Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 13, 2007, at 10 a.m. in order to conduct a business meeting to consider pending committee business. Agenda Legislation S. 1257, District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007; S. 274, Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act; H.R. 1254, Presidential Library Donation Reform Act of 2007; S. Res. 22, a resolution reaffirming the constitutional and statutory protections accorded sealed domestic mail, and for other purposes; S. 967, Federal Supervisor Training Act of 2007; S. 1046, Senior Professional Performance Act of 2007; S. 1099, a bill to amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, to make individuals employed by the Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission eligible to obtain Federal health insurance; S. 597, a bill to extend the special postage stamp for breast cancer research for 2 years; H.R. 1255/S. 886, Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007; S. 381, Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 13, 2007, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations to the Federal Election Commission.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in room 562 of the Dirksen Building to conduct an oversight hearing on Department of Labor, Department of Defense, VA cooperation, and collaboration to meet the employment needs of returning service members.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I know there are others waiting to speak. I don't want to delay the proceedings greatly, but I do have some concerns. I would like to ask a couple of questions of the amendment sponsor, if I can.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes, I am glad to yield.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, let me respond. I think the simpler thing would be to have the Senator from California, who is the chair of the committee of jurisdiction, go ahead with any statement she wants, and I will withhold my questions at this point. I know there are others wishing to talk about CAFE standards. The Senator from Oklahoma has indicated a willingness to set his amendment aside. He is not pushing for a vote at this time. Why doesn't the Senator from California go ahead and speak in response to the amendment at this point, and then perhaps we can have the other Senators who want to talk about CAFE standards talk about that issue, and we will see what other amendments we can also line up. Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I have conferred with my colleague and we are willing to accept the amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont, the one he presented to the Members, the one that is currently pending. Perhaps my colleague wants to speak to that.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I appreciate those comments, and the Senator from California who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee indicates it is acceptable to her committee as well. So at this point, I think the Senate is ready to vote.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me propound a unanimous consent agreement with regard to tomorrow morning. I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, June 13, when the Senate resumes consideration of H.R. 6, the time between the end of morning business and 11:45 a.m. be for debate with respect to the Inhofe amendment No. 1505, with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote, and that the time be equally divided and controlled between the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, and the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, or their designees; and that at 11:45, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment without further intervening action or debate.

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

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the oversight hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to consider the preparedness of Federal land management agencies for the 2007 wildfire season and to consider recent reports on the agencies' efforts to contain the costs of wildfire management activities has been rescheduled. The rescheduled hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 26, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. 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, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to rachel__pasternack@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Scott Miller or Rachel Pasternack.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we be allowed to equally divide a full hour, which was our plan this afternoon.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Some of that time may be yielded back, but I didn't want to cut off anyone who wishes to speak on this issue before we go to a vote. Mr. President, today we begin consideration of energy legislation in the Senate. Later today, we will be voting to take up legislation that will make a meaningful and bipartisan contribution to charting a new direction for America's energy policy. There is a growing consensus among Federal, State, and local policymakers across the ideological spectrum, also from corporate leaders and the American public in general, that our Nation needs to move faster and needs to go farther to secure its energy future. America's family farmers and businesses look no further than the prices that are posted at the corner gas station to see the vivid and daily indicators of the economic perils inherent in maintaining the status quo. In fact, they have watched as gas prices have stayed at more than $3 per gallon for well over a month. Our national security experts cite the geopolitical implications and the foreign policy challenges presented by the rise of State-owned energy companies and by our own growing dependence on oil imports. In 2005, the United States imported roughly 60 percent of the petroleum that we consumed. Without decisive action, that figure is expected to approach 70 percent over the next two decades, with more than 35 percent of that increase expected to come from member nations of OPEC or the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Meanwhile, economists take note of our energy policy's fiscal implications as well related to America's global competitiveness. In 2005 and 2006, our dependence on petroleum imports combined with rising prices to add an estimated $120 billion to our Nation's trade deficit. There is no doubt there is a compelling case for action, but there is also something more fundamental that is embedded in the American consciousness that is animating the national call for a new direction in our energy policy. President Franklin Roosevelt once observed: The creed of our democracy is that liberty is acquired and kept by men and women who are strong and self- reliant. Perhaps it is this American principle of self-reliance that is driving national debate forward when it comes to energy policy. After all, by tapping America's limitless capacity for innovation, our most abundant renewable resource, the United States can become more energy self-sufficient. Americans believe we can and should lead the world when it comes to developing the new technologies that will produce clean alternative energy and help us to address the threat of global warming. Inherent in this grand challenge is enormous opportunity--opportunity to build a stronger economy, to create the high-paying jobs of the 21st century, and the opportunity, of course, to lower our energy costs. No single political party has a monopoly on these ideas. Rather, these ideas are broadly shared by Members of the Senate on both sides of the political aisle. The shared will to make progress in securing America's energy future is what has brought us to this point today. Later this afternoon, we will vote on a motion to proceed to legislation that represents the bipartisan efforts of four committees in the Senate--the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, the Commerce Committee, and the Foreign Relations Committee. If we are successful in bringing the measure before the Senate, I believe by the time the debate is concluded, we will also have the recommendations of a fifth committee, the Senate Finance Committee, to add to this legislation. Suffice it to say there has been a tremendous amount of bipartisan legislative effort on display in bringing this measure forward. Since the outset of the 110th Congress, the Senate has held more than 50 hearings on energy and climate-related issues. That is at least one hearing held every other day that we have been in session. As it relates to what we have been able to accomplish in the Senate Energy Committee, let me at the outset thank Senator Domenici, the ranking member on the committee, for the goodwill and the diligence he has demonstrated at every step in this effort. On the second day of the 110th Congress, we jointly announced an all- day conference related to biofuels policy. This conference drew submissions and suggestions from more than 100 stakeholders. During that all-day session, attended by nearly every member of our committee, we heard from about 30 experts, who gave us suggestions that formed the intellectual basis for the committee's work in the important area of renewable fuels. After that, we held more than 15 energy policy-related hearings, including 8 oversight and legislative sessions, specifically tailored to take testimony on the issues at the core of our legislation. Those issues, in addition to biofuels, were energy efficiency and, second, carbon capture and storage. As a result of this process, Senator Domenici and I were able to circulate a bipartisan proposal to the committee for markup. After a session at which we adopted almost 30 amendments from members on both sides of the dais, the Energy Committee reported legislation with a substantial bipartisan margin of 20 to 3. On the whole, I think what we were able to accomplish in a relatively short period of time is something all members of our committee can be proud of. As I mentioned, the legislation touches on three key topics related to our energy future. First, it boosts domestic renewable fuel supplies. It does so in a manner that will reduce life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and spur regional diversity of biofuels production and infrastructure. The second thing the bill that came out of the Energy Committee does is it proposes to enhance economywide energy efficiency in a way that will reduce our Nation's imports of foreign oil and provide significant savings to consumers. The third item we addressed is that we will invest in the carbon capture and storage technologies that will help us to cut back on the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. I think it would be helpful to describe for my colleagues some of these issues in a little more detail. First, on the topic of biofuels, there is no question that in recent years many factors have sharpened public focus on the search for viable alternatives to conventional petroleum-based fuels. I have already described many of those factors, including increased world oil prices, concerns regarding import dependence, and the environmental effects of vehicle emissions. Biofuels, which is a term that includes both ethanol and biodiesel, can be derived from an array of crops and other biological materials that are available throughout our Nation. Since the 1970s, all cars and light trucks with gasoline engines built for the U.S. market have been able to run on ethanol blends of up to 10 percent. That is E10. A smaller yet increasing number of vehicles that is now estimated at about 6 million on American roads today can run on fuel comprised of 85 percent ethanol or E85. Meanwhile, existing diesel engines can run on biodiesel in any concentration. Due to concerns about quality standards, however, manufacturers may not honor warranties for engines running on biodiesel blends in excess of 5 percent, that is B5, or 20 percent, which is B20. There is little question that passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was a watershed event for the Nation's biofuels industry. Establishing the first Federal renewable fuel standard, the RFS, created an escalating requirement for the amount of biofuels blended in U.S. gasoline, starting with 4 billion gallons in 2006, and accelerating to 7.5 billion gallons in 2012. However, less than 2 years after that Energy Policy Act was signed by President Bush, increased use of biofuels is already surpassing the original RFS targets, with 5 billion gallons added to U.S. gasoline in 2006. Another 6 billion gallons of production capacity is expected to go into operation by 2009, bringing total domestic production capacity to approximately 11.7 billion gallons. According to the Energy Information Administration's 2007 Annual Energy Outlook: the market potential for biofuel blends--that is B10, B5, and B20--remains significantly larger than the current production levels and will continue to absorb the biofuel supply for the foreseeable future. Yet as the Energy Committee began developing its legislation, it was obvious significant challenges remained if biofuels are to become a cornerstone of U.S. efforts to improve our energy self-sufficiency. Today, approximately 98 percent of domestic ethanol production is derived from cornstarch, and that creates upward pressure on commodity prices, restricting production to regions of the country where corn is grown, and posing challenges to efficient distribution of the fuel. Diversifying feedstocks to include a broader array of renewable biomass can promote regional diversity in biofuels production and distribution, spreading economic benefits to rural communities across the country and relieving pressure on corn commodity prices. In addition, it can lead to greater efficiency in the fuel production process and help save on fossil fuel emissions. Another issue key to making biofuels a significant factor in displacing domestic petroleum use relates to existing infrastructure challenges. Of the nearly 170,000 vehicle fueling stations in the United States, only 1 percent carried E85 or biodiesel in 2006. Consumers must have access to these fuels if they are to become a viable alternative. To address these various challenges, the Energy Committee's legislation increases and extends the existing RFS to 36 billion gallons in 2022, with specific incentives for the production of biofuels from new sources of renewable biomass. Taken together, these provisions will help provide market certainty to both the existing ethanol industry and to the next generation of advanced biofuels producers. In addition, our legislation provides resources to help break down infrastructure barriers to renewable fuel distribution, and it invests in research into the basic scientific challenges associated with the use of promising new feedstocks. Altogether, the Energy Information Administration has estimated the legislation's biofuels provisions can help reduce America's petroleum imports by a million barrels per day, an important contribution to improving our Nation's energy security. The second major topic of the Energy Committee's reported legislation is energy efficiency. The obvious goal of these provisions is to use existing resources more efficiently, which promises to further enhance U.S. self-sufficiency and provide environmental benefits and, of course, save consumers money. Improving efficiency in transportation remains one of the most important and vexing energy challenges facing this Nation. Consumption of liquid fuels is currently projected to grow by more than 6 million barrels per day, from 2005 to 2030, with 5.8 million barrels per day attributable to transportation. So as fuel consumption increases, so too do U.S. imports, a key concern for both the economy and our national security. The Senate Commerce Committee has reported legislation that will increase corporate average fuel economy standards for the first time in many years, and this legislation is also included in the bill we will vote on later this afternoon. The Commerce Committee's chairman and vice chairman are to be congratulated on finding a way forward on this very difficult issue. As such, I am pleased to say the provisions reported by the Energy Committee also support the goal of reducing the transportation sector's consumption of liquid fuels in general, and gasoline in particular. Our provisions establish an escalating goal for reducing U.S. gasoline consumption, starting with 20 percent in 2017. That is enough to reduce world oil prices more than $2.50 per barrel under current EIA assumptions. This national goal ramps up to 45 percent in 2030, which is the equivalent of 5.6 million barrels of oil per day. That is more than twice the amount of oil the United States imported from the Persian Gulf in 2005. To complement these initiatives, the legislation also makes investments in advanced vehicle technology development, basic science related to energy storage, and public education about how consumers can help reduce their own petroleum consumption. In addition to the transportation sector, efficiency is a resource we can better deploy in end uses throughout the U.S. economy. For example, lighting and common household appliances can account for as much as two-thirds of an average American family's electricity bills. By improving a number of appliance efficiency standards and streamlining and strengthening the Department of Energy's existing program, consumers stand to collect $12 billion in benefits as a result of provisions included in this underlying bill. In fact, altogether, the bill's appliance efficiency provisions will save at least 50 billion kilowatt hours per year, or enough to power roughly 4.8 million typical U.S. households. It will save 17 trillion Btus of natural gas per year, or enough to heat about a quarter million typical U.S. homes, and it will conserve at least 560 million gallons of water per day, or 1.3 percent of daily potable water usage around this Nation. These savings result from provisions which establish the first ever Federal water conservation standards for clothes washers and dishwashers. Finally, on the topic of efficiency: The legislation recognizes the Federal Government itself represents the Nation's largest energy consumer and can play a key role in bringing new technologies to market. The Federal Government has an obligation to lead by example, and in doing so we can save taxpayers money. For example, even as the Government has reduced its energy consumption, saving 2.5 percent from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2005, Federal energy costs nevertheless increased 24.1 percent or $14.5 billion. Clearly, rising energy prices have an impact on the Federal budget, just as they have an impact on the budgets for families and on the budgets for businesses across America. To capture additional savings, this legislation strengthens Federal energy requirements from lighting procurement, to petroleum displacement, to energy management strategies across Federal buildings. As a result, leading efficiency groups have estimated that the legislation's provisions in this area can save 60 trillion Btu's of energy, 15 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, and almost $4 billion of taxpayer money between now and 2015. A final issue touched on by the NRC committee's reported legislation relates to carbon capture and storage or carbon sequestration. While scientific and technological challenges remain, carbon sequestration holds particular promise related to the potentially large amounts of carbon dioxide emitted from the use of fossil fuels. Electric generating plants may be the most likely initial candidates for implementing carbon sequestration. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed the Secretary of Energy to carry out research and development on technologies designed to capture carbon dioxide, specifically with respect to combustion-based energy systems. However, given the critical nature of these efforts, the need to demonstrate emerging methodologies, and the potential to apply them to a wider variety of energy technologies, our legislation strengthens and further expands this research. In summary, I believe the Energy Committee has produced legislation that will help us move forward expeditiously with groundbreaking research on carbon sequestration that is key to addressing global warming, will help spur diverse domestic renewable fuels production, and it will promote energy efficiency throughout our economy. These efforts, of course, by our committee, have been further complemented by good bipartisan work of the other Senate committees I mentioned. Taken together, these bipartisan measures form the backbone of a national strategy that meet at least three complementary goals: boosting U.S. energy self-sufficiency, driving American leadership in clean alternative energy, and putting us on a trajectory to address the threat of global warming. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the motion to proceed to energy legislation which we will have later this afternoon. I know my colleague, Senator Domenici, wishes to speak, giving his views on the pending legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. As soon as Senator Domenici has concluded his statement, I am glad to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from California.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I am glad to yield the remaining 3\1/2\ minutes on this side to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to with Senators Kerry, Akaka, Salazar and Whitehouse to introduce the Drug Rebate Equalization Act of 2007. As you know, the Medicaid drug rebate ensures that State Medicaid programs receive the best price for prescription drugs for their beneficiaries. Unfortunately, health plans that serve over 10 million Medicaid beneficiaries cannot access the same discounts through the Federal drug rebate program. Plans typically get no rebate on generic drugs and about a third of the rebate on brand drugs as States receive. Therefore, States are paying more for the acquisition of prescription drugs for these health plan enrollees than for beneficiaries in fee-for-service Medicaid, raising costs for Federal and State governments. Even with this price disadvantage, the total cost of prescription drugs for health plans is less on a per member per month basis because of health plans' greater use of generics and case management. Unfortunately, many States are considering carving prescription drugs out from health plans for the sole purpose of obtaining the rebate, thereby undermining plans' ability to maintain a comprehensive care and disease management program that includes prescription drugs. Not only will this legislation save money, it will eliminate this incentive and ensure that health plans can maintain a comprehensive care coordination system for their patients. This policy change was passed by the Senate during last year's debate over the Deficit Reduction Act. This year's version of the bill improves on last year's bill in several important ways. First, the bill ensures that health plans can continue their good work by using their own integrated care coordination and disease management protocols. Second, the bill will maintain the fee-for-service prohibition against health plans ``double dipping'' into the Medicaid drug rebate and the 340b discount drug pricing program. Finally, it will ensure that plans can use so-called positive formularies while simultaneously ensuring that enrollees will have access to off-formulary drugs through the regulated prior authorization process. These changes significantly improve the bill and will help improve its chances of passage. This policy enjoys widespread support. Extending the Medicaid drug rebate to enrollees in health plans is supported by the National Governors Association, the National Association of State Medicaid Directors, the National Medicaid Commission, the National Association of Community Health Centers, the Partnership for Medicaid, the Association for Community Affiliated Plans, and the Medicaid Health Plans of America. I am entering into the record copies of letters provided by these organizations over the last few years memorializing their support for this concept. Last year, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Bingaman amendment would have saved Federal taxpayers $1.7 billion over 5 years. Likewise, the CMS Office of the Actuary estimated that extending the drug rebate to health plans would save Federal taxpayers $2.2 billion over 5 years. I think that we can say that this policy will provide significant savings to Americans, whatever the number. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to with Senators Kerry, Akaka, Salazar and Whitehouse to introduce the Drug Rebate Equalization Act of 2007. As you know, the Medicaid drug rebate ensures that State Medicaid programs receive the best price for prescription drugs for their beneficiaries. Unfortunately, health plans that serve over 10 million Medicaid beneficiaries cannot access the same discounts through the Federal drug rebate program. Plans typically get no rebate on generic drugs and about a third of the rebate on brand drugs as States receive. Therefore, States are paying more for the acquisition of prescription drugs for these health plan enrollees than for beneficiaries in fee-for-service Medicaid, raising costs for Federal and State governments. Even with this price disadvantage, the total cost of prescription drugs for health plans is less on a per member per month basis because of health plans' greater use of generics and case management. Unfortunately, many States are considering carving prescription drugs out from health plans for the sole purpose of obtaining the rebate, thereby undermining plans' ability to maintain a comprehensive care and disease management program that includes prescription drugs. Not only will this legislation save money, it will eliminate this incentive and ensure that health plans can maintain a comprehensive care coordination system for their patients. This policy change was passed by the Senate during last year's debate over the Deficit Reduction Act. This year's version of the bill improves on last year's bill in several important ways. First, the bill ensures that health plans can continue their good work by using their own integrated care coordination and disease management protocols. Second, the bill will maintain the fee-for-service prohibition against health plans ``double dipping'' into the Medicaid drug rebate and the 340b discount drug pricing program. Finally, it will ensure that plans can use so-called positive formularies while simultaneously ensuring that enrollees will have access to off-formulary drugs through the regulated prior authorization process. These changes significantly improve the bill and will help improve its chances of passage. This policy enjoys widespread support. Extending the Medicaid drug rebate to enrollees in health plans is supported by the National Governors Association, the National Association of State Medicaid Directors, the National Medicaid Commission, the National Association of Community Health Centers, the Partnership for Medicaid, the Association for Community Affiliated Plans, and the Medicaid Health Plans of America. I am entering into the record copies of letters provided by these organizations over the last few years memorializing their support for this concept. Last year, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Bingaman amendment would have saved Federal taxpayers $1.7 billion over 5 years. Likewise, the CMS Office of the Actuary estimated that extending the drug rebate to health plans would save Federal taxpayers $2.2 billion over 5 years. I think that we can say that this policy will provide significant savings to Americans, whatever the number. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Allyson Anderson, a AAAS fellow, and Paul Augustine, an EPA detailee, with my staff on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the debate on this Energy bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Benjamin Robinson, Kristen Meierhoff, and Matthew Zedler, who are interns with my staff on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, also be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the debate on the Energy bill.