Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the Bingaman-Thune amendment would build on section 506 to ensure that these requirements, the requirements that 506 apply to hospitals that were contracted with by the IHS, apply not just to hospitals but to all participating Medicare providers and suppliers. In other words, the amendment would ensure that scarce contract health services dollars are used more efficiently, providers would be ensured a greater likelihood of receiving contract health services payments and would be provided continuity in the payment levels with other Federal programs. The Bingaman-Thune amendment is supported by a wide range of Indian health advocates, including the National Indian Health Board, the Navajo Nation, and First Nations Community Health Source in New Mexico. I urge my fellow Senators to join Senator Thune and myself in supporting this important amendment. In conclusion, I underscore that passage of this overall legislation, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, is critically needed and long overdue. I congratulate the Senator from North Dakota for his persistence in getting this legislation brought to the floor, and I congratulate and thank our majority leader, Senator Reid, for scheduling this as the first item of business in this second session of this Congress. It speaks volumes about the importance Senator Reid attaches to this legislation. I hope my fellow Senators will join me in strongly supporting passage of the legislation once the Bingaman-Thune amendment has been adopted. Mr. President, 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 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, January 24, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on Reform of the Mining Law of 1872. 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 e-mail to Gina_Weinstock@energy.senate gov. For further information, please contact Patty Beneke at (202) 224- 5451, Angela Becker-Dippman at (202) 224-5269 or Gina Weinstock at (202) 224-5684.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Enhancing Teaching Standards and License Portability Act of 2007. This bill would encourage the development and implementation of rigorous 21st century teaching standards throughout the U.S. Since the release of the 1983 report, A Nation at Risk, educators and policymakers have sought to strengthen our Nation's weakening grip on global competitiveness. Despite these efforts, low achievement outcomes for too many students, particularly low income students, remain a threat to our current and future standing in the global economy, and to our children's future security. I am concerned about the continuing struggles of many of our schools. In order to graduate from high school ready to succeed in postsecondary education and the workforce, students need a world-class 21st century education. Their success depends on access to high quality teachers who have both state-of-the-art content knowledge and excellent teaching skills. Teachers deserve access to the most up-to-date teaching standards if they are to attain these professional criteria. Moreover, assessments of quality teaching must be based on the characteristics that are known to influence student achievement outcomes. The Enhancing Teaching Standards and License Portability Act provides the commitment and resources needed to help teachers attain these 21st century teaching skills. In the early 1990s, the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium, INTASC, developed core teaching standards for beginning teachers, standards that have since been used--voluntarily--by individual States to develop teaching and certification requirements. Professional organizations such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics also developed subject-area teaching standards. This bill would build upon these efforts to improve teacher quality by supporting the refinement, development, and testing of K-12 teaching standards aligned with demands of the 21st century. These demands reflect content area advances in subject areas such as science and technology; advances in understanding of how students learn; the principle of universal design for learning that advocates flexible teaching to accommodate different learning styles; educators' recognition of the need to foster critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving skills in addition to subject area knowledge; and demographic changes in student diversity such as the recent dramatic increase in English-language learners and the increased inclusion of students with disabilities in the classroom. Specifically, this bill would provide a funding mechanism to develop or refine 21st century teaching standards, and to link those standards to performance-based teacher assessments. It would also provide subgrants to states to adopt, pilot, and implement these teaching standards and associated teacher assessments, and align their teacher licensing systems accordingly. In addition, the bill would promote and facilitate reciprocity and portability of teaching licenses across states. I am very pleased that this bill is supported by several education groups devoted to enhancing the quality and coherence of teaching standards, including the Council of Chief State School Officers, the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the International Reading Association, the National Science Teachers Association, and the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. I believe it is important to acknowledge that we have made some progress in improving teacher quality. As summarized in the Secretary of Education's Fifth Annual Report on Teacher Quality, the percentage of teachers who lack a full teaching certificate has declined, from 3.3 to 2.5 percent of all classroom teachers. Progress has also been reported in aligning States' K-12 student content standards with teacher certification standards; and the number of new teachers passing required State assessment exams remains high at 95 percent. The minimum examination scores required to pass these exams, however, are generally lower than the national median scores for these assessments. Such low criteria are in conflict with the NCLB definition of a highly qualified teacher as someone with demonstrated competence in content-area subject matter. Current teacher standards fail to demonstrate, much less ensure, this competency. Researchers have demonstrated the importance of teacher competency for student outcomes, arguing that classroom practices and other aspects of teaching affect student achievement as much as, if not more than, student characteristics. A recent Education Week report revealed that teachers who score higher vs. lower on state licensing exams tend to have students who themselves achieve higher scores, particularly in mathematics, even when other factors linked to high achievement are taken into account. Other studies demonstrate that the more content- specific college coursework a math or science teacher pursues prior to teaching, the higher that teacher's students will score in math or science. Further, a study appearing in Science showed that higher student outcomes are also associated with more positive classroom experiences, and that these classroom experiences can be measured by standardized observations of the instructional and social support teachers provide. Together, these and other studies illustrate that teachers' knowledge and their observable skills in the classroom are significant influences on student achievement. Although solid grounding in content knowledge is necessary for 21st century learners, it alone is not sufficient. Students today need to develop creativity, critical thinking skills, and problem solving abilities to compete in our global economy. This means that teachers must teach higher-order thinking skills in addition to content information, and create opportunities to learn. Research has shown that students of teachers who can convey higher-order thinking skills and subject knowledge actually outperform students whose teachers teach only subject knowledge. As you know, Mr. President, students in the 21st century represent diversity. For example, the U.S. Department of Education reports that the rate of English-language learners has increased by 169 percent in the last 20 years, in contrast to an increase of only 12 percent in the overall student population. Nationwide, 10 percent of all students are English-language learners. In my state of New Mexico, the rate is 22 percent, second only to California, where over 25 percent of students are English-language learners. According to the National Academies Report, How People Learn, teachers need to develop an expertise grounded on the theories of learning, including theories that concern how cultural beliefs and personal characteristics of learners influence their learning process. This teaching knowledge promotes learning for all children. In fact, students whose teachers receive professional development in teaching diverse students outperform students of teachers who lack this training. These are just a few examples of the research linking student outcomes to teacher characteristics. Linking these characteristics to rigorous teaching performance standards is an opportunity to provide world class education to our students in the 21st century. It is time to improve our teaching standards. Towards this goal, the Enhancing Teaching Standards and License Portability Act has four main objectives. First, to improve teacher quality by supporting the development of rigorous kindergarten through grade 12 teaching standards that incorporate 21st century teaching and learning skills, and to promote alignment of these standards with performance-based teacher assessments; Second, to create incentives for States to adopt, pilot, and implement such rigorous kindergarten through grade 12 teaching standards and performance-based teacher assessments through a competitive grants process; Third, to promote efforts for States to align these teaching standards and performance-based teacher assessments to State licensing requirements; and Finally, to create incentives for States to develop policies that would facilitate license reciprocity and portability. Although this bill would not mandate that model teaching standards be adopted by the states, the trends demonstrate that widespread adoption is likely. For instance, after INTASC developed model teaching standards in 1992, 38 States adopted the standards in developing their own statewide standards. Over 20 States are reviewing the NCTM Curriculum Focal Points to develop mathematics curriculum standards. Over 22 States currently rely on the same standardized teaching credentialing test, and another 10 adopt a second widely available test. The availability of model 21st century teaching standards could have a profound influence on K-12 education nationwide, and this bill would provide incentives for States to adopt and test these standards. An added benefit of available model teaching standards concerns reciprocal teacher certification across States, which could address teacher shortages and curriculum cohesion across states. Nationally, about 20 percent of teachers seek their initial license in a state other than where they completed their teacher training. This bill would improve the capacity of States to collaboratively address teacher shortages through increased teacher certification reciprocity, by promoting alignment of the teaching standards with State licensing systems. Finally, the availability of widely used model standards would support a platform for horizontal coherence of teaching and curriculum standards. A State's voluntary use of updated rigorous standards would promote core similarities that offer additional benefits for mobile students who suffer setbacks when faced with inconsistent curriculum. Student mobility, defined as the percentage of students who transfer in or out of a school during a given school year, occurs in both inner- city and suburban school districts. Rates in inner city schools range from 45 to as high as 80 percent. In suburban schools, mobility rates may be as high as 10 to 40 percent. Although overall mobility indices in the U.S. are not rising, the percentage of moves that occur across state lines has increased from approximately 16 to 19 percent since 2000. When children change schools, they often must adapt to a different curriculum; and lack of curriculum cohesion is believed to account for several negative consequences. Children who experience several school changes are more likely to receive below-grade level reading and math achievement scores than their peers who have never changed schools; they are also more prone to grade retention, and have an increased high school dropout rate. I believe this legislation can go a long way in improving our Nation's educational achievement rates by improving teacher quality and licensing portability. I also believe that this legislation is critical to strengthening our global competitiveness because quality teaching is a route to helping students meet high standards. I hope that this legislation will be included in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to authorize the minting of a commemorative coin in recognition of the 400th anniversary of the Spanish arrival in Santa Fe, NM. This bill has the strong support of the entire New Mexico delegation and is co- sponsored by Senator Domenici and a companion bill will be introduced in the House by Representative Tom Udall. In 2010, the City of Santa Fe will commemorate the arrival of Spanish settlers and the designation of the City of Santa Fe as the capital city of the Spanish territory now known as New Mexico. On their arrival the Spaniards found a thriving Native American culture. These native American and Spanish cultures served to enrich each other and led to a creation of a vibrant social, cultural, and financial center that made the settlement of the western U.S. possible. Although it was not always a smooth road it is the unique combination of the Spanish, native American, and Anglo cultures in Santa Fe that make it an American treasure. Santa Fe has long been heralded for its thriving arts community, as a world class travel destination, and for its natural beauty. These treasures and its proud history as a cultural meeting place make Santa Fe worthy of the national recognition of a commemorative coin. I urge all Senators to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Enhancing Teaching Standards and License Portability Act of 2007. This bill would encourage the development and implementation of rigorous 21st century teaching standards throughout the U.S. Since the release of the 1983 report, A Nation at Risk, educators and policymakers have sought to strengthen our Nation's weakening grip on global competitiveness. Despite these efforts, low achievement outcomes for too many students, particularly low income students, remain a threat to our current and future standing in the global economy, and to our children's future security. I am concerned about the continuing struggles of many of our schools. In order to graduate from high school ready to succeed in postsecondary education and the workforce, students need a world-class 21st century education. Their success depends on access to high quality teachers who have both state-of-the-art content knowledge and excellent teaching skills. Teachers deserve access to the most up-to-date teaching standards if they are to attain these professional criteria. Moreover, assessments of quality teaching must be based on the characteristics that are known to influence student achievement outcomes. The Enhancing Teaching Standards and License Portability Act provides the commitment and resources needed to help teachers attain these 21st century teaching skills. In the early 1990s, the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium, INTASC, developed core teaching standards for beginning teachers, standards that have since been used--voluntarily--by individual States to develop teaching and certification requirements. Professional organizations such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics also developed subject-area teaching standards. This bill would build upon these efforts to improve teacher quality by supporting the refinement, development, and testing of K-12 teaching standards aligned with demands of the 21st century. These demands reflect content area advances in subject areas such as science and technology; advances in understanding of how students learn; the principle of universal design for learning that advocates flexible teaching to accommodate different learning styles; educators' recognition of the need to foster critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving skills in addition to subject area knowledge; and demographic changes in student diversity such as the recent dramatic increase in English-language learners and the increased inclusion of students with disabilities in the classroom. Specifically, this bill would provide a funding mechanism to develop or refine 21st century teaching standards, and to link those standards to performance-based teacher assessments. It would also provide subgrants to states to adopt, pilot, and implement these teaching standards and associated teacher assessments, and align their teacher licensing systems accordingly. In addition, the bill would promote and facilitate reciprocity and portability of teaching licenses across states. I am very pleased that this bill is supported by several education groups devoted to enhancing the quality and coherence of teaching standards, including the Council of Chief State School Officers, the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the International Reading Association, the National Science Teachers Association, and the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. I believe it is important to acknowledge that we have made some progress in improving teacher quality. As summarized in the Secretary of Education's Fifth Annual Report on Teacher Quality, the percentage of teachers who lack a full teaching certificate has declined, from 3.3 to 2.5 percent of all classroom teachers. Progress has also been reported in aligning States' K-12 student content standards with teacher certification standards; and the number of new teachers passing required State assessment exams remains high at 95 percent. The minimum examination scores required to pass these exams, however, are generally lower than the national median scores for these assessments. Such low criteria are in conflict with the NCLB definition of a highly qualified teacher as someone with demonstrated competence in content-area subject matter. Current teacher standards fail to demonstrate, much less ensure, this competency. Researchers have demonstrated the importance of teacher competency for student outcomes, arguing that classroom practices and other aspects of teaching affect student achievement as much as, if not more than, student characteristics. A recent Education Week report revealed that teachers who score higher vs. lower on state licensing exams tend to have students who themselves achieve higher scores, particularly in mathematics, even when other factors linked to high achievement are taken into account. Other studies demonstrate that the more content- specific college coursework a math or science teacher pursues prior to teaching, the higher that teacher's students will score in math or science. Further, a study appearing in Science showed that higher student outcomes are also associated with more positive classroom experiences, and that these classroom experiences can be measured by standardized observations of the instructional and social support teachers provide. Together, these and other studies illustrate that teachers' knowledge and their observable skills in the classroom are significant influences on student achievement. Although solid grounding in content knowledge is necessary for 21st century learners, it alone is not sufficient. Students today need to develop creativity, critical thinking skills, and problem solving abilities to compete in our global economy. This means that teachers must teach higher-order thinking skills in addition to content information, and create opportunities to learn. Research has shown that students of teachers who can convey higher-order thinking skills and subject knowledge actually outperform students whose teachers teach only subject knowledge. As you know, Mr. President, students in the 21st century represent diversity. For example, the U.S. Department of Education reports that the rate of English-language learners has increased by 169 percent in the last 20 years, in contrast to an increase of only 12 percent in the overall student population. Nationwide, 10 percent of all students are English-language learners. In my state of New Mexico, the rate is 22 percent, second only to California, where over 25 percent of students are English-language learners. According to the National Academies Report, How People Learn, teachers need to develop an expertise grounded on the theories of learning, including theories that concern how cultural beliefs and personal characteristics of learners influence their learning process. This teaching knowledge promotes learning for all children. In fact, students whose teachers receive professional development in teaching diverse students outperform students of teachers who lack this training. These are just a few examples of the research linking student outcomes to teacher characteristics. Linking these characteristics to rigorous teaching performance standards is an opportunity to provide world class education to our students in the 21st century. It is time to improve our teaching standards. Towards this goal, the Enhancing Teaching Standards and License Portability Act has four main objectives. First, to improve teacher quality by supporting the development of rigorous kindergarten through grade 12 teaching standards that incorporate 21st century teaching and learning skills, and to promote alignment of these standards with performance-based teacher assessments; Second, to create incentives for States to adopt, pilot, and implement such rigorous kindergarten through grade 12 teaching standards and performance-based teacher assessments through a competitive grants process; Third, to promote efforts for States to align these teaching standards and performance-based teacher assessments to State licensing requirements; and Finally, to create incentives for States to develop policies that would facilitate license reciprocity and portability. Although this bill would not mandate that model teaching standards be adopted by the states, the trends demonstrate that widespread adoption is likely. For instance, after INTASC developed model teaching standards in 1992, 38 States adopted the standards in developing their own statewide standards. Over 20 States are reviewing the NCTM Curriculum Focal Points to develop mathematics curriculum standards. Over 22 States currently rely on the same standardized teaching credentialing test, and another 10 adopt a second widely available test. The availability of model 21st century teaching standards could have a profound influence on K-12 education nationwide, and this bill would provide incentives for States to adopt and test these standards. An added benefit of available model teaching standards concerns reciprocal teacher certification across States, which could address teacher shortages and curriculum cohesion across states. Nationally, about 20 percent of teachers seek their initial license in a state other than where they completed their teacher training. This bill would improve the capacity of States to collaboratively address teacher shortages through increased teacher certification reciprocity, by promoting alignment of the teaching standards with State licensing systems. Finally, the availability of widely used model standards would support a platform for horizontal coherence of teaching and curriculum standards. A State's voluntary use of updated rigorous standards would promote core similarities that offer additional benefits for mobile students who suffer setbacks when faced with inconsistent curriculum. Student mobility, defined as the percentage of students who transfer in or out of a school during a given school year, occurs in both inner- city and suburban school districts. Rates in inner city schools range from 45 to as high as 80 percent. In suburban schools, mobility rates may be as high as 10 to 40 percent. Although overall mobility indices in the U.S. are not rising, the percentage of moves that occur across state lines has increased from approximately 16 to 19 percent since 2000. When children change schools, they often must adapt to a different curriculum; and lack of curriculum cohesion is believed to account for several negative consequences. Children who experience several school changes are more likely to receive below-grade level reading and math achievement scores than their peers who have never changed schools; they are also more prone to grade retention, and have an increased high school dropout rate. I believe this legislation can go a long way in improving our Nation's educational achievement rates by improving teacher quality and licensing portability. I also believe that this legislation is critical to strengthening our global competitiveness because quality teaching is a route to helping students meet high standards. I hope that this legislation will be included in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to authorize the minting of a commemorative coin in recognition of the 400th anniversary of the Spanish arrival in Santa Fe, NM. This bill has the strong support of the entire New Mexico delegation and is co- sponsored by Senator Domenici and a companion bill will be introduced in the House by Representative Tom Udall. In 2010, the City of Santa Fe will commemorate the arrival of Spanish settlers and the designation of the City of Santa Fe as the capital city of the Spanish territory now known as New Mexico. On their arrival the Spaniards found a thriving Native American culture. These native American and Spanish cultures served to enrich each other and led to a creation of a vibrant social, cultural, and financial center that made the settlement of the western U.S. possible. Although it was not always a smooth road it is the unique combination of the Spanish, native American, and Anglo cultures in Santa Fe that make it an American treasure. Santa Fe has long been heralded for its thriving arts community, as a world class travel destination, and for its natural beauty. These treasures and its proud history as a cultural meeting place make Santa Fe worthy of the national recognition of a commemorative coin. I urge all Senators to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a business meeting on Wednesday, December 19, at 11:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to consider the nomination of Jon Wellinghoff to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the term expiring June 30, 2013. (Reappointment) For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Rosemarie Calabro at (202) 224-5039.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to congratulate the primary sponsors of this amendment on achieving a hard-won compromise on an issue that has been intensely debated by Members of this body for a number of years. As I understand the purpose of the amendment, it would essentially close what is come to be known as the ``Enron Loophole'' in the Commodity Exchange Act, CEA. This loophole in the law, included in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, CFMA, of 2000, has allowed large volumes of energy derivatives contracts to be traded over-the-counter, OTC, and on electronic platforms, without the federal oversight necessary to protect both the integrity of the market and our nation's energy consumers. Mr. President, my Committee--the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources--first heard testimony on this issue on January 29, 2002. At that hearing, Mr. James Newsome, then the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, described the impacts of the CFMA thusly: With respect to the energy markets, the CFMA exempts two types of markets from much of the CFTC's oversight. Such markets are described in Section 2(h) of the CEA, as amended by the CFMA. The Act defines exempt commodities as, roughly speaking, all commodities except agricultural and financial products. This category, which for the most part represents futures contracts based on metals and energy products may be traded on the two types of markets covered by Section 2(h). The first is bilateral, principal-to-principal trading between two eligible contract participants . . . The second is electronic multilateral trading among eligible commercial entities, which include, among others, eligible contract participants that can also demonstrate an ability to either make or take delivery of the underlying commodity and dealers that regularly provide hedging services to those with such ability. It is my understanding that the amendment before us would address the current lack of regulatory authority governing the second category of trading that Mr. Newsome described back in 2002. It would grant the CFTC new authority to impose important requirements on electronic, OTC transactions that rely on the current exemption contained in Section 2(h)(3) of the CEA, but serve a significant price discovery function. These requirements include the implementation of market monitoring, the establishment of position limitations or accountability levels, the daily publication of trading information, and a number of other standards key to restoring transparency to this important corner of our energy markets. Ensuring that proper oversight exists in these markets is of critical importance to our nation's energy consumers, and to the efficient operation of the physical, or cash, energy markets that fall under the purview of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--FERC--and my committee's jurisdiction. To illustrate why, I would like to once again go back to the testimony we heard at our January 2002 hearing. As described by Mr. Vincent Viola, the then-chairman of the NYMEX: [In] the energy marketplace, there is a very substantial interaction between NYMEX and the unregulated, physical and over-the-counter energy markets. The interaction was clearly apparent in the case of Enron. Indeed, subsequent to that hearing, FERC, CFTC and the Department of Justice conducted investigations of the various aspects of what became perhaps one of the largest scandals in American corporate history. In its March 2003 ``Final Report on Price Manipulation in Western Markets,'' the FERC staff reported the following: FERC Staff obtained information indicating that Enron traders potentially manipulated the price of natural gas at the Henry Hub in Louisiana to profit from positions taken in the over-the-counter--OTC--financial derivatives markets--OTC markets. It is staff's opinion that Enron traders, through transactions falling within the commission's jurisdiction and authorized through a blanket certificate, successfully manipulated the physical natural gas markets. The manipulation yielded profits in the financial OTC markets. It was findings like these that motivated a number of Members of my Committee to work together to ensure FERC had the proper tools at its disposal, to stamp out the kind of manipulation that occurred during the Western energy crisis of 2000-2001. During consideration of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, EPACT 2005, Public Law 109-58, I was pleased to work with Senators Cantwell, Feinstein and Wyden on these provisions, along with Senator Domenici, who then chaired the Energy Committee, and Senators Craig and Smith. Indeed, sections 315 and 1283 of EPACT 2005 added anti-manipulation provisions to both the Natural Gas Act and the Federal Power Act, respectively. Both make it unlawful for anyone to use ``any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance . . . in contravention of'' the rules of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Both closely track the language used in section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act and define ``any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance'' by reference to section 10(b). The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a final rule implementing the two anti- manipulation provisions in January 2006. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided FERC these much-needed, new authorities in response to the Western energy crisis. However, it is also clear that further regulatory authority is needed, to ensure the CFTC has the tools at its disposal to ensure the integrity of financial energy markets. The present circumstance is one in which the CFTC has essentially been blind to a large portion of these markets for a number of years. This is of critical concern to me, and to my committee, because--as Mr. Viola observed in 2002, and as Enron demonstrated--all of these markets are linked. In fact, there is also significant reason to believe that these markets have become more fully intertwined since that hearing 5 years ago. In its 2006 State of the Markets Report, FERC devoted an entire section, section 7, to the ``Growing Influence of Futures and Financial Energy Markets'' on physical energy prices. The report notes that this impact is particularly acute as it relates to natural gas prices--but effects electricity prices as well, to the extent that a growing percentage of our nation's electric generating capacity is gas-fired. The FERC report details the link between prices set in the financial derivatives market, and the physical natural gas contracts that ultimately dictate the prices paid by American consumers. Overall, I believe the current situation was most recently and accurately described by FERC Chairman Joseph Kelliher in December 12, 2007, testimony before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce: [It] is important to understand that price formation in sophisticated energy markets has become increasingly complex. Regulators must understand and consider the interplay between financial and futures energy markets, on the one hand, and physical energy markets, on the other hand. While FERC has jurisdiction over physical wholesale gas sales, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has jurisdiction over futures, the link between futures and physical markets cannot be overstated. In a sense, these markets have effectively converged. Manipulation does not recognize jurisdictional boundaries and we must be vigilant in monitoring the interplay of these markets if we are to adequately protect consumers. For these reasons, I support the amendment being offered today. It would enhance the CFTC's authority to protect the integrity of financial energy markets, which in turn play an increasingly important price discovery role in physical energy markets. And it would do so in a manner that also preserves FERC's important role in guarding against market manipulation and protecting American natural gas and electricity consumers. For that, I congratulate the sponsors. In addition, I will enter into a colloquy with the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senator Harkin, along with Senators Feinstein and Levin, regarding the intent of this amendment with respect to its jurisdictional implications for FERC and the CFTC.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I believe the primary sponsors of this amendment, as well as the distinguished chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senator Harkin, share my desire for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, and Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, to coordinate seamlessly in their efforts to oversee the increasingly interdependent energy markets under their respective jurisdictions. Moreover, it is important to clarify that nothing included in this amendment would interfere or prejudice the respective Commissions' ongoing, enforcement-related proceedings and litigation. I would like to inquire of the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Harkin, do you concur in my assessment that nothing in this amendment would prejudice or interfere with ongoing, energy market enforcement-related litigation or administrative proceedings currently involving FERC and the CFTC?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Likewise, I believe we have taken pains in this amendment to ensure that the current jurisdictional boundaries between the two Commissions are maintained, with respect to the authorities of FERC under the Federal Power and Natural Gas Acts, and the CFTC under the Commodity Exchange Act. How do you view this matter?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Finally, I ask if, in your view, anything contained in this amendment would limit FERC's existing ability to gain information from market participants?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I would also like to make an inquiry of the senior Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, another primary author of the amendment now before the Senate. As I understand this amendment, it expands the CFTC's authorities with respect to the requirements it may impose on transactions it deems ``significant price discovery contracts.'' This ``significant price discovery contract'' determination may be applied to contracts, agreements, and transactions that are conducted in reliance on the exemption included in section 2(h)(3) of the Commodity Exchange Act. As a conforming matter, paragraph (c)(1) of section 13203 extends the CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction over these ``significant price discovery contracts.'' As the Senator from Michigan knows, the meaning and expanse of CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of futures markets is currently the subject of litigation. As we have heard from the chairman of the Agriculture Committee and Senator Feinstein, another one of the amendment's authors, this amendment was written to ensure it would not interfere with any such ongoing litigation; and further, to maintain the current jurisdictional division between FERC and the CFTC. I am satisfied with those assurances. But in addition, as a forward-looking matter, it is important to clarify the intent of the amendment with respect to this new class of ``significant price discovery contracts.'' I am aware of the fact that certain electronic trading facilities that currently operate under the exemption included in section 2(h)(3) of the Commodity Exchange Act for purposes of trading energy swaps also trade physical--or cash-- contracts in electricity and natural gas. For oversight and enforcement purposes, it is crucial that FERC retain its jurisdiction over these physical energy transactions. In your view, how would the amendment impact FERC's jurisdiction over these transactions?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I have a similar question as it relates to the status and functions of regional transmission organizations, RTOs, under this language. RTOs often deal in the auction of financial transmission rights and ancillary services associated with the orderly operation of electricity markets. Do you believe this ``significant price discovery contract'' provision would impact FERC's authority in this area?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately prior to the cloture vote, each leader be permitted to use leader time, with the majority leader speaking last.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for yielding me 5 minutes to discuss this bill we are going to vote on, the cloture vote we are going to have in relation to the energy legislation a little later this morning. One of the objections that has been raised to this legislation is that it still contains a so-called energy tax package. It is very different from what the House passed. Senator Baucus has worked with Senator Grassley to take out provisions that were objectionable to Members, particularly on the Republican side, but it is still a tax package. Now, what does it do? What it does is extends the tax incentives and credits we put into law in 2005. Those are the tax incentives, the tax credit for the production of electricity from wind, biomass from our clean energy sources. It provides the extension of the solar energy investment tax credit. It provides an extension of residential solar credits to encourage people to use solar heating and energy generation in their own residences. It provides an extension of existing credits for biodiesel. It creates a new credit for producing ethanol made from nonfood cellulosic material. It tries to extend into the future and expand upon the incentives we put into law in 2005 to encourage the transition to more of a clean energy technology. At the beginning of the week, I had the view or the understanding that the disagreement about the tax package centered around the question of which offsets should be used to pay for it. I thought there was general consensus that we ought to have an extension of these tax provisions but that there was disagreement about how we went about paying for them. It is clear to me that at least for the administration, it is not a question of which offsets should be used to pay for it, the real issue, from their perspective, is they do not consider these tax incentives very important, and they do not believe they are important enough to be paid for. They believe if they are going to be extended, they should be extended without any increase in revenue anywhere else in the Tax Code to offset that. This is a very unfortunate view on the part of the administration as I see it because it sets up a circumstance where, if we are not able to get the votes to pass this tax package as part of the overall energy package this morning, then we are in a circumstance where the administration says: We will not support--the administration will not support--a tax package that is paid for, and the Congress, under our pay-go rules, most likely will not be able to muster the votes to pass a tax package that is not paid for. So we have a checkmate situation that is particularly bad for the country and cuts short the effort we tried to begin in 2005 to encourage more development of energy from renewable sources and more energy efficiency through these tax provisions. There are some in the Congress, in the Senate, who are going to say, well, they support doing something on taxes but not here, not now. We should not do it as part of this bill. We ought to do what we can. It is nearly Christmas, and then we will come back next year and deal with taxes. The problem is, it does not get any easier next year to deal with this situation. We have already made dramatic changes in this tax package to accommodate concerns of the administration, concerns of Republican Members. But the truth is, we need to go ahead and extend these tax provisions as part of this bill. We need to do so in a way that is paid for. Clearly we need to comply with our pay-go rules and not just add this to the deficit and say it is up to the next generation to worry about finding the revenue to pay for the tax provisions. I believe it is essential that we pass this, that we go ahead and invoke cloture on the energy package. This energy package that Senator Reid is now bringing before the Senate does not have a renewable electricity standard in it. He dropped that again because of opposition from Republican members, opposition from the administration. But it does have CAFE improvements, it does have renewable fuels standards, it does have energy efficiency standards, it is does have this tax package. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would ask the Presiding Officer, how much time exists on each side in connection with this pending bill?

Mr. BINGAMAN. As I understand, 20 minutes and then 5 minutes for each of the leaders. So I would just speak for 3 minutes at this point and then yield to my colleague from New Mexico, who I know is planning to speak as well. Mr. President, let me amend my earlier statement. I will take up to 5 minutes, please, if the Chair would advise me at the end of the 5 minutes. The Senate has a very good energy bill before it. It would take a number of steps that will be viewed over the long term as very major steps in our energy policy. This is the first increase in CAFE standards in well over 20 years. It has improved efficiency standards for lightbulbs, for lighting fixtures, which will eventually save more energy than all of our previous energy efficiency standards combined. This bill contains permanent authorization for energy savings performance contracts--the single most useful tool for increasing energy efficiency in the Federal Government. It contains a strengthened program for carbon dioxide capture and geological sequestration and a framework for working through issues associated with geologic storage of carbon dioxide on Federal lands. It also contains strong new protections for consumers against market manipulation in oil markets. The story of this Energy bill is not only one of what we accomplished but also those items we were not able to accomplish. In the case of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the biggest issue on which we did not make progress was energy efficiency, especially increased vehicle fuel economy. We have rectified that, or we will be rectifying that as we go forward and pass this legislation and get it signed into law. For this bill, there were two big challenges we have proven unequal to here in the Senate. In my view, one is, of course, dealing with the very real problem of how to further incentivize the development of renewable energy. I hope we will have a chance to revisit the renewable electricity standard in the new Congress. I also hope we can revisit this issue of tax incentives. We failed earlier today to maintain in the legislation a package of tax incentives which I think is very important for the energy policy of this country. We have an extremely capable staff that has worked long and hard on this legislation. The Senate Energy Committee staff--there are many individuals here: Bob Simon, Sam Fowler, Allyson Anderson, Angela Becker-Dippmann, Patty Beneke, Mia Bennett, Tara Billingsley, Rosemarie Calabro, Michael Carr, Mike Connor, Jonathan Epstein, Deborah Estes, Alicia Jackson, Amanda Kelly, Leon Lowery, David Marks, Scott Miller, Rachel Pasternack, Britni Rillera, Gina Weinstock, and Bill Wicker. All of them have done a great job. Senator Domenici's staff has also done a terrific job. Frank Macchiarola, Judy Pensabene, Kellie Donnelly, Kathryn Clay, Colin Hayes, Frank Gladics, and Kara Gleason, among others on his staff I know have done a good job. The Senate owes a particular debt of gratitude to Senator Inouye's and Senator Stevens' staff, who developed the CAFE provisions in this bill. In particular, David Strickland of the Commerce Committee staff deserves recognition for his leadership, skill, and tenacity in negotiating these historic provisions. Chris Miller, on Senator Reid's staff, deserves our thanks for helping with the overall coordination of the bill in the Senate and with the House of Representatives. His counterparts in Speaker Pelosi's office, Amy Fuerstenau and Lara Levison, also put in countless hours attending meetings and helping to coordinate the activities of about 10 different House committees with interests in this bill. Special recognition also is due to the hard-working staff of the Office of Senate Legislative Counsel on this bill. Their team leader, Gary Endicott, worked tirelessly to ensure that the provisions of this bill were expressed in clear and correct legal form. His partner for the CAFE provisions was Lloyd Ator of the Commerce Committee staff. Other key contributors in the office of Senate Legislative Counsel included Michelle Johnson-Weider, John Henderson, Matt McGhie, Mark Mathiesen, Mark McGunagle, and Jim Fransen. They enjoyed the cooperation of their colleagues in the House Office of Legislative Counsel, including Tim Brown and Pope Barrow. Without the many hours they invested in drafting, redrafting, and assembling this bill, we would not have a finished text to consider today. Finally, staff in the Congressional Budget Office, including Kathy Gramp, Megan Carroll, Dave Hull, and Matthew Pickford, helped us ensure that the bill was compliant with the complicated scoring rules that face every major piece of legislation. All of these staff in Leg Counsel and CBO made themselves available on evenings and weekends to help ensure that we could finish this bill this year. With that, I will thank my colleagues for their support for this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote aye on the motion to go ahead with this legislation and send this bill to the President. I know there are others who wish to speak. How much time remains on the majority side?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National Forests, Parks, Public Land, and Reclamation Project Authorization Act of 2007, a collection of approximately 50 individual bills under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. All of the individual provisions included in this bill have been passed by the House of Representatives, and most have also been favorably reported from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I believe everything included within this bill is non-controversial and it is my hope that the Senate will pass this bill expeditiously. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table listing the various measures included in this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National Forests, Parks, Public Land, and Reclamation Project Authorization Act of 2007, a collection of approximately 50 individual bills under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. All of the individual provisions included in this bill have been passed by the House of Representatives, and most have also been favorably reported from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I believe everything included within this bill is non-controversial and it is my hope that the Senate will pass this bill expeditiously. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table listing the various measures included in this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator for his question. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires Federal agencies to reduce their energy consumption by 30 percent by 2015 and includes provisions requiring new and renovated buildings to adopt energy efficient systems and technologies in order to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Federal leadership in building performance and procurement standards in our Federal facilities and in commercial buildings generally is critically important in achieving our energy conservation goals. The energy savings requirements for our Nation's Federal facilities incorporated in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 are intended to apply to all building systems and technologies.