Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first I thank Senator Reid and Senator McConnell for their fine statements and their willingness to be the lead in bringing this bill to the floor. It is bipartisan legislation. It is legislation that was developed in the last Congress. We were not able to complete action on it there, so we are trying to do so at this time. It does represent the work of three committees over the past year. Those are the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and, of course, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. I am fortunate to serve on two of those committees. The chairman and ranking member of each of the three committees are cosponsoring this bill. In fact, we now have 57 Members of the Senate who are cosponsoring this legislation, with Senators Reid and McConnell as the lead sponsors. This bill reflects a deep undercurrent of anxiety in this country. It was highlighted recently by the very best-selling book by Tom Friedman called ``The World Is Flat.'' It is also highlighted by the report to which Senator McConnell just referred, the ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report issued by the National Academies of Science and Engineering. Both of these publications highlight a strengthening, worldwide, of the effort in science and technology. Although we in the United States are still a world leader in these areas, other nations are clearly catching up. Without effort and intervention now, and attention to this issue now, I fear we may lose our edge in high technology areas that are critical to our future economy. The high technology competition has been an ongoing effort and continues and will continue indefinitely. In the 1980s, during the Cold War, we were about to lose our semiconductor leadership to Japan. Motivated then by national security concerns, the U.S. Government worked with industry to help preserve our domestic chip-making capability. Along with Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and Dr. Bob Noyce, Gordon Moore from Intel, and others, we were able to launch a public-private partnership called Sematech. This partnership developed early phase technologies designed to keep our semiconductor industry competitive. Sematech was a success. It kept our industry competitive through the 1990s and even today. But the issue we are faced with here in 2007 is even more troubling. India and China and other countries from the former Soviet Union now represent nearly 3 billion new capitalists who are coming at us in a competitive way through the Internet where, in one click, anyone in this country can order a product from anywhere in the world and have that delivered to his or her doorstep. Not only can these countries and entrepreneurs in these countries manufacture at a fraction of the cost that oftentimes is required here in the United States, but in coordination with their Governments they are climbing up the value chain by developing the professional talents in areas such as research and engineering and in telemedicine and in finance--in a whole variety of areas. We have taken for granted that our Nation would never be displaced in many of these areas. These are areas that represent part of the pillars of our national identity. Many Americans have grown up assuming the United States would always be the leader in high technology, but that is not a foregone conclusion. It is not the simple box fan that is being made in China today that concerns people. It is the sophisticated code from Beijing for enterprise server software or state-of-the-art locomotives and turbines designed in Bangalore when they used to be designed in this country. The data paints a disturbing picture about the trends with which we are faced. Right now the United States invests about 2.7 percent of its gross domestic product in research and development. That is not bad. It puts us No. 5 in the world in the percentage of our gross domestic product invested in research and development. Yet we are still behind Korea. We are still behind Japan. Both those countries invest over 3 percent of their gross domestic product in research and development. However, the issue is not to look at the static snapshot that says today we are fifth in this level of effort, but to look at the change in the rate of commitment over time. Let me do that with a chart here. I have several charts I want to briefly take people through, to make the case for what we are up against. This is the Emerging Economies Rapidly Increasing Research and Development Investments chart. The top line with the orange dots upon it shows the United States and shows we are investing more than other nations. But the bottom line, which, of course, is rising rapidly, is fast-growing economies. Those economies are specifically China, Ireland, Israel, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. So clearly we have a circumstance where the rate of change is not favorable to us. In fact, during this same timeframe, China's research and development per GDP grew from .6 percent to 1.4 percent. That is still well behind us, the United States, but it doubled in slightly more than a half dozen years, at a 7-percent annual growth rate. The trend line on the chart is self-evident. We need to begin to focus again on this area if we are going to maintain our ability to compete in biotechnology, in semiconductors, in flat panel displays. In some of those areas, particularly flat panel displays, the reality is we no longer compete effectively. Let me move to a second chart. This second chart shows the widening trade deficit in certain advanced technologies, in areas such as semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and telecommunications. As the sophistication of the imports we bring into this country increases, so will the sophistication of the research and development that is needed to support this type of manufacturing. You can see this orange line here, which represents the trade balance in advanced technology. You can see that up until somewhere around 2000, or the late 1990s, we had a very positive balance of trade with regard to advanced technology products. Since then, the line has been going down and going down rapidly. This is a concern which all of us should focus on, and this legislation is designed to address this concern head on. The third chart shows the average science literacy score of 15-year- old students by country. This is very hard to read. Unfortunately, the lettering is too small. But the main point can be understood. These, of course, are the future scientists and engineers in the world, young people on whom we depend to become future scientists and engineers and innovators. Obviously, we are concerned that the United States ranks way down here on the chart compared to 15-year-old students in all of these countries above us: Japan, South Korea, Australia, Netherlands, Czech Republic, New Zealand, Canada, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Sweden, Ireland, Hungary--you can follow on down. We come in right behind Iceland. We need to do better. I think everyone in this country who is concerned about the future of our economy and the future of our children knows we need to do better by those children and provide a better opportunity for them to compete in this world. Let me move to the fourth chart. If we look further up the pipeline of future innovators, the news is not that much better. This chart shows the fraction of United States undergraduates who receive science and engineering degrees, so you can see that at least three times more college students graduate with science and engineering degrees in China each year than in the United States. This is not a favorable trend either. Obviously, there are more people in China. But our ability to compete in the world, to a substantial extent, is going to depend on how many people we can train and equip to compete in this science and competition. The fifth chart I have here relates to trained scientists and engineers. This shows that China now produces almost as many Ph.D.'s as the United States. Again, the trend is the disturbing part of this chart. It is not that China is producing nearly as many doctoral degrees in the natural sciences and math and engineering as is the United States today. That is a fact but one that does not cause great concern. The concern is that we were dominant in this area and have been for a very long time. Now that has changed very dramatically. Universities in these other countries are first-class universities and people need to focus on that. Universities such as Tsinghua, in China, are very high quality. If they turn out a Ph.D. in engineering or science or the natural sciences in these schools, those individuals are world-class scientists in their fields. There is a 1995 quote by Alan Greenspan that sums up the importance of investment in research and development and education: Had the innovations of recent decades, especially in information technologies, not come to fruition, productivity growth would have continued to languish at the rate of the preceding 20 years. Much of the prosperity we have enjoyed and have come to expect has been the result of the focus we have had on science and engineering in our history. The final chart I have here is one from ``The Economist.'' It is based on the 2006 work that was done by three individuals at the Federal Reserve. It deals with this broad category of so-called intangible assets, assets such as research and development, information technology, even finance. Basically what it says is, as a percentage of gross domestic product, there is a very large amount of our gross domestic product that is tied to these so-called intangible assets. They now account for nearly 11 percent of our gross domestic product--that is $3.1 trillion in 2003. In other words, growth that is attributed to such areas is absolutely crucial to our overall economy--again, another reason why we need to be concerned about this issue. With this background, let me briefly talk about what is in the bill before I defer to my colleague here, Senator Alexander. In the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the portion of the bill that was developed out of that committee, we do several things. First, we create a director for math and science education in the Department of Energy whose job it is to coordinate math and science education, departmentwide. The director would report to the Under Secretary for Science in the Department of Energy. Next, we would significantly increase funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science to match the multiyear funding profile of the President's advanced competitiveness initiative which he presented to us here this year. Third, the bill proposes to create an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, to translate basic research that is carried out in the Office of Science into solutions for critical problems facing the applied energy programs in the Department. Examples of such problems would include hydrogen fuel storage using new materials or applying nanoscience to a new generation of solid- state lights. The bill will also address broader themes related to math and science education. According to the National Academy of Sciences, the technical building blocks of our Nation's economic strength have been eroding for a time. We need to produce students who are prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century. That means more attention to math and science education. America COMPETES contains a number of important provisions to improve K-12 math and science education, strengthen science and math skills of our teaching workforce. I know Senator Reid talked eloquently about that need and, of course, the commitment our former colleague, Paul Simon, had to progress in that area. First, it provides incentives for universities to systematically change the way they prepare teachers to teach math and science. The legislation provides grants to universities to integrate the teacher preparation programs with rich content subject matter in math and science, develop bachelor's degree programs in math and science with concurrent teacher certification, as well as master's degree programs in math and science for people who are currently teaching in our schools. Second, to make these programs attractive to students who are inclined to study these subjects--math, science, and engineering--the legislation significantly expands the National Science Foundation scholarships for students to become math and science teachers. The legislation significantly expands opportunities for teachers to strengthen their math and science skills. The bill increases training for teachers to become qualified to teach advanced placement courses and international baccalaureate courses in math and science. The bill provides significant training opportunities for teachers at both the National Science Foundation, as well as our National Laboratories, and there I think some of the summer programs Senator Reid was talking about are intended to take place at our universities, at our laboratories. Clearly, he is right in saying we need to provide the financial wherewithal so that teachers can take advantage of these programs and can upgrade their knowledge and then give that knowledge to their students the next school year. Further, the legislation provides grants to States to promote better alignment of elementary and secondary education with the knowledge and skills needed for success in postsecondary education and in the 21st century workforce. The bill significantly increases funding for the National Science Foundation, essentially doubling that budget in 5 years, while ensuring that the math and science education programs that are in the National Science Foundation increase at the same rate as the overall budget increases. The bill helps manufacturers by increasing funding for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, by 33 percent over 4 years. As I have said many times, this America COMPETES bill is only an authorization bill. The hard part, obviously, is going to be providing the funds to carry out the programs in this bill to meet these authorization targets we have set. In this regard, we were successful just a month or so ago, with Senator Alexander's good help, in adopting an amendment in the Senate which was an amendment to the budget resolution. It was adopted 71 to 1 to provide $1 billion in additional leeway or additional opportunity to meet the President's request in the areas of funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science, the National Science Foundation, and NIST. Because of that amendment to the budget resolution, virtually all of the authorization we are calling for in this legislation will be permitted to be appropriated this year, and that is very good news. This bill is a good bill. It is bipartisan. Like most bipartisan bills, it is the product of much negotiation. Many competing views, many competing interests have had a chance to be heard. I am proud of the way this bill has come together. Our staffs deserve great credit for the hard work they have put into this legislation. I particularly commend Senator Alexander. He is the person who got this initiative started and came to me initially and said: Let's do this letter to the National Academies and see if they will do a study and tell us what are the most important things we can do in this country to keep this country competitive in world markets. That is what then led to the Augustine Commission report and, of course, that combined with the other reports that came forward--and there were several other very useful reports--that have gotten us to this point. Senator Alexander deserves particular credit for the success we have had so far. I hope all colleagues will look seriously at this legislation and will support the effort to move ahead with it. This is authorizing legislation. In doing the appropriations bills that will come to the floor later this year, we still will have an opportunity to debate the specific funding levels for some of these programs. This sets out a framework for progress which can be very beneficial to this country and a framework which is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. I yield the floor. I know my colleague from Tennessee wishes to speak at this time.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Melanie Roberts, who is a fellow in my office; Mr. Kevin Eckerle, a fellow in the Commerce Committee; Dr. Steve Leherman, a fellow in Senator Pryor's office; and Mr. Craig Robinson, a fellow in Senator Lieberman's office, all be granted the privilege of the floor during the pendency of S. 761 and any votes that occur on this bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my colleagues Senators Craig and Conrad and others in introducing the Medicare Medical Nutrition Therapy Act of 2007. This marks the fourth consecutive Congress that Senator Craig and I have joined together in introducing a bill to expand the current Medicare Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) benefit. In 2000, the Congress passed a bill authorizing Medicare payment for MNT services, but only for patients with diabetes and renal diseases. Recognizing that many other diseases also have a nutrition component to their treatment, Congress asked the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services to report back to Congress their recommendations on MNT coverage. That report was submitted to Congress in 2004 and recommended that patients with conditions such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, and certain cancers be eligible to receive MNT therapy. Medical Nutrition Therapy is not nutrition counseling, it is much more. It involves a specific diagnosis of a disease, condition, or disorder that can be treated with nutrition intervention. That is why Congress limited MNT provider status to Registered Dietitians; they have the specific training necessary to address nutritional interventions as part of a diseased related therapy. As we all know, Medicare is under tremendous financial stress. It is therefore critically important that bills designed to expand Medicare's coverage be both necessary and cost effective. This is exactly why Senator Craig and I have been such consistent supporters of expanding the MNT benefit. Under our current bill, there is no mandated expansion of the benefit. Instead, we simply give the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services the authority to expand coverage using the National Coverage Determination process. The Congress has mandated that the criteria used in that process is necessary and reasonable. As a result, the MNT benefit will not be expanded beyond diabetes and renal diseases unless such expansion is proven to be cost effective. This is likely not a difficult test for MNT to meet. There is considerable evidence that MNT is cost effective in the treatment of conditions such as pre-diabetes, which surprisingly is not eligible for MNT. Five years ago, in March of 2002, then HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson warned Americans of the risks of ``pre-diabetes,'' a condition affecting nearly 16 million Americans that sharply raises the risk for developing type 2 diabetes and increases the risk of heart disease by 50 percent. HHS-supported research that shows most people with pre-diabetes will likely develop diabetes within a decade unless they make modest changes in their diet and level of physical activity, which can help them reduce their risks and avoid the debilitating disease. Secretary Thompson called for physicians to begin screening overweight people age 45 and older for pre-diabetes. When Congress passed the Medicare Modernization Act in December 2003, it included diabetes (and pre-diabetes) screening in the Welcome to Medicare physical. So Medicare now covers diabetes screening and will pay for MNT for beneficiaries diagnosed with diabetes, but it will not pay for nutrition counseling for beneficiaries diagnosed with pre-diabetes. This makes no sense. The last Congress recognized the critical role that MNT can play in the treatment of HIV/AIDS by making MNT one of the Core Medical Services under the Ryan White CARE Act. According to the American Dietetic Association, ``The importance of nutrition and especially medical nutrition therapy to the treatment and management of HIV disease cannot be overstated. MNT has become a critical element of disease management for persons living with HIV/AIDS.'' Many HIV/AIDs patients are eligible for Medicare and these patients are in need of MNT to help them manage their disease. Since the current MNT benefit is limited under statute to just beneficiaries with diabetes and renal diseases, CMS lacks the authority to expand the benefit regardless of how cost effective it is or how many lives it might save. This makes no sense. The bill that Senator Craig and I are introducing today gives the experts at CMS the authority to make those decisions. Choosing to rely on the National Coverage Determination (NCD) process would allow CMS to make decisions based upon the science, and establish the extent to which Medicare will cover specific services, procedures or technologies on a national basis. This is what the NCD is designed to do. This approach also recognizes the importance of saving Medicare dollars. I urge my colleagues to join with me today in supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Domenici, I am pleased today to introduce a bill which attempts to promote good stewardship of our limited water supplies in the San Juan River basin in New Mexico. The bill is entitled the ``Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Projects Act''. Within its scope are a number of provisions relating to and amending Federal statutes that relate to the Bureau of Reclamation and the use of water in the Colorado River basin. There are also new authorizations for the Bureau of Reclamation. Finally, there are provisions that will resolve the Navajo Nation's water rights claims in the San Juan River in New Mexico. This bill is critical for New Mexico's future. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to see that it gets enacted into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my colleagues Senators Craig and Conrad and others in introducing the Medicare Medical Nutrition Therapy Act of 2007. This marks the fourth consecutive Congress that Senator Craig and I have joined together in introducing a bill to expand the current Medicare Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) benefit. In 2000, the Congress passed a bill authorizing Medicare payment for MNT services, but only for patients with diabetes and renal diseases. Recognizing that many other diseases also have a nutrition component to their treatment, Congress asked the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services to report back to Congress their recommendations on MNT coverage. That report was submitted to Congress in 2004 and recommended that patients with conditions such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, and certain cancers be eligible to receive MNT therapy. Medical Nutrition Therapy is not nutrition counseling, it is much more. It involves a specific diagnosis of a disease, condition, or disorder that can be treated with nutrition intervention. That is why Congress limited MNT provider status to Registered Dietitians; they have the specific training necessary to address nutritional interventions as part of a diseased related therapy. As we all know, Medicare is under tremendous financial stress. It is therefore critically important that bills designed to expand Medicare's coverage be both necessary and cost effective. This is exactly why Senator Craig and I have been such consistent supporters of expanding the MNT benefit. Under our current bill, there is no mandated expansion of the benefit. Instead, we simply give the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services the authority to expand coverage using the National Coverage Determination process. The Congress has mandated that the criteria used in that process is necessary and reasonable. As a result, the MNT benefit will not be expanded beyond diabetes and renal diseases unless such expansion is proven to be cost effective. This is likely not a difficult test for MNT to meet. There is considerable evidence that MNT is cost effective in the treatment of conditions such as pre-diabetes, which surprisingly is not eligible for MNT. Five years ago, in March of 2002, then HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson warned Americans of the risks of ``pre-diabetes,'' a condition affecting nearly 16 million Americans that sharply raises the risk for developing type 2 diabetes and increases the risk of heart disease by 50 percent. HHS-supported research that shows most people with pre-diabetes will likely develop diabetes within a decade unless they make modest changes in their diet and level of physical activity, which can help them reduce their risks and avoid the debilitating disease. Secretary Thompson called for physicians to begin screening overweight people age 45 and older for pre-diabetes. When Congress passed the Medicare Modernization Act in December 2003, it included diabetes (and pre-diabetes) screening in the Welcome to Medicare physical. So Medicare now covers diabetes screening and will pay for MNT for beneficiaries diagnosed with diabetes, but it will not pay for nutrition counseling for beneficiaries diagnosed with pre-diabetes. This makes no sense. The last Congress recognized the critical role that MNT can play in the treatment of HIV/AIDS by making MNT one of the Core Medical Services under the Ryan White CARE Act. According to the American Dietetic Association, ``The importance of nutrition and especially medical nutrition therapy to the treatment and management of HIV disease cannot be overstated. MNT has become a critical element of disease management for persons living with HIV/AIDS.'' Many HIV/AIDs patients are eligible for Medicare and these patients are in need of MNT to help them manage their disease. Since the current MNT benefit is limited under statute to just beneficiaries with diabetes and renal diseases, CMS lacks the authority to expand the benefit regardless of how cost effective it is or how many lives it might save. This makes no sense. The bill that Senator Craig and I are introducing today gives the experts at CMS the authority to make those decisions. Choosing to rely on the National Coverage Determination (NCD) process would allow CMS to make decisions based upon the science, and establish the extent to which Medicare will cover specific services, procedures or technologies on a national basis. This is what the NCD is designed to do. This approach also recognizes the importance of saving Medicare dollars. I urge my colleagues to join with me today in supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Domenici, I am pleased today to introduce a bill which attempts to promote good stewardship of our limited water supplies in the San Juan River basin in New Mexico. The bill is entitled the ``Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Projects Act''. Within its scope are a number of provisions relating to and amending Federal statutes that relate to the Bureau of Reclamation and the use of water in the Colorado River basin. There are also new authorizations for the Bureau of Reclamation. Finally, there are provisions that will resolve the Navajo Nation's water rights claims in the San Juan River in New Mexico. This bill is critical for New Mexico's future. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to see that it gets enacted into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, together with Senators Salazar, Cantwell, and Sanders, I am pleased today to introduce legislation to codify the National Landscape Conservation System, the collection of national monuments, national conservation areas, wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers and other remarkable landscapes on our public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The National Landscape Conservation System was established administratively by the Department of the Interior in 2000 and consists of all areas the BLM administers for conservation purposes. The concept behind grouping all of these areas into one system was to increase public awareness of the importance of these lands and to highlight the BLM's conservation of these areas and their cultural, historical, scientific, and ecological significance to the Nation. Within my own State of New Mexico, the National Landscape Conservation System encompasses several nationally significant areas, including the rugged lava flows of El Malpais National Conservation Area, the unique cone-shaped rock formations of the Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument, the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River, the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail and the El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro and Old Spanish Trail National Historic Trails, as well as over one million acres of wilderness and wilderness study areas. However, because the NLCS was established administratively, it does not have the permanence that it would have if enacted legislatively. In addition, legislative enactment of the NLCS will help increase the attention to these important, congressionally protected areas, and hopefully will help ensure that the system remains a high priority within the BLM and the Department of the Interior. The bill does not create any new management authority and does not change the authorities for any of the previously designated areas within the system. Given the broad public support for these areas, I expect this bill to be non-controversial and it is my hope that it will be able to move quickly through the Congress and enactment into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, together with Senators Salazar, Cantwell, and Sanders, I am pleased today to introduce legislation to codify the National Landscape Conservation System, the collection of national monuments, national conservation areas, wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers and other remarkable landscapes on our public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The National Landscape Conservation System was established administratively by the Department of the Interior in 2000 and consists of all areas the BLM administers for conservation purposes. The concept behind grouping all of these areas into one system was to increase public awareness of the importance of these lands and to highlight the BLM's conservation of these areas and their cultural, historical, scientific, and ecological significance to the Nation. Within my own State of New Mexico, the National Landscape Conservation System encompasses several nationally significant areas, including the rugged lava flows of El Malpais National Conservation Area, the unique cone-shaped rock formations of the Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument, the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River, the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail and the El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro and Old Spanish Trail National Historic Trails, as well as over one million acres of wilderness and wilderness study areas. However, because the NLCS was established administratively, it does not have the permanence that it would have if enacted legislatively. In addition, legislative enactment of the NLCS will help increase the attention to these important, congressionally protected areas, and hopefully will help ensure that the system remains a high priority within the BLM and the Department of the Interior. The bill does not create any new management authority and does not change the authorities for any of the previously designated areas within the system. Given the broad public support for these areas, I expect this bill to be non-controversial and it is my hope that it will be able to move quickly through the Congress and enactment into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that S. 1112, a bill to allow for the renegotiation of the payment schedule of contracts between the Secretary of the Interior and the Redwood Valley County Water District, and for other purposes, has been added to the agenda of the hearing scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources scheduled for Wednesday, April 25, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Michael Connor at (202) 224- 5479 or Gina Weinstock at (202) 224-5684.

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 April 23, 2007 at 3 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1115, a bill to promote the efficient use of oil, natural gas, and electricity, reduce oil consumption, and heighten energy efficiency standards for consumer products and industrial equipment, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

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 Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on April 25, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 175, to provide for a feasibility study of alternatives to augment the water supplies of the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District and cities served by the District; S. 324, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of water resources in the State of New Mexico; S. 542, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility studies to address certain water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and Payette River systems in the State of Idaho, and for other purposes; S. 752, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the implementation of the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Species in the Central and Lower Platte River Basin and to modify the Pathfinder Dam and Reservoir; S. 1037, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to assist in the planning, design, and construction of the Tumalo Irrigation District Water Conservation Project in Deschutes County, Oregon; S. 1116 and H.R. 902, to facilitate the use for irrigation and other purposes of water produced in connection with development of energy resources; and H.R. 235, to allow for the renegotiation of the payment schedule of contracts between the Secretary of the Interior and the Redwood Valley County Water District, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to Gina Weinstock@energy.senate.gov.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a comprehensive Energy efficiency bill. I am pleased to have the Ranking Member of the Energy Committee, the senior Senator from New Mexico, as my co-sponsor, along with Senator Dorgan, Senator Lugar, Senator Akaka, Senator Murkowski and Senator Craig. Energy efficiency can be viewed as the Nation's largest energy resource. Due to actions taken to increase efficiency since the 1973 oil crisis, we now save more energy each year than we get from any single energy supply resource, including oil. When the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was signed into law in August of 2005, it included a strong package of energy efficiency initiatives. However, just a month later, when hurricanes devastated our Nation's primary oil and gas supply region and many of us recognized that we needed to enact additional and more aggressive efficiency measures. During the last 2 years, gasoline, natural gas, and electricity prices have reached all-time high levels. These price increases cost American families and businesses over $300 billion dollars each year. In the 2006 elections, voters sent us a clear message that they wanted Congress to address high energy prices and also to provide solutions to climate change. Energy efficiency policies can alleviate both of these problems. Our bill includes provisions that will improve efficiency in vehicles, buildings, appliances and industrial equipment. The legislation is also intended to motivate States and utilities to recognize energy efficiency as a resource and to remove current disincentives to programs that will benefit utility customers while reducing demand for electricity and natural gas. Improving our energy productivity through efficiency has multiple benefits--it lowers the costs of consumers' energy bills; decreases the vulnerability of the economy to energy price shocks from natural disasters or problems with foreign sources of supply; provides environmental benefits such as lower air pollution and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, energy efficiency investments help build local jobs and improve state economies. The bill we are introducing today includes initiatives in six key areas: Promoting the development and use of advanced lighting technologies; Expediting new efficiency standards for appliances and industrial equipment; Promoting high efficiency vehicles, advanced batteries and energy storage; Setting aggressive goals for reducing gasoline consumption and improving overall energy productivity in the U.S.; Promoting Federal leadership in energy efficiency and renewable energy; and Assisting States, local governments and utilities in energy efficiency efforts. In addition to the Energy Efficiency Promotion Act, I want to emphasize that other Senate committees are working on complementary efficiency initiatives, including the energy efficiency tax provisions we are developing in the Finance Committee and CAFE standards legislation in the Commerce Committee. Finally, for the information on my colleagues, this bill is the 4th in a quartet of Energy bills that will be taken up by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the next few weeks. These bills are: S. 987, the Biofuels for Energy Security and Transportation Act; S. 731, the National Carbon Dioxide Storage Capacity Assessment Act; and S. 962 the Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage R D&D Act. We are working diligently to meet the Majority Leader's timetable for floor action on Energy legislation. I encourage Senators with questions or concerns about any of these bills to let me know so that we can try to address issues in a timely manner. I have included at the end of my statement a preliminary estimate of the energy savings that would result from the implementation of the programs in this bill. I request that this estimate be printed in the Record. There being no objection the material was ordered to be printed as follows. Energy Saving Estimate for the Energy Efficiency Promotion Act Potential savings from the appliance efficiency standards included in Titles I and II: Electricity--At least 50 billion kilowatt hours per year, or enough to power roughly 4.8 million typical U.S. households; Natural gas--170 million therms per year or enough to heat about a quarter million typical U.S. homes; Water--At least 560 million gallons per day, or about 1.3 percent of total daily potable water usage; and Dollars--More than $12 billion in net present benefits for consumers. Potential Savings From Federal Government Leadership in Efficiency-- Title V The Federal Government consumed 1.1 quadrillion Btus or ``quads'' of energy during Fiscal Year 2005. The Federal energy bill for Fiscal Year 2005 increased by 24 percent compared to Fiscal Year 2004. About 30 percent of the Federal energy use is in standard buildings and about 60 percent is energy used by vehicles and equipment. Although savings can not be estimated at this time--the legislation requires the Federal Government to achieve a 30 percent reduction in energy usage per square foot by 2015 and to reduce its use of gasoline in fleet vehicles by 30 percent in Fiscal Year 2016. Potential Savings From Electric and Gas Utility Efficiency Programs-- Title VI Assuming all State utility regulatory commissions and nonregulated utilities adopt the energy efficiency policies and cost-effective energy efficiency programs recommended in this bill, the estimate cumulative potential energy savings by 2020 would be 7.8 quads and the energy cost savings would be $12 billion. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a comprehensive Energy efficiency bill. I am pleased to have the Ranking Member of the Energy Committee, the senior Senator from New Mexico, as my co-sponsor, along with Senator Dorgan, Senator Lugar, Senator Akaka, Senator Murkowski and Senator Craig. Energy efficiency can be viewed as the Nation's largest energy resource. Due to actions taken to increase efficiency since the 1973 oil crisis, we now save more energy each year than we get from any single energy supply resource, including oil. When the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was signed into law in August of 2005, it included a strong package of energy efficiency initiatives. However, just a month later, when hurricanes devastated our Nation's primary oil and gas supply region and many of us recognized that we needed to enact additional and more aggressive efficiency measures. During the last 2 years, gasoline, natural gas, and electricity prices have reached all-time high levels. These price increases cost American families and businesses over $300 billion dollars each year. In the 2006 elections, voters sent us a clear message that they wanted Congress to address high energy prices and also to provide solutions to climate change. Energy efficiency policies can alleviate both of these problems. Our bill includes provisions that will improve efficiency in vehicles, buildings, appliances and industrial equipment. The legislation is also intended to motivate States and utilities to recognize energy efficiency as a resource and to remove current disincentives to programs that will benefit utility customers while reducing demand for electricity and natural gas. Improving our energy productivity through efficiency has multiple benefits--it lowers the costs of consumers' energy bills; decreases the vulnerability of the economy to energy price shocks from natural disasters or problems with foreign sources of supply; provides environmental benefits such as lower air pollution and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, energy efficiency investments help build local jobs and improve state economies. The bill we are introducing today includes initiatives in six key areas: Promoting the development and use of advanced lighting technologies; Expediting new efficiency standards for appliances and industrial equipment; Promoting high efficiency vehicles, advanced batteries and energy storage; Setting aggressive goals for reducing gasoline consumption and improving overall energy productivity in the U.S.; Promoting Federal leadership in energy efficiency and renewable energy; and Assisting States, local governments and utilities in energy efficiency efforts. In addition to the Energy Efficiency Promotion Act, I want to emphasize that other Senate committees are working on complementary efficiency initiatives, including the energy efficiency tax provisions we are developing in the Finance Committee and CAFE standards legislation in the Commerce Committee. Finally, for the information on my colleagues, this bill is the 4th in a quartet of Energy bills that will be taken up by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the next few weeks. These bills are: S. 987, the Biofuels for Energy Security and Transportation Act; S. 731, the National Carbon Dioxide Storage Capacity Assessment Act; and S. 962 the Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage R D&D Act. We are working diligently to meet the Majority Leader's timetable for floor action on Energy legislation. I encourage Senators with questions or concerns about any of these bills to let me know so that we can try to address issues in a timely manner. I have included at the end of my statement a preliminary estimate of the energy savings that would result from the implementation of the programs in this bill. I request that this estimate be printed in the Record. There being no objection the material was ordered to be printed as follows. Energy Saving Estimate for the Energy Efficiency Promotion Act Potential savings from the appliance efficiency standards included in Titles I and II: Electricity--At least 50 billion kilowatt hours per year, or enough to power roughly 4.8 million typical U.S. households; Natural gas--170 million therms per year or enough to heat about a quarter million typical U.S. homes; Water--At least 560 million gallons per day, or about 1.3 percent of total daily potable water usage; and Dollars--More than $12 billion in net present benefits for consumers. Potential Savings From Federal Government Leadership in Efficiency-- Title V The Federal Government consumed 1.1 quadrillion Btus or ``quads'' of energy during Fiscal Year 2005. The Federal energy bill for Fiscal Year 2005 increased by 24 percent compared to Fiscal Year 2004. About 30 percent of the Federal energy use is in standard buildings and about 60 percent is energy used by vehicles and equipment. Although savings can not be estimated at this time--the legislation requires the Federal Government to achieve a 30 percent reduction in energy usage per square foot by 2015 and to reduce its use of gasoline in fleet vehicles by 30 percent in Fiscal Year 2016. Potential Savings From Electric and Gas Utility Efficiency Programs-- Title VI Assuming all State utility regulatory commissions and nonregulated utilities adopt the energy efficiency policies and cost-effective energy efficiency programs recommended in this bill, the estimate cumulative potential energy savings by 2020 would be 7.8 quads and the energy cost savings would be $12 billion. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on April 23, 2007 at 3 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1115, a bill to promote the efficient use of oil, natural gas, and electricity, reduce oil consumption, and heighten energy efficiency standards for consumer products and industrial equipment, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Deborah Estes at (202) 224- 4971 or Britni Rillera at (202) 224-1219.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Smith to introduce two pieces of vitally important, bipartisan legislation that will ensure that low-income seniors have full access to the benefits available to them under the Medicare Drug Benefit. The first piece of legislation makes critical improvements in the Medicare Part D Low-Income Subsidy (LIS) available to assist these individuals in meeting cost sharing, premium, and deductible requirements under Part D. The second will ensure that low-income seniors don't get caught in the Medicare Part D coverage gap, or ``doughnut hole,'' simply because of where they purchase their Part D pharmaceuticals. These bills were developed in close collaboration with Senator Smith, who also will be introducing two bills today to achieve other, critical improvements in the Medicare program for low-income seniors. Together, we believe this package of four bills will provide the reforms necessary to ensure that the Medicare program and the LIS function as they were intended, to ensure access to life-saving drug coverage for some of the most vulnerable members of our society. Data indicates that a shockingly low number of seniors eligible for the LIS benefit are actually receiving the benefit. According to the January 2007 report by the National Council on Aging (NCOA), The Next Steps: Strategies to Improve the Medicare Part D Low-Income Subsidy, only 35 percent to 42 percent of beneficiaries who could have successfully applied for the LIS in 2006 were actually receiving it. Exacerbating this problem, NCOA also reports that overall LIS enrollment rates are slowing. In total for 2007, NCOA estimates that between 3.4 and 4.4 million beneficiaries still must be identified and enrolled in the LIS. Furthermore, data indicates that certain LIS requirements result in many low-income seniors that should be eligible for the benefit being denied enrollment in LIS. I believe the modest policy changes created by the legislation I and Senator Smith are introducing will ensure that all low-income beneficiaries have access to the LIS. The single most significant barrier to LIS eligibility is the asset test, which accounts for approximately 41 percent of LIS denials. As reported by NCOA, the asset test penalizes low income retirees who may have very modest savings. For example, approximately half of the people that failed the asset test have excess assets of $35,000 or less. These people tend to be older, female, widowed, and living alone. In addition the asset test is inherently discriminatory against certain categories of people, e.g., people who rent their homes. My legislation, the Part D Equity for Low-Income Seniors Act, will dramatically improve this inequity by raising the asset test limits to $27,500 for an individual and $55,000 for a couple. This will capture about half of individuals and two-thirds of couples who have been denied LIS because of excess resources. As recommended by OIG in fall 2006, this legislation also allows the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to transfer tax filing information to the Social Security Administration (SSA) so they can better target beneficiaries who might be eligible for the LIS. In addition, this legislation creates an expedited LIS application process for pre- screened beneficiaries, prohibits the reporting of retirement account balances, life-insurance policies and in-kind contributions when determining a beneficiary's resource level, and prohibits LIS benefits from being counted as resources for the purposes of determining eligibility for other federal programs. I also am introducing the Low-Income True Out-Of Pocket (TrOOP) Expense under Part D Assistance bill, which ensures that low-income Americans do not get ``stuck'' in the Part D ``doughnut hole'' simply because of where they choose to purchase Part D pharmaceuticals. Unbelievably, under current regulation and guidance, individuals who are in the doughnut hole and receive Part D drugs from commercial pharmacies are permitted to count waivers or reductions in Part D cost- sharing to count towards their TrOOP. However, low-income individuals who tend to receive Part D drugs from safety-net pharmacies and other safety-net providers are not permitted to count similar waivers or reductions in Part D cost-sharing by safety-net providers towards their TrOOP. Thus, current law penalizes low-income individuals and makes it easier for them to get stuck in the doughnut hole--never accessing the catastrophic coverage to which they are entitled. My legislation would undo this inequity and permit waivers and reductions for beneficiaries receiving care from safety-net providers to count towards beneficiaries' TrOOP. Specifically, the legislation will count waivers and reductions by certain safety-net hospitals and pharmacies, Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs), Pharmacy Assistance Programs (PAPs), and the Indian Health Service (IRS) toward TrOOP. In closing, I would also like to offer my strong support for the two bills on which we worked very closely with Senator Smith and that he is introducing today. The first is the Medicare Part D Outreach and Enrollment Enhancement Act, which creates a permanent 90-day special enrollment period for any beneficiary who becomes eligible for the LIS. It also requires CMS to provide such beneficiaries facilitated enrollment into the plans allowing, within 90 days, the beneficiary to be enrolled into the most appropriate plan for his or her needs. The legislation also waives the late enrollment penalty for LIS beneficiaries, provides a $1 per beneficiary authorization for State Health Insurance Programs, and funds the National Center on Senior Benefits and Outreach, which was created last year in the Older Americans Act. The second piece of legislation creates important equity between institutionalized Part D beneficiaries dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid and those dual eligibles who avoid initialization through a Home and Community Based Waiver (HCBW). Currently under Federal law, Part D cost-sharing requirements are waived for dual-eligible individuals that are institutionalized but are not waived for individuals in HCBWs. Senator Smith's legislation would make an important change to Federal law to all allow cost sharing under Part D to be waived for dual eligibles regardless of whether they are institutionalized or receiving care through HCBWs. I also would like to express my gratitude for the assistance of several key senior citizen advocates in crafting all four important pieces of legislation, including: Paul Cotton and Kristen Sloan from the American Association of Retired Persons, Howard Bedlin and Sara Duda from the National Council on Aging, Lena O'Rourke and Marc Steinberg from Families USA, Patricia Nemore and Vicki Gottlich from the Center for Medicare Advocacy and Paul Precht, from the Medicare Rights Center. I would also like to thank the Staff at the Social Security Administration (SSA) for their prompt feedback and invaluable assistance. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these important pieces of legislation, which will ensure that life saving pharmaceuticals are available to low-income Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the National Council on Aging Report, and the text of these bills to be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Smith to introduce two pieces of vitally important, bipartisan legislation that will ensure that low-income seniors have full access to the benefits available to them under the Medicare Drug Benefit. The first piece of legislation makes critical improvements in the Medicare Part D Low-Income Subsidy (LIS) available to assist these individuals in meeting cost sharing, premium, and deductible requirements under Part D. The second will ensure that low-income seniors don't get caught in the Medicare Part D coverage gap, or ``doughnut hole,'' simply because of where they purchase their Part D pharmaceuticals. These bills were developed in close collaboration with Senator Smith, who also will be introducing two bills today to achieve other, critical improvements in the Medicare program for low-income seniors. Together, we believe this package of four bills will provide the reforms necessary to ensure that the Medicare program and the LIS function as they were intended, to ensure access to life-saving drug coverage for some of the most vulnerable members of our society. Data indicates that a shockingly low number of seniors eligible for the LIS benefit are actually receiving the benefit. According to the January 2007 report by the National Council on Aging (NCOA), The Next Steps: Strategies to Improve the Medicare Part D Low-Income Subsidy, only 35 percent to 42 percent of beneficiaries who could have successfully applied for the LIS in 2006 were actually receiving it. Exacerbating this problem, NCOA also reports that overall LIS enrollment rates are slowing. In total for 2007, NCOA estimates that between 3.4 and 4.4 million beneficiaries still must be identified and enrolled in the LIS. Furthermore, data indicates that certain LIS requirements result in many low-income seniors that should be eligible for the benefit being denied enrollment in LIS. I believe the modest policy changes created by the legislation I and Senator Smith are introducing will ensure that all low-income beneficiaries have access to the LIS. The single most significant barrier to LIS eligibility is the asset test, which accounts for approximately 41 percent of LIS denials. As reported by NCOA, the asset test penalizes low income retirees who may have very modest savings. For example, approximately half of the people that failed the asset test have excess assets of $35,000 or less. These people tend to be older, female, widowed, and living alone. In addition the asset test is inherently discriminatory against certain categories of people, e.g., people who rent their homes. My legislation, the Part D Equity for Low-Income Seniors Act, will dramatically improve this inequity by raising the asset test limits to $27,500 for an individual and $55,000 for a couple. This will capture about half of individuals and two-thirds of couples who have been denied LIS because of excess resources. As recommended by OIG in fall 2006, this legislation also allows the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to transfer tax filing information to the Social Security Administration (SSA) so they can better target beneficiaries who might be eligible for the LIS. In addition, this legislation creates an expedited LIS application process for pre- screened beneficiaries, prohibits the reporting of retirement account balances, life-insurance policies and in-kind contributions when determining a beneficiary's resource level, and prohibits LIS benefits from being counted as resources for the purposes of determining eligibility for other federal programs. I also am introducing the Low-Income True Out-Of Pocket (TrOOP) Expense under Part D Assistance bill, which ensures that low-income Americans do not get ``stuck'' in the Part D ``doughnut hole'' simply because of where they choose to purchase Part D pharmaceuticals. Unbelievably, under current regulation and guidance, individuals who are in the doughnut hole and receive Part D drugs from commercial pharmacies are permitted to count waivers or reductions in Part D cost- sharing to count towards their TrOOP. However, low-income individuals who tend to receive Part D drugs from safety-net pharmacies and other safety-net providers are not permitted to count similar waivers or reductions in Part D cost-sharing by safety-net providers towards their TrOOP. Thus, current law penalizes low-income individuals and makes it easier for them to get stuck in the doughnut hole--never accessing the catastrophic coverage to which they are entitled. My legislation would undo this inequity and permit waivers and reductions for beneficiaries receiving care from safety-net providers to count towards beneficiaries' TrOOP. Specifically, the legislation will count waivers and reductions by certain safety-net hospitals and pharmacies, Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs), Pharmacy Assistance Programs (PAPs), and the Indian Health Service (IRS) toward TrOOP. In closing, I would also like to offer my strong support for the two bills on which we worked very closely with Senator Smith and that he is introducing today. The first is the Medicare Part D Outreach and Enrollment Enhancement Act, which creates a permanent 90-day special enrollment period for any beneficiary who becomes eligible for the LIS. It also requires CMS to provide such beneficiaries facilitated enrollment into the plans allowing, within 90 days, the beneficiary to be enrolled into the most appropriate plan for his or her needs. The legislation also waives the late enrollment penalty for LIS beneficiaries, provides a $1 per beneficiary authorization for State Health Insurance Programs, and funds the National Center on Senior Benefits and Outreach, which was created last year in the Older Americans Act. The second piece of legislation creates important equity between institutionalized Part D beneficiaries dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid and those dual eligibles who avoid initialization through a Home and Community Based Waiver (HCBW). Currently under Federal law, Part D cost-sharing requirements are waived for dual-eligible individuals that are institutionalized but are not waived for individuals in HCBWs. Senator Smith's legislation would make an important change to Federal law to all allow cost sharing under Part D to be waived for dual eligibles regardless of whether they are institutionalized or receiving care through HCBWs. I also would like to express my gratitude for the assistance of several key senior citizen advocates in crafting all four important pieces of legislation, including: Paul Cotton and Kristen Sloan from the American Association of Retired Persons, Howard Bedlin and Sara Duda from the National Council on Aging, Lena O'Rourke and Marc Steinberg from Families USA, Patricia Nemore and Vicki Gottlich from the Center for Medicare Advocacy and Paul Precht, from the Medicare Rights Center. I would also like to thank the Staff at the Social Security Administration (SSA) for their prompt feedback and invaluable assistance. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these important pieces of legislation, which will ensure that life saving pharmaceuticals are available to low-income Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the National Council on Aging Report, and the text of these bills to be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes from the time reserved on Senator Harkin's side.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise in favor of S. 5, the stem cell enhancement bill of 2007. Many of my colleagues have eloquently stated reasons for supporting this bill over the past 2 days. The passage of this bill would be an important step forward for research into treatments of devastating diseases. In addition, passing S. 5 will help the United States as a leader in biomedical research, a leader in transparent and ethical research practices, and a leader in developing safe, effective treatments for diseases. I wish to see stem cell therapies developed in this country so we can ensure the safety and availability of these treatments for American families and at the same time create jobs for highly skilled workers to do the necessary research and to develop these new treatments. Our current policy puts us at a severe disadvantage to other countries. As the Director of the NIH said at a recent hearing, our current stem cell policy is akin to working with one hand tied behind our backs. Scientists in most other countries are at an advantage to U.S. scientists because they are allowed to study the best stem cell lines and do so with government funding. Let me explain this world stem cell policies map I have put up. It is color coded to show the different stem cell policies that exist in different parts of the world. We have essentially chosen four colors or four categories of policies I am trying to focus on. First, we have the countries in yellow which have not adopted stem cell policies. You can see those countries are fairly extensive. Next to those are those that have adopted stem cell policies. The United States is part of that group. Those are the countries in gray on this world map. The United States is among the most restrictive of those countries that are in gray, but we do have other countries that have policies that are in that category as well. Third are the countries in light brown which allow the creation of stem cell lines from leftover embryos in IVF clinics. We can see those light-brown countries. Passing S. 5 would move the United States into that group of countries, such as France and Canada and Brazil. The final group depicted on this world map is those that are shaded in dark brown. These countries allow other laboratory techniques to be used to create embryonic stem cell lines. You will notice that many of these countries have very strong scientific research programs. I particularly mention the United Kingdom, India, and China as part of that. Scientists in these countries, other than the United States, are free to use the type of stem cells best suited to their research, whether they are adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells created before 2001 or embryonic stem cells created after 2001. In fact, many countries have been promoting stem cell research because they see this as an opportunity to get ahead in this field during a time when U.S. scientists are restricted to less useful stem cell lines. For example, the United Kingdom has established a world stem cell bank to collect, characterize, and distribute embryonic stem cell lines to researchers around the world. The United Kingdom has also developed a comprehensive national regulatory system that requires researchers to follow strict ethical guidelines. While these regulations may slow research to some extent, embryonic research is an area that merits extra care and transparency and oversight. We should not relinquish our duty to uphold high ethical research standards to other countries or to individual States within this country or to the market more generally. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Many other countries, including Singapore, Korea, and Australia, also have federally funded centers for embryonic stem cells. However, it will be difficult for the United States to capitalize on the research advances that are made in these other countries since federally funded scientists in the United States are restricted from collaborating with foreign scientists who use the stem cell lines that were generated after 2001. Furthermore, we can't leave this important field of science to the private sector alone. We have a long history of bipartisan support for basic science research in this country precisely because it does not make financial sense for industries to invest substantially in early- stage research. Any scientist will tell you that human embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, and that it has gone more slowly than it would have otherwise gone because of the restrictions currently in place in our own policy. Furthermore, most cell-based therapies, including bone marrow stem cell transplants, were first developed in academic research hospitals and have never been widely utilized. This means Federal funding is even more important for cell- based therapies such as stem cell transplants than it is for other types of treatments. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support S. 5. It is an important step to keep the United States a world leader in the field of biomedical research, and it will give hope to many of our citizens for the treatments they desperately need. 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 Subcommittee on National Parks. The hearing will be held on April 26, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 169, to amend the National Trails System Act to clarify Federal authority relating to land acquisition from willing sellers for the majority of the trails in the System; S. 312/H.R. 497, to authorize the Marion Park Project and Committee of the Palmetto Conservation Foundation to establish a commemorative work on Federal land in the District of Columbia and its environs to honor Brigadier General Francis Marion; S. 580, to amend the National Trails System Act to require the Secretary of the Interior to update the feasibility and suitability studies of four national historic trails; S. 686, to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail; S. 722, to direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to jointly conduct a study of certain land adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National Monument in the State of Arizona; S. 783, to adjust the boundary of the Barataria Preserve Unit of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve in the State of Louisiana; S. 890, to provide for certain administrative and support services for the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission; and H.R. 1047, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to determine the suitability and feasibility of designating the Soldiers' Memorial Military Museum located in St. Louis, Missouri, as a unit of the National Park System. 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 rachel_pasternack@energy.senate .gov. For further information, please contact David Brooks at (202) 224- 9863 or Rachel Pasternack 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 Monday, April 16, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 731, the National Carbon Dioxide Storage Capacity Assessment Act of 2007 and S. 962, the Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007. Due to the limited 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, Washing- ton, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Gina_weinstock@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Allyson Anderson or Gina Weinstock. committee on commerce, science, and transportation

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 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, April 12, 2007, at 10 a.m.,in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 987, the Biofuels for Energy Security and Transportation Act. Due to 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 Britni_rillera@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Tara Billingsley at (202) 224-4756 or Britni Rillera at (202) 224-1219.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and congratulate him on his leadership on this issue. His amendment is well designed and meritorious. I urge all colleagues to support the amendment. I wish to speak about why I think this is so important to our rural counties. I do think the legislation is important because it lays out a period of years during which counties will know they have a set amount of money coming in to assist with the various responsibilities they have put upon them. This amendment also, of course, involves a full funding of the payment in lieu of taxes, which is extremely important to many of the counties in my State, particularly. This payment in lieu of taxes is designed to provide some funding to those counties that have lost their tax base by virtue of the Federal Government owning so much of the land in those counties. Both programs were authorized through the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and the committee has remained active on both issues in recent years. With regard to the Secure Rural Schools, or ``county payments'', program, we have held a number of oversight and legislative hearings during the last couple of years. Accordingly, I would like to briefly explain some of the key changes that this amendment makes to the original program. The most significant change is in the formula. The new formula has three components: the original formula, the number of qualifying acres of Federal land, and per capita personal income. The mathematics of the formula are rooted at the county level, and the ultimate payments are determined by calculating what would be each participating county's portion of the total annual funding for the program. As a result, unlike the original formula, the new formula responds to the annual funding amount, permitting an orderly phase-down of the total annual funding levels. The legislative text memorializes the component of the original formula at the county level in the definition of ``base share'' in paragraphs (2)(B)(i) and (9)(B)(i) of section 3. In developing the formula, we looked to existing data from the Federal agencies, recognizing that the specific data may change as a result of updating or correction. For the Forest Service, paragraph (2)(B)(i) of section 3 describes what the Forest Service referred to as the ``potential county share'' when it calculated payment amounts under the original formula on March 1, 2002. For the Bureau of Land Management, paragraph (9)(B)(i) of section 3 describes what the BLM referred to as ``payment amounts to each eligible county'' on its November 14, 2002, certification to the Treasury Department of payments made under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. The per capita personal income data was gathered from the Bureau of Economic Analysis' Regional Economic Accounts, Table CA1-3, 030. Total funding for the program would be gradually reduced to approximately 72 percent of the fiscal year 2006 level by the end of the 5-year reauthorization. During the first 4 years of the reauthorization, additional funds would be provided to the uniquely affected States of Washington, California, and Oregon to ensure that they can make a reasonable transition to the new funding levels under the new formula. For fiscal year, 2007, the transition funding would provide the three States an amount equal to last year's levels, and then their total county payments funding would be reduced by 10 percent annually through 2010. Total funding levels in each of those States would be determined under the new formula in 2011. If counties that received county payments in fiscal year 2006 decided to optout of the county payments program, then those counties would instead receive the payment amounts required by the 1908 or 1937 acts and the county payments funding to their States during that fiscal year would be reduced by their corresponding share of the fiscal year 2006 county payments funding. The amendment also focuses the county payments funding on resource advisory committee, ``RAC'', collaboration, which was one of the most successful aspects of the original law. Most counties are required to spend at least 13 percent of their total county payments program funding on special projects on federal land--unless they choose to forego that portion of the funding. Exceptions have been made where experience has shown that the 15-20 percent of total program funding available for special projects on Federal land, under title II, may be inadequate. As recommended by an in-depth study of RACs under the county payments program, we have made a few changes to the RAC representation. The editions allow some key interest groups that currently are not adequately represented to participate on RACs. They also provide communities with some flexibility where existing requirements were unnecessarily difficult or awkward to fulfill. As discussed in the study, in a number of cases, the Federal land management issues in any particular region simply were not relevant to a couple of the interest groups required to be represented under the original law. For example, while wild horse and burro interest groups are key stakeholders on many RACs, there also are many RACs in areas of the country with no wild horses or burros. In such cases, the study found that some counties simply could not find individuals willing to serve on RACs that met the letter and spirit of the existing criteria. None of the editions exclude any of the interest groups currently represented on RACs, and the Secretaries retain appointment authority. As a result, the modest expansion should neither disadvantage any group currently participating on RACs nor disrupt in any way the collaboration on RACs. To the contrary, it should improve the collaboration by ensuring that RACs are adequately staffed with the appropriate interest groups. County funding under title III has been restricted and focused on programs that indirectly benefit public land management. In addition, provisions have been added to title III to encourage compliance with its terms and greater awareness of the counties' efforts by Federal land managers. Finally, a degree of stability for revenue sharing payments to counties is provided under the amendment. Stabilizing payments is one of the primary purposes of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self- Determination Act, but as the recent experience with its expiration in 2006 exemplifies, a degree of stability remains necessary over the longterm. Section 3 of the amendment provides for 25 percent payments to be distributed based on a 7-year rolling average. This will ensure that counties receive the same level of overall payments while at the same time reducing to a significant degree the sometimes dramatic annual fluctuations of Federal payments that make county budgeting difficult. By ensuring full funding for PILT, annual fluctuations in those payments also will be reduced through 2012. PILT also is a crucial part of ensuring an orderly transition for the States of California, Oregon, and Washington. And finally, full funding for PILT will provide a more equitable level of support to those counties with Federal land that does not qualify for the county payments program. In all, the amendment provides for more secure rural schools in more States and counties around the country, healthier National Forests for all Americans to enjoy, and the foundation for a legacy of public lands collaboration that we hope will provide for community, economic, and environmental benefits for decades to come. Let me also speak briefly about the amendment my friend from North Carolina has offered to insist and to require, I believe, 80 percent of the funds to be used for schools. It will be a substantial mistake to adopt that amendment, because it is a one-size-fits-all solution, when we have very different circumstances in each State. For example, in my State, we have what we call an education equalization formula. That means the State takes credit for whatever the counties were to put into education. So the effect of giving this money to the counties would be that the State would reduce its contribution to the schools in that county by a proportionate amount or by 95 percent of that amount. This would not work in my State. It would not have the intended effect of getting more money to the schools, which I know is the purpose the Senator from North Carolina has. It is better to stick with the amendment Senator Wyden has crafted here, and give the discretion to each State and each local community to decide how to best spend those funds to meet the obligation they have to their constituents. That is the purpose of the legislation. That was the original purpose of the county payments legislation, certainly the original purpose of the PILT legislation, as well. That is the best result. I hope my colleagues will support the Wyden amendment and will not support the Burr amendment. That is the best result for us. I hope that is the end result once the voting is concluded. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources which has jurisdiction regarding the insular areas of the United States, I am concerned about provisions in the House passed supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 1591, that would alter the way minimum wage levels are set in the U.S. territories of American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, CNMI. Senators Akaka and Inouye share my concern and we would like to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished manager of the bill regarding our concerns.

Mr. BINGAMAN. As the Senator may know, in recognition of the special challenges that the territories face in promoting economic development, the Fair Labor Standards Act. FLSA, provides that the transition from the territories' historic subminmum wage levels up to the national minimum wage is managed by special industry committees. These committees convene ever 2 years, carefully analyze the islands economies, and recommend incremental increases toward the national minimum wage based upon those analyses.