generic version of Altace was delayed for 2 years at an estimated cost of $637 million to consumers under a ``pay for delay'' settlement. In 2007, Lupin invalidated a patent covering Altace. Lupin could not launch, or bring their generic to market, despite being the party responsible for invalidating the patent and opening the market early. Instead, the first filer, Cobalt, accelerated its entry into the market and benefited from 180 days of exclusivity. Lupin was left with no reward despite the fact that they had been the one that succeeded in the litigation to invalidate the patent. The second is a cholesterol-lowering drug familiar to most of us. It is the best-selling pharmaceutical drug in the history of the world, Lipitor. According to a 2008 New York Times report, Pfizer and generic manufacturer Randbaxy Laboratories agreed to a settlement delaying generic entry into the market by 20 months. The same report stated that the generic version of the drug was estimated to sell for less than one-third of the cost of the brand-name Lipitor, which had earned $12.7 billion in sales the year before. A letter sent to FDA Director Hamburg last year by some of my colleagues in the Senate indicated that the Federal Government was spending $2.4 billion a year on Lipitor and that a generic version was expected to generate $3.97 billion to $6.7 billion in savings annually. The final example on the chart here is Provigil, which is a sleep- disorder drug, a generic version of which could have come to market as early as December of 2006. However, due to ``pay for delay'' settlements, a generic version of Provigil just entered the market this year instead of in 2006. In addition, in October 2011, a subsequent generic filer, Apotex, invalidated a patent covering Provigil. Because the first filers in this case settled their patent litigation with the brand company 6 years prior, Apotex could not begin selling generic Provigil despite its court victory. Even the CEO of Cephalon, which is the brand-name manufacturer of Provigil, is quoted as saying--this is the CEO of the brand-name company--this: We were able to get six more years of patent protection. That's $4 billion in sales that no one expected. In other words, the Provigil case represents 6 years and tens of millions of dollars in lost savings to consumers. One of the largest of those consumers is the U.S. military. As this chart illustrates, this is an estimate of the effect of this settlement--the so-called ``pay for delay'' settlement--related to Provigil on the Department of Defense. Assuming that a generic version of Provigil would have been released in 2006 with expiration of exclusivity, the DOD would have saved $159 million for this drug accessed by almost half a million soldiers between the years 2006 and 2011. Had our amendment, the Fair Generics Act, been the law--and we have introduced it as a stand-alone bill--had the Fair Generics Act been the law, generic versions of Provigil would very likely have been available 6 years ago. The first filers, knowing that the patent was weak and that subsequent filers could invalidate it and come to market themselves, would have fully prosecuted the patent fight instead of just settling it as they did. As these examples illustrate, by granting shared exclusivity rights to any generic challenger that wins its patent case or is not sued by the brand company, our amendment will end the ``pay for delay'' problem and move us closer to the original intent of Hatch-Waxman. That original intent was more competition, greater access to affordable drugs, and substantial savings to the U.S. Government and American consumers. I hope that when we get the opportunity to offer this amendment and consider it on the Senate floor and have a vote on it, my colleagues will support this amendment. It will be a substantial step forward for American consumers and will help us greatly in our effort to reduce the cost of prescription drugs for Americans. I yield the floor.

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 Tuesday, May 22, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room SD 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the report produced by the American Energy Innovation Council titled ``Catalyzing American Ingenuity: The Role of Government in Energy Innovation'' and related issues. 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, D.C. 20510 6150, or by e-mail to Abigail_Campbell @energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Mike Carr at (202) 224 8164 or Abigail Campbell at (202) 224 1219.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I understand we are debating the motion to proceed to S. 2343, the Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act of 2012; is that correct?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to urge my colleagues to vote to proceed to this important legislation. I was disappointed to see many of my Republican colleagues voted against allowing debate and amendment on this legislation. I have heard Senators from both sides of the aisle acknowledge the need to prevent the July 1 rate increase on the Stafford loans, the subsidized loans. So it is difficult to understand their unwillingness to even consider the bill and have a thoughtful debate and an opportunity for amendment which will allow us to keep these interest rates low for college students in all of our States. Members may disagree about the best way to pay for keeping the rates at 3.4 percent, but we need to go ahead and proceed to the legislation and pass legislation to accomplish this. If Senators have different proposals, they can offer them. But by blocking debate, we, obviously, cannot get to a solution of this problem. The Democrats have proposed to pay for the legislation by closing a tax loophole that people use to avoid paying Social Security and Medicare taxes. That is the so-called S corporation payroll tax loophole. This proposal would close the loophole for S corporations for which 75 percent of the corporation's income is attributable to the services of three or fewer shareholders. This loophole allows, for example, an individual lawyer or a lobbyist to set up an S corporation to make millions of dollars in fees and to not pay payroll taxes on nearly all that income. All he has to do is give himself a cash dividend from the corporation instead of paying himself wages. This is not a fair arrangement. To be clear, not all small businesses are gaming the system in this way and are not permitted to game the system in this way. This loophole is not available to businesses that are organized as sole proprietorships or as partnerships. Those small businesses are paying their fair share of taxes. By contrast to this way of paying for the continuation of the low interest on student loans, my Republican colleagues have opted for a very different approach. They offset the cost by using the Prevention and Public Health Fund. In my view, this is a misguided approach. The prevention fund is not a slush fund, as it has been called by many. Instead, it is a fund used to help reduce chronic disease such as diabetes and heart disease and to fund immunization programs for children. This is a critical fund that is used to lower long-term health costs and improve health outcomes. In my view, eliminating this fund would simply increase health risks and, ultimately, increase health care costs in this country. It is very clear Democrats and Republicans have a fundamental difference in our approach to how we should maintain student loan interest rates. However, as I said before, it is important we get to the bill, we proceed to vote for cloture on this bill, so we can discuss a path forward and consider amendments, if individual Senators wish to propose amendments. Preparing students for an education is essential for this country's global competitiveness. It is imperative we provide students the tools they need to succeed in this very fast changing economy. This includes access to a high-quality education, which will enable us to train the next generation of Americans for jobs in high-technology fields. This past Tuesday I spoke at a luncheon that was put on by a foundation that supports one of our community colleges in New Mexico. It is clear we have many students who are working very hard to make ends meet and to stay in school so they can obtain the skills they need to earn a good wage, to pursue a constructive career. There are many areas of our economy where these types of trained workers are needed. One area which is obvious in my State and nationwide is in health care. We need to train more nurses. One statistic used in this talk last Tuesday was that over the next 8 years, between now and 2020, we are going to have to add 700,000 more nurses to the health care field to meet the needs of the baby boom generation. In addition to those 700,000, we are going to have to hire an additional 500,000 just to replace those who retire from the nursing profession. So we have 1.2 million nurses who are going to have to be hired in this country over the next 8 years. We need to train those people. There are many young people in this country who would like to have that training. They need student loans in order to be able to cover the costs of that training. That is why this is such an important debate. Student loan debt has, for the first time in our history, surpassed credit card debt. Today this debt exceeds $1 trillion. The average college graduate leaves school with more than $25,000 in loans. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, college costs at State schools are rising and have been rising at an alarming rate. These increased costs far outpace the increased costs of medical care. We are often giving speeches on this Senate floor about the high increase, the excessive increase in medical care costs. In fact, the cost of college for many students is rising even faster. The same thing can be said about gasoline. I see my colleagues rush to the floor whenever the price of gasoline begins moving up--and with good reason. It is a major burden on U.S. families and Americans everywhere. But the growth in these costs pale in comparison to the growth we are seeing in the cost of education. The cost of tuition and fees has nearly sextupled since 1985. This is particularly troublesome for students from low-income families. If we allow interest rates to double, there are 7.4 million students nationwide who will see an increase in the cost of their student loans beginning on the 1st of July. This has a direct impact on students and on families because subsidized Stafford loans are need based, and they are typically designed and focused on helping low- and moderate-income students. In my State of New Mexico, about 40,000--the specific number I have been given is 39,875 but about 40,000 students will see an increase in interest rates if we do not take action before the 1st of July. There are nearly 10,000 undergraduates at New Mexico State University who will feel the effects of doubling rates and there are thousands of students at the University of New Mexico who will also see these increases. This is true of our smaller schools in New Mexico as well. The school I was speaking at last week was Eastern New Mexico University in Roswell. There are 222 students there who took out Stafford student loans during this current academic year. The Department of Education estimates that the average student would pay as much as an additional $1,000 per year for their student loans unless we can keep this interest rate where it is. Not only would incoming students be affected, current students would also feel the increase as they originate a new loan for the new academic year. The additional burden on our students would be substantial. Students and families understand the additional increase in costs. In the last few weeks, I have been hearing from constituents all over my State asking us to prevent this rate increase. One student from Gallup, NM, wrote to me saying: Give a break to the future of this country and to the millions of students and families who need the relief from the debt of college. Another family from Albuquerque wrote to me saying: I write to urge you to vote so that student loan interest rates DO NOT go up. In this recession, more than ever, people of all ages are depending on education as a means of gaining employment, and depending at least in part on student loans. So our constituents are asking us to take action. By doing so we can continue to provide students with stability as they enter and complete their education. A high-quality educational system unleashes the potential of our students. We need world-class problem solvers and thinkers if we are going to remain competitive. By investing in American students, we can grow our economy and build the middle class. Let's move ahead with consideration of this bill. If a majority of Senators wish to change the way the bill is paid for, then we can consider that amendment. But we should not refuse to allow the bill to come to the Senate floor for debate and amendment. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate MG Kenny C. Montoya on the occasion of his retirement as Adjutant General of the New Mexico National Guard, and to thank him for his 30 years of outstanding service to our Nation. General Montoya has served our country well, both as a soldier and as a civilian, and New Mexico and our Nation are grateful for his efforts and service. General Montoya began his distinguished career as an enlisted member of Battery A, 4th Battalion, 200th Air Defense Artillery in Raton, NM. He completed Officer Candidate School and was commissioned in 1983. During his 9 years as Adjutant General of the New Mexico National Guard, General Montoya helped train over 9,000 National Guard men and women. I also want to thank General Montoya for working so well with my staff and me to effectively support the critical missions of the National Guard, our servicemembers, and their families. The New Mexico National Guard has been instrumental in protecting our country and its interests. Under General Montoya's leadership, the New Mexico National Guard has maintained the lowest casualty rate of any State during the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan with one combat casualty out of 9,000 deployments. General Montoya has also been a tireless advocate for the National Guard Counterdrug Program, which provides critical assistance in securing the border and disrupting drug trafficking activities. The New Mexico National Guard has also proved to be a successful partner in natural disaster response, including numerous wildfires and the extreme cold experienced by parts of the State last year. New Mexico has a long and proud history of military service, and we are honored to have many living testaments to American bravery in our State. Knowing his dedication to public service, I am sure General Montoya will continue to play an important role in contributing to our country for years to come. Mr. President, please accept my best wishes for General Montoya and his family as he begins the next chapter in his life. I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

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 Thursday, May 10, 2012, at 9:30 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 S. 2374, The Helium Stewardship Act of 2012. 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 Kelly Kryc at (202) 224 0537, or Abigail Campbell at (202) 224 1219. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

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 Thursday, May 17, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 2146, the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012. 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 Meagan_Gins@energy .senate.gov. For further information, please contact Kevin Rennert at (202) 224 7826 or Meagan Gins at (202) 224 0883.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Columbine- Hondo Wilderness Act which will designate approximately 45,000 acres in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains in northern New Mexico as wilderness. I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Tom Udall, is a cosponsor of this legislation. Located in the Carson National Forest in Taos County, the Columbine- Hondo is one of the last remaining segments of this high alpine ecosystem to receive permanent wilderness protection. The concept of wilderness has deep roots and a long history in the Carson National Forest. For example, in the early 1900s, Aldo Leopold, known as the father of wilderness, spent his early career in the Forest Service in the Carson where he quickly reached the post of Forest Supervisor. There is no doubt that he spent much time traveling through this landscape that likely helped cultivate his thoughts on the importance of wilderness. Leopold's concept of wilderness evolved over time and heavily influenced policy makers and the growing conservation community. He wrote, ``Wilderness is the raw material out of which man has hammered the artifact called civilization. . . . To the laborer in the sweat of his labor, the raw stuff on his anvil is an adversary to be conquered. So was wilderness an adversary to the pioneer. But to the laborer in repose, able for the moment to cast a philosophical eye on his world, that same raw stuff is something to be loved and cherished, because it gives definition and meaning to his life.'' One person who shared that definition and meaning with Aldo Leopold was former New Mexico Senator Clinton P. Anderson. In fact, due in large part to the conversations he had with Leopold forty years earlier, Senator Anderson led the effort in Congress to pass the Wilderness Act of 1964. In that 1964 Act, the Wheeler Peak Wilderness became the first wilderness area in the Carson National Forest, which lies just south of the Columbine-Hondo area. Shortly thereafter in 1970, the Taos Pueblo- Blue Lake Wilderness, adjacent to Wheeler Peak, was established, further demonstrating that the idea of wilderness is a valuable concept to Indian tribes wishing to protect their most sacred sites for future generations. Another decade had to pass before Congress protected additional lands in New Mexico as wilderness in 1980, including the Latir Peak Wilderness, north of the Columbine-Hondo. In that same Act, the Columbine-Hondo was designated as a Wilderness Study Area to allow Congress further time to review the merits of designating this area as wilderness. Aldo Leopold laments in A Sand County Almanac that progress in conservation is slow--a fact that hasn't changed much in modern times. ``Despite nearly a century of propaganda,'' he wrote, ``conservation still proceeds at a snail's pace.'' In this context, it is unfortunately not surprising that it has taken Congress over 30 years to review the merits of the Columbine-Hondo Wilderness Study Area. But the time to permanently protect the Columbine-Hondo is now before us. After many years of hard work by local community leaders, a nearly unanimous consensus has formed in support of protecting this landscape as wilderness. This is due to the longstanding recognition by the surrounding communities and their residents of the benefits that wilderness provides them. The mountains provide communities with clean air and act as a watershed, providing them with fresh and clean water. Sportsmen benefit from the protection of quality habitat that will ensure the elk, deer, and antelope found in the mountains and the fish in the mountain streams will continue to thrive. Communities like the Towns of Taos and Red River and the Villages of Questa and Taos Ski Valley can find economic benefits by attracting visitors seeking opportunities for solitude and quiet recreation, including hiking, birding, horseback riding, and even the occasional llama trekking. And community members can create job opportunities through outfitting and other service industries to assist residents and visitors alike explore these gateways to a more primitive era. Wilderness also ensures that the way of life of many local ranchers will remain protected from threats like mining or disruptive off-road vehicle use. Local mountain biking coalitions have also recognized that a balance can be reached to protect wilderness values while making practical and common sense boundary adjustments that will help promote sustainable mountain biking opportunities in the region. During my tenure in the Senate, it has been relatively uncommon to find such overwhelming support for the establishment of a new wilderness area. I commend the dedication and perseverance exhibited by the many local wilderness advocates who have devoted many years to see this effort come to fruition. Without their help, it may have taken another decade before Congress addressed this long outstanding matter. Congress has had 32 years now to review the designation of the Columbine-Hondo Wilderness. With such broad support having been developed, I urge my colleagues to support this initiative to protect this area without further delay. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Helium Stewardship Act of 2012, along with my cosponsors, Senators Barrasso, Wyden, and Enzi. This bipartisan bill addresses the need for ongoing stewardship of the nation's helium reserve in Amarillo, Texas. The helium reserve is not only a domestic treasure, but it also provides nearly 30 percent of the world's helium. Helium is a commodity that is frequently overlooked and often only considered when you are going to the florist to purchase party balloons for your child's birthday party. I want to take a moment and highlight the importance of this commodity, as well as the importance of the U.S. helium reserve in the world's helium market. Helium is critical to a wide range of industrial, scientific, and medical markets, including medical devices such as MRIs, industrial welding, high tech manufacturing of microchips and fiber optic cables, manufacturing magnets for wind turbines, space exploration at NASA, and other important scientific research that is conducted at national laboratories like those in my State. The current sales and management structure for the helium reserve is distorting the private helium market and threatening helium supplies for Federal medical and scientific research, and other private commercial applications. The low government sales price is also a barrier to the development of private sources of helium. But more importantly, if Congress does not act, the helium program will disappear altogether in less than three years, leaving our hospitals, national labs, domestic manufacturers, and helium producers high and dry. This bipartisan bill will address these issues by authorizing prudent helium sales and management beyond 2015 and securing private access to Federal supplies. It will also allow for the continued repayment of the national debt by selling helium at fair market prices--providing a good return on investment to the American taxpayer. This will bolster the private helium sector, and help to create long-term jobs in this American resource sector, as well as ensure the continued success of domestic manufacturers that utilize helium in their manufacturing process. Finally, this bill will ensure secure access to helium for our national labs, scientific researchers, NASA, medical institutions, and universities, who rely on helium to push the boundaries of science and technology here in the USA. In particular, as the reserve is sold off, a 15 year supply of helium will be set aside exclusively for Federal researchers to guarantee continuity of our research programs as we transition to purely private sources of helium. The bill is based on stakeholder input of the National Academies of Science, Bureau of Land Management staff, scientific researchers, high- tech manufacturers, and the private helium industry to address the most pressing problems facing Federal helium users and the helium industry today. I would like to conclude by taking a moment to acknowledge the exceptional efforts of Dr. Marcius Extavour who was the AAAS Science policy fellow and physicist working on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last year. He worked diligently to help craft this important piece of legislation and I thank him for his efforts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Columbine- Hondo Wilderness Act which will designate approximately 45,000 acres in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains in northern New Mexico as wilderness. I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Tom Udall, is a cosponsor of this legislation. Located in the Carson National Forest in Taos County, the Columbine- Hondo is one of the last remaining segments of this high alpine ecosystem to receive permanent wilderness protection. The concept of wilderness has deep roots and a long history in the Carson National Forest. For example, in the early 1900s, Aldo Leopold, known as the father of wilderness, spent his early career in the Forest Service in the Carson where he quickly reached the post of Forest Supervisor. There is no doubt that he spent much time traveling through this landscape that likely helped cultivate his thoughts on the importance of wilderness. Leopold's concept of wilderness evolved over time and heavily influenced policy makers and the growing conservation community. He wrote, ``Wilderness is the raw material out of which man has hammered the artifact called civilization. . . . To the laborer in the sweat of his labor, the raw stuff on his anvil is an adversary to be conquered. So was wilderness an adversary to the pioneer. But to the laborer in repose, able for the moment to cast a philosophical eye on his world, that same raw stuff is something to be loved and cherished, because it gives definition and meaning to his life.'' One person who shared that definition and meaning with Aldo Leopold was former New Mexico Senator Clinton P. Anderson. In fact, due in large part to the conversations he had with Leopold forty years earlier, Senator Anderson led the effort in Congress to pass the Wilderness Act of 1964. In that 1964 Act, the Wheeler Peak Wilderness became the first wilderness area in the Carson National Forest, which lies just south of the Columbine-Hondo area. Shortly thereafter in 1970, the Taos Pueblo- Blue Lake Wilderness, adjacent to Wheeler Peak, was established, further demonstrating that the idea of wilderness is a valuable concept to Indian tribes wishing to protect their most sacred sites for future generations. Another decade had to pass before Congress protected additional lands in New Mexico as wilderness in 1980, including the Latir Peak Wilderness, north of the Columbine-Hondo. In that same Act, the Columbine-Hondo was designated as a Wilderness Study Area to allow Congress further time to review the merits of designating this area as wilderness. Aldo Leopold laments in A Sand County Almanac that progress in conservation is slow--a fact that hasn't changed much in modern times. ``Despite nearly a century of propaganda,'' he wrote, ``conservation still proceeds at a snail's pace.'' In this context, it is unfortunately not surprising that it has taken Congress over 30 years to review the merits of the Columbine-Hondo Wilderness Study Area. But the time to permanently protect the Columbine-Hondo is now before us. After many years of hard work by local community leaders, a nearly unanimous consensus has formed in support of protecting this landscape as wilderness. This is due to the longstanding recognition by the surrounding communities and their residents of the benefits that wilderness provides them. The mountains provide communities with clean air and act as a watershed, providing them with fresh and clean water. Sportsmen benefit from the protection of quality habitat that will ensure the elk, deer, and antelope found in the mountains and the fish in the mountain streams will continue to thrive. Communities like the Towns of Taos and Red River and the Villages of Questa and Taos Ski Valley can find economic benefits by attracting visitors seeking opportunities for solitude and quiet recreation, including hiking, birding, horseback riding, and even the occasional llama trekking. And community members can create job opportunities through outfitting and other service industries to assist residents and visitors alike explore these gateways to a more primitive era. Wilderness also ensures that the way of life of many local ranchers will remain protected from threats like mining or disruptive off-road vehicle use. Local mountain biking coalitions have also recognized that a balance can be reached to protect wilderness values while making practical and common sense boundary adjustments that will help promote sustainable mountain biking opportunities in the region. During my tenure in the Senate, it has been relatively uncommon to find such overwhelming support for the establishment of a new wilderness area. I commend the dedication and perseverance exhibited by the many local wilderness advocates who have devoted many years to see this effort come to fruition. Without their help, it may have taken another decade before Congress addressed this long outstanding matter. Congress has had 32 years now to review the designation of the Columbine-Hondo Wilderness. With such broad support having been developed, I urge my colleagues to support this initiative to protect this area without further delay. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2076.

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