Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation with Senator Voinovich entitled the ``Health Partnership Act of 2007,'' which along with a companion House bill introduced by Representatives Tammy Baldwin, John Tierney, and Tom Price, intends to set us on a path toward affordable, quality health care for all Americans. The Health Partnership Act creates partnerships between the Federal Government, State and local governments, tribes and tribal organizations, private payers, and health care providers to seek innovation in health care systems. Under this Act, States, local governments, and tribes and tribal governments would be invited to submit applications to the Federal Government for funding to implement expansion and improvements to current health programs for review by a bipartisan ``State Health Innovation Commission.'' Based on funding available through the Federal budget process, the Commission would approve a variety of reform options and innovative approaches. This federalist approach to health reform would encourage a broad array of reform options subject to monitoring, to determine what is and is not successful. As Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote in 1932, ``It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.'' Our bipartisan legislation, the ``Health Partnership Act,'' encourages this type of State-based innovation and will help the Nation better address both the policy and the politics of health care reform. Currently, we do not have a ``one-size-fits-all'' model of reform, so encouraging States, local governments, and tribes to adopt a variety of approaches will help us better understand what may or may not work. Inaction on the growing and related problems of the uninsured and increasing health care costs is unacceptable and unconscionable. In fact, while spending on health care in our country has reached $2 trillion annually, the number of uninsured has increased to nearly 47 million people, seven million more than in 2000. The consequences are staggering, as uninsured citizens get about half the medical care they need compared to those with health insurance and, according to the Institute of Medicine, about 18,000 unnecessary deaths occur each year in the U.S. because of lack of health insurance. While gridlock continues to permeate Washington, DC, in regards to this issue, a number of States and local governments are moving ahead with health reform. The ``Health Partnership Act'' would provide support, in the form of grants, to States, groups of States, local governments, and Indian tribes and tribal organizations to carry out any of a broad range of strategies intended to reduce the number of uninsured, reduce costs, and improve the quality of care. Responding to urgent needs, State and local governments have not been able to wait for Federal action. We observed this in the early 1990s as States such as New Mexico, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Florida, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Maryland, Tennessee, Vermont, and Washington led the way to expanding coverage to children through the enactment of a variety of health reforms. Evaluation proved that some of these programs worked better than others, so the Federal Government took note and responded in 1997 with passage of the ``State Children's Health Insurance Program'' or SCHIP. This legislation, built upon experiences of the States, enjoyed broad bipartisan support. SCHIP is a popular and successful State-based model that covers millions of children and continues to have broad-based bipartisan support across this Nation. So, why not use that successful model and build upon it? In fact, State and local governments are already taking up that challenge and the Federal Government should, through the enactment of the ``Health Partnership Act,'' do what it can to be helpful with those efforts. For example-- On November 15, 2005, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich signed into law the ``Covering All Kids Health Insurance Act'' which, beginning in July 2006, intended to make insurance coverage available to all uninsured children. In April, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney signed into law legislation that requires all Bay State residents to have health insurance. Their State experiment involves partnerships between the State Medicaid, employer groups, and insurance companies. Now California's Governor Schwarzenegger proposes health reform to include health promotion and wellness services for all, insurance coverage, and cost containment measures. Other States, including New Mexico, Vermont, Tennessee, Maine, West Virginia, Oklahoma, and New York have enacted other health reforms that have had mixed success. All of these efforts add importantly to our knowledge base, and can then lead to a national solution to our uninsured and affordability crisis. We can learn from each and every one of these efforts, including those which failed. Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis said it well by noting that State-based reforms, such as that passed in Massachusetts, are very good news. As she notes, ``First, any substantive effort to expand access to coverage is worthwhile, given the growing number of uninsured in this country and the large body of evidence showing the dangerous health implications of lacking coverage.'' She adds, ``But something more important is at work here. While we urgently need a national solution so that all Americans have insurance, it doesn't appear that we'll be getting one at the Federal level any time soon. So what Massachusetts has done potentially holds lessons for every State.'' I would add that it holds lessons for the Federal Government as well and not just for the mechanics of implementing health reform policy but also to the politics of health reform. As she concludes, ``One particularly cogent lesson is the manner in which the measure was crafted--via a civil process that successfully brought together numerous players from across the political business, health care delivery, and policy sectors.'' Senator Voinovich and I have worked together and reached out to like minded colleagues in the House of Representatives via a process much like that described by Karen Davis. The legislation stems from past legislative efforts by Senators such as Bob Graham, Mark Hatfield, and Paul Wellstone, but also from work across ideological lines by Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution and Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation. The legislation also benefits from advice and support from health care providers. Dr. Tim Garson who, as Dean of the University of Virginia, brought a much needed provider perspective, ensuring support from the House of Medicine. Supporters include the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, the American College of Cardiology, American Gastroenterological Association, the Visiting Nurses Association, the National Association of Community Health Centers, and from state-based health providers such as the New Mexico Medical Society and Ohio Association of Community Health Centers. The Health Partnership Act supports providers. The Health Partnership Act received much comment and support from consumer-based groups advocating for national health reform, including that by Dr. Ken Frisof of the Universal Health Care Action Network, Bill Vaughan at Consumers Union, and from numerous health care advocates in New Mexico, including Community Action New Mexico, Health Action New Mexico, Health Care for All Campaign of New Mexico, New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty, New Mexico Health Choices Initiative, New Mexico POZ Coalition, New Mexico Public Health Association, New Mexico Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, New Mexico Progressive Alliance for Community Empowerment, and the Health Security for New Mexicans Campaign, which includes 115 State-based organizations. The Health Partnership Act supports consumers. Support from stakeholders throughout our Nation's health care system has been sought and I would like to thank the many organizations from New Mexico for their support and input to this legislation. There is great urgency in New Mexico because our State, like all of those along the U.S.-Mexico border, faces a severe health care crisis. Over one in five New Mexicans does not have insurance coverage. In fact, only one State, Texas, has more uninsured. New Mexico is also the only State in the country with greater than half of its population covered by State or federally funded health programs. A rather shocking statistic, which also continues to worsen, is that one out of every three Hispanic citizens are uninsured. In fact, less than 41 percent of the Hispanic population now has employer-based coverage nationwide, which is in sharp comparison to the 66 percent of non-Hispanic whites who have employer-based coverage. Because so few New Mexicans have employer-based health insurance, the State of New Mexico has enacted its own health reform plan called the State Coverage Initiative, or SCI, in July 2005. SCI is a public/ private partnership intended to expand employer-sponsored insurance, developed in part with grant funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. As of December 2006, there were 4,256 people covered by this initiative and there are efforts to expand this effort to cover over 20,000 individuals. With Federal support for my State, the hope would be to further expand coverage to as many New Mexicans as possible. The Health Partnership Act encourages reforms at both the state and local levels of government. Senator Voinovich, as former mayor of Cleveland, suggested language that would capture community-based efforts as well. Illinois, Georgia, Michigan, and Oregon have all initiated efforts at the local level for reform, including so-called ``three-share'' programs in Illinois and Michigan. Under these initiatives, employers, employees, and the community each pick up about one-third of the cost of programs. Jeaneane Smith, deputy administrator in the Office of Oregon Health Policy and Research was recently quoted by an Academy Health publication stating, ``In recent years it has become apparent that there is a need to consider both state- and community-level approaches to improved access. We want to learn how best to support communities as they play an integral part in addressing the gaps in coverage.'' The Health Partnership Act supports communities. Our hope is to spawn innovation. Brookings Institution senior health fellow Henry Aaron and Heritage Foundation vice president Stuart Butler wrote a Health Affairs article in March 2004 that lays out the foundation for this legislative effort. They argue that while we remain unable to reconcile how best to expand coverage at the Federal level, we can agree to support states in their efforts to try widely differing solutions to health coverage, cost containment, and quality improvement. As they write, ``this approach offers both a way to improve knowledge about how to reform health care and a practical way to initiate a process of reform. Such a pluralist approach respects the real, abiding differences in politics, preferences, traditions, and institutions across the nation. It also implies a willingness to accept differences over an extended period in order to make progress. And it recognizes that permitting wide diversity can foster consensus by revealing the strengths and exposing the weaknesses of rival approaches.'' In addition to Dr. Garson, Mr. Aaron, Mr. Butler, and Dr. Frisof, I would like to express my appreciation to Dan Hawkins at the National Association of Community Health Centers, Bill Vaughan at Consumers Union, and both Jack Meyer and Stan Dorn at ESRI for their counsel and guidance on health reform and this legislation. I would also like to commend the American College of Physicians, or ACP, for their outstanding leadership on the issue of the uninsured and for their willingness to support a variety of efforts to expand health coverage. ACP has been a longstanding advocate for expanding health coverage and has authored landmark reports on the important role that health insurance has in reducing people's morbidity and mortality. In fact, to cite the conclusion of one of those studies, ``Lack of insurance contributes to the endangerment of the health of each uninsured American as well as the collective health of the Nation.'' And finally, I would also thank the many people at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation on their forethought and knowledge on all the issues confronting the uninsured. Their efforts to continue the dialogue on the uninsured has successfully kept the issue alive for many years. I urge my colleagues to break the gridlock and support this legislation, which offers financial support to states, communities, providers, and consumers, as they adopt important innovations in healthcare coverage and expansion. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation with Senator Voinovich entitled the ``Health Partnership Act of 2007,'' which along with a companion House bill introduced by Representatives Tammy Baldwin, John Tierney, and Tom Price, intends to set us on a path toward affordable, quality health care for all Americans. The Health Partnership Act creates partnerships between the Federal Government, State and local governments, tribes and tribal organizations, private payers, and health care providers to seek innovation in health care systems. Under this Act, States, local governments, and tribes and tribal governments would be invited to submit applications to the Federal Government for funding to implement expansion and improvements to current health programs for review by a bipartisan ``State Health Innovation Commission.'' Based on funding available through the Federal budget process, the Commission would approve a variety of reform options and innovative approaches. This federalist approach to health reform would encourage a broad array of reform options subject to monitoring, to determine what is and is not successful. As Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote in 1932, ``It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.'' Our bipartisan legislation, the ``Health Partnership Act,'' encourages this type of State-based innovation and will help the Nation better address both the policy and the politics of health care reform. Currently, we do not have a ``one-size-fits-all'' model of reform, so encouraging States, local governments, and tribes to adopt a variety of approaches will help us better understand what may or may not work. Inaction on the growing and related problems of the uninsured and increasing health care costs is unacceptable and unconscionable. In fact, while spending on health care in our country has reached $2 trillion annually, the number of uninsured has increased to nearly 47 million people, seven million more than in 2000. The consequences are staggering, as uninsured citizens get about half the medical care they need compared to those with health insurance and, according to the Institute of Medicine, about 18,000 unnecessary deaths occur each year in the U.S. because of lack of health insurance. While gridlock continues to permeate Washington, DC, in regards to this issue, a number of States and local governments are moving ahead with health reform. The ``Health Partnership Act'' would provide support, in the form of grants, to States, groups of States, local governments, and Indian tribes and tribal organizations to carry out any of a broad range of strategies intended to reduce the number of uninsured, reduce costs, and improve the quality of care. Responding to urgent needs, State and local governments have not been able to wait for Federal action. We observed this in the early 1990s as States such as New Mexico, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Florida, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Maryland, Tennessee, Vermont, and Washington led the way to expanding coverage to children through the enactment of a variety of health reforms. Evaluation proved that some of these programs worked better than others, so the Federal Government took note and responded in 1997 with passage of the ``State Children's Health Insurance Program'' or SCHIP. This legislation, built upon experiences of the States, enjoyed broad bipartisan support. SCHIP is a popular and successful State-based model that covers millions of children and continues to have broad-based bipartisan support across this Nation. So, why not use that successful model and build upon it? In fact, State and local governments are already taking up that challenge and the Federal Government should, through the enactment of the ``Health Partnership Act,'' do what it can to be helpful with those efforts. For example-- On November 15, 2005, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich signed into law the ``Covering All Kids Health Insurance Act'' which, beginning in July 2006, intended to make insurance coverage available to all uninsured children. In April, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney signed into law legislation that requires all Bay State residents to have health insurance. Their State experiment involves partnerships between the State Medicaid, employer groups, and insurance companies. Now California's Governor Schwarzenegger proposes health reform to include health promotion and wellness services for all, insurance coverage, and cost containment measures. Other States, including New Mexico, Vermont, Tennessee, Maine, West Virginia, Oklahoma, and New York have enacted other health reforms that have had mixed success. All of these efforts add importantly to our knowledge base, and can then lead to a national solution to our uninsured and affordability crisis. We can learn from each and every one of these efforts, including those which failed. Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis said it well by noting that State-based reforms, such as that passed in Massachusetts, are very good news. As she notes, ``First, any substantive effort to expand access to coverage is worthwhile, given the growing number of uninsured in this country and the large body of evidence showing the dangerous health implications of lacking coverage.'' She adds, ``But something more important is at work here. While we urgently need a national solution so that all Americans have insurance, it doesn't appear that we'll be getting one at the Federal level any time soon. So what Massachusetts has done potentially holds lessons for every State.'' I would add that it holds lessons for the Federal Government as well and not just for the mechanics of implementing health reform policy but also to the politics of health reform. As she concludes, ``One particularly cogent lesson is the manner in which the measure was crafted--via a civil process that successfully brought together numerous players from across the political business, health care delivery, and policy sectors.'' Senator Voinovich and I have worked together and reached out to like minded colleagues in the House of Representatives via a process much like that described by Karen Davis. The legislation stems from past legislative efforts by Senators such as Bob Graham, Mark Hatfield, and Paul Wellstone, but also from work across ideological lines by Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution and Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation. The legislation also benefits from advice and support from health care providers. Dr. Tim Garson who, as Dean of the University of Virginia, brought a much needed provider perspective, ensuring support from the House of Medicine. Supporters include the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, the American College of Cardiology, American Gastroenterological Association, the Visiting Nurses Association, the National Association of Community Health Centers, and from state-based health providers such as the New Mexico Medical Society and Ohio Association of Community Health Centers. The Health Partnership Act supports providers. The Health Partnership Act received much comment and support from consumer-based groups advocating for national health reform, including that by Dr. Ken Frisof of the Universal Health Care Action Network, Bill Vaughan at Consumers Union, and from numerous health care advocates in New Mexico, including Community Action New Mexico, Health Action New Mexico, Health Care for All Campaign of New Mexico, New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty, New Mexico Health Choices Initiative, New Mexico POZ Coalition, New Mexico Public Health Association, New Mexico Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, New Mexico Progressive Alliance for Community Empowerment, and the Health Security for New Mexicans Campaign, which includes 115 State-based organizations. The Health Partnership Act supports consumers. Support from stakeholders throughout our Nation's health care system has been sought and I would like to thank the many organizations from New Mexico for their support and input to this legislation. There is great urgency in New Mexico because our State, like all of those along the U.S.-Mexico border, faces a severe health care crisis. Over one in five New Mexicans does not have insurance coverage. In fact, only one State, Texas, has more uninsured. New Mexico is also the only State in the country with greater than half of its population covered by State or federally funded health programs. A rather shocking statistic, which also continues to worsen, is that one out of every three Hispanic citizens are uninsured. In fact, less than 41 percent of the Hispanic population now has employer-based coverage nationwide, which is in sharp comparison to the 66 percent of non-Hispanic whites who have employer-based coverage. Because so few New Mexicans have employer-based health insurance, the State of New Mexico has enacted its own health reform plan called the State Coverage Initiative, or SCI, in July 2005. SCI is a public/ private partnership intended to expand employer-sponsored insurance, developed in part with grant funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. As of December 2006, there were 4,256 people covered by this initiative and there are efforts to expand this effort to cover over 20,000 individuals. With Federal support for my State, the hope would be to further expand coverage to as many New Mexicans as possible. The Health Partnership Act encourages reforms at both the state and local levels of government. Senator Voinovich, as former mayor of Cleveland, suggested language that would capture community-based efforts as well. Illinois, Georgia, Michigan, and Oregon have all initiated efforts at the local level for reform, including so-called ``three-share'' programs in Illinois and Michigan. Under these initiatives, employers, employees, and the community each pick up about one-third of the cost of programs. Jeaneane Smith, deputy administrator in the Office of Oregon Health Policy and Research was recently quoted by an Academy Health publication stating, ``In recent years it has become apparent that there is a need to consider both state- and community-level approaches to improved access. We want to learn how best to support communities as they play an integral part in addressing the gaps in coverage.'' The Health Partnership Act supports communities. Our hope is to spawn innovation. Brookings Institution senior health fellow Henry Aaron and Heritage Foundation vice president Stuart Butler wrote a Health Affairs article in March 2004 that lays out the foundation for this legislative effort. They argue that while we remain unable to reconcile how best to expand coverage at the Federal level, we can agree to support states in their efforts to try widely differing solutions to health coverage, cost containment, and quality improvement. As they write, ``this approach offers both a way to improve knowledge about how to reform health care and a practical way to initiate a process of reform. Such a pluralist approach respects the real, abiding differences in politics, preferences, traditions, and institutions across the nation. It also implies a willingness to accept differences over an extended period in order to make progress. And it recognizes that permitting wide diversity can foster consensus by revealing the strengths and exposing the weaknesses of rival approaches.'' In addition to Dr. Garson, Mr. Aaron, Mr. Butler, and Dr. Frisof, I would like to express my appreciation to Dan Hawkins at the National Association of Community Health Centers, Bill Vaughan at Consumers Union, and both Jack Meyer and Stan Dorn at ESRI for their counsel and guidance on health reform and this legislation. I would also like to commend the American College of Physicians, or ACP, for their outstanding leadership on the issue of the uninsured and for their willingness to support a variety of efforts to expand health coverage. ACP has been a longstanding advocate for expanding health coverage and has authored landmark reports on the important role that health insurance has in reducing people's morbidity and mortality. In fact, to cite the conclusion of one of those studies, ``Lack of insurance contributes to the endangerment of the health of each uninsured American as well as the collective health of the Nation.'' And finally, I would also thank the many people at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation on their forethought and knowledge on all the issues confronting the uninsured. Their efforts to continue the dialogue on the uninsured has successfully kept the issue alive for many years. I urge my colleagues to break the gridlock and support this legislation, which offers financial support to states, communities, providers, and consumers, as they adopt important innovations in healthcare coverage and expansion. 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 an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, January 25, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Building. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on oil and gas resources on the Outer Continental Shelf and areas available for leasing in the Gulf of Mexico. 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 Patty Beneke at (202) 224- 5451 or David Marks at (202) 224-8046.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, January 24, 2007 at 9:45 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Building. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on analysis recently completed by the Energy Information Administration, Energy Market and Economic Impacts of a Proposal to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity with a Cap and Trade 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 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 Jonathan Black (202) 224-6722 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 30, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the status of Federal land management agencies' efforts to contain the costs of their wildfire suppression activities and to consider recent independent reviews of and recommendations for those efforts. 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 Scott Miller at 202-224-5488 or Amanda Kelly at 202-224-6836. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, February 8, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on issues relating to labor, immigration, law enforcement, and economic conditions in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana islands. 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 Al Stayman (202) 224-7865 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am joined by my colleague, and the Ranking Member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Pete Domenici, on the introduction of two bills regarding the insular areas affiliated with the United States. The text of both of these bills is identical to the text of bills that passed the Senate by unanimous consent on September 29, 2006. The first bill, ``To Repeal Certain Sections of the Act of May 26, 1936 Pertaining to the Virgin Islands,'' would repeal sections of a 1936 law governing local U.S. Virgin Islands tax policy that were thought to have been effectively repealed in 1952. That year, Congress enacted the Virgin Islands Organic Act to establish local self- government and to delegate certain local functions, including the development and administration of local property taxes, to a newly established local government. Notwithstanding this intent, in 2004, a Federal court ruled that these sections of the Act of 1936 are still in effect. The text of the bill introduced today is identical to S. 1829, as passed by the Senate four months ago. A hearing was held on that bill on October 25, 2005, and it was reported from the Committee on April 20, 2006. Details on the background, purpose, and need for this legislation is available in Senate Hearing 109-291, and in Senate Report 109-236. The second bill being introduced today, ``To Amend the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003, and For Other Purposes,'' would make several relatively minor, clarifying, and technical changes to Public Law 108-188 which approved the Compact of Free Association between the U.S. and the Marshall Islands, and the Compact between the U.S. and Micronesia. The text of this bill is identical to S. 1830, as passed by the Senate four months ago. A hearing was held on that bill on October 25, 2005, and it was reported from the Committee on April 20, 2006. Details on the background, purpose, and need for this legislation is available in Senate Hearing 109-291, and in Senate Report 109-237. Although relatively small and remote, the U.S.-affiliated insular areas are the home for many U.S. citizens, or for communities with which our Nation has special historical and political relationships. Maintaining and strengthening these relationships is a particular concern of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources because of its jurisdiction over matters relating to the territories and freely associated states. It is unfortunate that, last year, Senate passage of these bills was delayed leaving insufficient time for enactment. I look forward to working with members of the Committee and the Senate on their prompt consideration this session, and to their enactment as soon as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am joined by my colleague, and the Ranking Member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Pete Domenici, on the introduction of two bills regarding the insular areas affiliated with the United States. The text of both of these bills is identical to the text of bills that passed the Senate by unanimous consent on September 29, 2006. The first bill, ``To Repeal Certain Sections of the Act of May 26, 1936 Pertaining to the Virgin Islands,'' would repeal sections of a 1936 law governing local U.S. Virgin Islands tax policy that were thought to have been effectively repealed in 1952. That year, Congress enacted the Virgin Islands Organic Act to establish local self- government and to delegate certain local functions, including the development and administration of local property taxes, to a newly established local government. Notwithstanding this intent, in 2004, a Federal court ruled that these sections of the Act of 1936 are still in effect. The text of the bill introduced today is identical to S. 1829, as passed by the Senate four months ago. A hearing was held on that bill on October 25, 2005, and it was reported from the Committee on April 20, 2006. Details on the background, purpose, and need for this legislation is available in Senate Hearing 109-291, and in Senate Report 109-236. The second bill being introduced today, ``To Amend the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003, and For Other Purposes,'' would make several relatively minor, clarifying, and technical changes to Public Law 108-188 which approved the Compact of Free Association between the U.S. and the Marshall Islands, and the Compact between the U.S. and Micronesia. The text of this bill is identical to S. 1830, as passed by the Senate four months ago. A hearing was held on that bill on October 25, 2005, and it was reported from the Committee on April 20, 2006. Details on the background, purpose, and need for this legislation is available in Senate Hearing 109-291, and in Senate Report 109-237. Although relatively small and remote, the U.S.-affiliated insular areas are the home for many U.S. citizens, or for communities with which our Nation has special historical and political relationships. Maintaining and strengthening these relationships is a particular concern of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources because of its jurisdiction over matters relating to the territories and freely associated states. It is unfortunate that, last year, Senate passage of these bills was delayed leaving insufficient time for enactment. I look forward to working with members of the Committee and the Senate on their prompt consideration this session, and to their enactment as soon as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Native American Methamphetamine Enforcement and Treatment Act of 2007. Unfortunately, when Congress passed the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, tribes were unintentionally left out as eligible applicants in some of the newly-authorized grant programs. The bill I am introducing today, along with Senators Smith, Reid, Baucus, Feinstein, Boxer, Feingold, Cantwell, and Murray, would simply ensure that tribes are able to apply for these funds and give Native American communities the resources they need to fight scourge of methamphetamine use. The recently-enacted Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 authorized new funding for three grant programs. The Act authorized $99 million in new funding for the COPS Hot Spots program, which helps local law enforcement agencies obtain the tools they need to reduce the production, distribution, and use of meth. Funding may also be used to clean up meth labs, support health and environmental agencies, and to purchase equipment and support systems. The Act also authorized $20 million for a Drug-Endangered Children grant program to provide comprehensive services to assist children who live in a home in which meth has been used, manufactured, or sold. Under this program, law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, child protective services, social services, and health care services, work together to ensure that these children get the help they need. In addition, the Combat Meth Act authorized grants to be made to address the use of meth among pregnant and parenting women offenders. The Pregnant and Parenting Offenders program is aimed at facilitating collaboration between the criminal justice, child welfare, and State substance abuse systems in order to reduce the use of drugs by pregnant women and those with dependent children. Although Tribes are eligible applicants under the Pregnant and Parenting Offenders program, they were not included as eligible applicants under either the Hot Spots program or the Drug-Endangered Children program. I see no reason why tribes should not be able to access all of these funds. Meth use has had a devastating impact in communities throughout the country, and Indian Country is no exception. According to NCAI, Native Americans have the highest meth abuse rate among any ethnic group and 70 percent of law enforcement rate meth as their greatest challenge-- indeed, a FBI survey found that an estimated 40 percent of violent crime in Indian Country was related to meth use. And last year there was an article in the Gallup Independent newspaper about a Navajo grandmother, her daughter, and granddaughter, who were all arrested for selling meth. There was also a one-year-old child in the home when police executed the arrest warrant. It is absolutely disheartening to hear about cases such as this, with three generations of a family destroyed by meth. I strongly believe that we need to do everything we can to assist communities as they struggle to deal with the consequences of meth, and ensuring that Native American communities are able to access these funds is an important first step. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important measure.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I'm pleased to reintroduce today with Senator Domenici a bill we introduced last Congress. The Prehistoric Trackways National Monument Establishment Act would protect a site of worldwide scientific significance in the Robledo Mountains in my State. The bill would create a national monument to preserve and allow for the continuing scientific investigation of this remarkable ``megatracksite'' of 280,000,000 year-old fossils. The Energy Committee held a hearing last year where the Bureau of Land Management testified in support; in addition the bill has the support of the local community. I appreciate Senator Domenici's support on this measure and hope that with the progress we made last Congress we can look forward to moving the bill quickly through the Senate this year. The vast tidal mudflats that made up much of modern New Mexico 60 million years before the dinosaurs preserved the marks of some of the earliest life on our planet to make its way out of the ocean. The fossil record of this time is scattered throughout New Mexico but, until this discovery, there were few places where the range of life and their interactions with each other could be studied. Las Cruces resident Jerry MacDonald first brought the find to light in 1988 when he revealed that there was far more to be found in the Robledos than the occasional fossil that local residents had been seeing for years. The trackways he hauled out on his back, some over 20 feet long, showed that there was a great deal of useful information buried in the rock there. These trackways help complete the puzzle of how these ancient creatures lived in a way that we cannot understand from only studying their fossilized bones. Senator Domenici and Representative Skeen joined me in creating legislation, passed in 1990, to protect the area and study its scientific value. In 1994, scientists from the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, the University of Colorado, and the Smithsonian Institution completed their study and documented the significant scientific value of the find. Particularly owing to the quality of the specimens and the wide range of animals that had left their imprint there the study found that the site was of immense scientific value. The study concluded, in part, ``[t]he diversity, abundance and quality of the tracks in the Robledo Mountains is far greater than at any other known tracksite or aggregation of tracksites. Because of this, the Robledo tracks allow a wide range of scientific problems regarding late Paleozoic tracks to be solved that could not be solved before.'' This bill would take the next logical step to follow up from these efforts and set in place permanent protections and allow for scientific investigation of these remarkable resources. In addition to permanently protecting the fossils for the scientific community the bill would make it a priority that local residents get the opportunity to see these unique specimens and participate in their curation. This should provide a unique scientific and educational opportunity to Las Cruces and the surrounding community. I look forward to working with my colleagues to protect these important resources and allow for their continuing contribution to our understanding of life on the ancient earth. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I'm pleased to reintroduce today with Senator Domenici a bill we introduced last Congress. The Prehistoric Trackways National Monument Establishment Act would protect a site of worldwide scientific significance in the Robledo Mountains in my State. The bill would create a national monument to preserve and allow for the continuing scientific investigation of this remarkable ``megatracksite'' of 280,000,000 year-old fossils. The Energy Committee held a hearing last year where the Bureau of Land Management testified in support; in addition the bill has the support of the local community. I appreciate Senator Domenici's support on this measure and hope that with the progress we made last Congress we can look forward to moving the bill quickly through the Senate this year. The vast tidal mudflats that made up much of modern New Mexico 60 million years before the dinosaurs preserved the marks of some of the earliest life on our planet to make its way out of the ocean. The fossil record of this time is scattered throughout New Mexico but, until this discovery, there were few places where the range of life and their interactions with each other could be studied. Las Cruces resident Jerry MacDonald first brought the find to light in 1988 when he revealed that there was far more to be found in the Robledos than the occasional fossil that local residents had been seeing for years. The trackways he hauled out on his back, some over 20 feet long, showed that there was a great deal of useful information buried in the rock there. These trackways help complete the puzzle of how these ancient creatures lived in a way that we cannot understand from only studying their fossilized bones. Senator Domenici and Representative Skeen joined me in creating legislation, passed in 1990, to protect the area and study its scientific value. In 1994, scientists from the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, the University of Colorado, and the Smithsonian Institution completed their study and documented the significant scientific value of the find. Particularly owing to the quality of the specimens and the wide range of animals that had left their imprint there the study found that the site was of immense scientific value. The study concluded, in part, ``[t]he diversity, abundance and quality of the tracks in the Robledo Mountains is far greater than at any other known tracksite or aggregation of tracksites. Because of this, the Robledo tracks allow a wide range of scientific problems regarding late Paleozoic tracks to be solved that could not be solved before.'' This bill would take the next logical step to follow up from these efforts and set in place permanent protections and allow for scientific investigation of these remarkable resources. In addition to permanently protecting the fossils for the scientific community the bill would make it a priority that local residents get the opportunity to see these unique specimens and participate in their curation. This should provide a unique scientific and educational opportunity to Las Cruces and the surrounding community. I look forward to working with my colleagues to protect these important resources and allow for their continuing contribution to our understanding of life on the ancient earth. 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 full committee of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on January 18, 2007, at 9:30 in SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on issues relating to oil and gas royalty management at the Department of the Interior. 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 Patty Beneke at 202-224-5451 or David Marks at (202) 224-8046.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to inform the Senate and the Public that the committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 9:45 a.m. in room SD-G50 of the Dirksen Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the global oil balance and its implications for U.S. economic and national security.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing along with Mr. Domenici the ``Pecos National Historical Park Land Exchange Act of 2007''. This bill will authorize a land exchange between the Federal Government and a private landowner that will benefit the Pecos National Historical Park in my State of New Mexico. Specifically, the bill will enable the Park Service to acquire a private inholding within the Park's boundaries in exchange for the transfer of a nearby tract of National Forest System land. The National Forest parcel has been identified as available for exchange in the Santa Fe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and is surrounded by private lands on three sides. The Pecos National Historical Park possesses exceptional historic and archaeological resources. The Park preserves the ruins of the great Pecos pueblo, which was a major trade center, and the ruins of two Spanish colonial missions dating from the 17th and 18th centuries. The Glorieta unit of the park protects key sites associated with the 1862 Civil War Battle of Glorieta Pass, a significant event that ended the Confederate attempt to expand the war into the West. This unit will directly benefit from the land exchange. Similar bills passed the Senate in the 106th, 108th, and 109th Congresses, and I hope it finally will be enacted this Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill I have introduced today be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing along with Mr. Domenici the ``Pecos National Historical Park Land Exchange Act of 2007''. This bill will authorize a land exchange between the Federal Government and a private landowner that will benefit the Pecos National Historical Park in my State of New Mexico. Specifically, the bill will enable the Park Service to acquire a private inholding within the Park's boundaries in exchange for the transfer of a nearby tract of National Forest System land. The National Forest parcel has been identified as available for exchange in the Santa Fe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and is surrounded by private lands on three sides. The Pecos National Historical Park possesses exceptional historic and archaeological resources. The Park preserves the ruins of the great Pecos pueblo, which was a major trade center, and the ruins of two Spanish colonial missions dating from the 17th and 18th centuries. The Glorieta unit of the park protects key sites associated with the 1862 Civil War Battle of Glorieta Pass, a significant event that ended the Confederate attempt to expand the war into the West. This unit will directly benefit from the land exchange. Similar bills passed the Senate in the 106th, 108th, and 109th Congresses, and I hope it finally will be enacted this Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill I have introduced today be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask each side, the Democratic and Republican sides, be given an additional 10 minutes to speak in this period. I will take the first 5 minutes of that, and then my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, will take the second 5 minutes of the Democratic time remaining for us.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor S. 6, which is the National Energy and Environment Security Act of 2007. This is a message bill that Senator Reid introduced earlier today. It lays out a number of important goals that will guide our thinking and action on energy-related matters, including the issue of global warming, in the 110th Congress. Let me talk briefly about five key goals that are mentioned in the bill. These goals will be subject to much more detailed discussion in future weeks and to action both in the Energy Committee and, for some issues, in the Environment Committee as well. The first goal of the bill is to reduce our dependence on foreign and un- sustainable energy sources. Any national energy strategy to reduce that dependence will have to maintain our domestic production of oil and gas as well as undertake three basic initiatives. The first of those initiatives is to greatly increase the efficiency of the cars and trucks that we put on the road in this country. There are a lot of ideas on how to do this. They include several proposals for increased CAFE standards as well as so-called ``feebate'' standards that send signals to the market to encourage the production and sale of high efficiency vehicles. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to try to move these proposals forward. Another way to reduce our dependence is to further develop alternative fuels, particularly biofuels. In that regard we need to focus on broadening the base of biological feedstocks that are used to make fuels such as ethanol. This is an issue we will be focusing on in the Energy Committee. A third way is to look at the other new technologies to power our cars and our trucks. There is much promise in hybrid vehicles with larger batteries that can be charged overnight, so-called plug-in hybrids. This sort of technology can help reduce demand for gasoline for short trips and deserves further attention. The second goal in the bill is to reduce our exposure to the risks of global warming. While there are several Senate committees with great interest in this issue, obviously the Environment Committee has a primary role and the primary jurisdiction. But over 95 percent of the U.S. carbon dioxide emissions and nearly 85 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions come from energy production, distribution, and use. We want to work with other committees to find the best way to deal with this important issue and to balance environmental imperatives with the need for reliable and affordable energy into the future.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of engaging Senator McCain in a colloquy over a certain provision, to be sure that its purpose is clear. In section 1(a)( 4) of the bill, there is a provision which states, ``Nothing in this subsection, or in the award or denial of any grant pursuant to this subsection--(A) allows grants authorized under paragraph 3(A) to be made to, or used by, an entity for law enforcement activities that the entity lacks jurisdiction to perform; or (B) has any effect other than to authorize, award, or deny a grant of funds to a state, territory, or Indian tribe for the purposes described in this subsection.'' It is my understanding that the intent behind the amendment made by section 1(a)(4) of the bill is simply to make it clear that by authorizing the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance to award grant funds to a State, territory, or Indian tribe to ``investigate, arrest and prosecute individuals'' involved in illegal methamphetamine activities, section 2996(a) does not somehow authorize a State, territory, or Indian tribe to pursue law enforcement activities that it otherwise has no jurisdiction to pursue. And similarly, this provision also clarifies that an award or denial of a grant by the Bureau of Justice Assistance does not somehow allow a State, territory, or Indian tribe to pursue law enforcement activities that it otherwise lacks jurisdiction to pursue. For example, a law enforcement agency in one State, territory, or Indian reservation is not somehow enabled by this section, or by an award made pursuant to this section, to prosecute a methamphetamine crime arising in some other jurisdiction unless that agency already has the jurisdiction to do that. I would like to ask Senator McCain if my understanding of this provision is correct.

Mr. BINGAMAN. It is also my understanding that the language, ``Nothing in this subsection, or in the award or denial of any grant pursuant to this subsection. . . (B) has any effect other than to authorize, award, or deny a grant of funds to a state, territory, or Indian tribe for the purposes described in this subsection'' is intended to make it clear that the provisions of section 2996(a) and grant awards or denials pursuant to section 2996(a) have no effect beyond simply authorizing, awarding, or denying a grant of funds to a State, territory, or Indian tribe for the purposes described in section 2996(a). So, for example, if a State, territory, or Indian tribe is awarded or denied a grant of funds under this section, that award or denial has no relevance to or effect on the eligibility of the State, territory, or Indian tribe to participate in any other program or activity unrelated to the award or denial of grants under section 2996(a). The award or denial of a grant under this subsection, in other words, is relevant only to the award or denial of the grant under this subsection and nothing else. I would like to ask Senator McCain whether my understanding of this provision of the bill is correct in this particular regard as well.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of engaging Senator McCain in a colloquy over a certain provision, to be sure that its purpose is clear. In section 1(a)( 4) of the bill, there is a provision which states, ``Nothing in this subsection, or in the award or denial of any grant pursuant to this subsection--(A) allows grants authorized under paragraph 3(A) to be made to, or used by, an entity for law enforcement activities that the entity lacks jurisdiction to perform; or (B) has any effect other than to authorize, award, or deny a grant of funds to a state, territory, or Indian tribe for the purposes described in this subsection.'' It is my understanding that the intent behind the amendment made by section 1(a)(4) of the bill is simply to make it clear that by authorizing the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance to award grant funds to a State, territory, or Indian tribe to ``investigate, arrest and prosecute individuals'' involved in illegal methamphetamine activities, section 2996(a) does not somehow authorize a State, territory, or Indian tribe to pursue law enforcement activities that it otherwise has no jurisdiction to pursue. And similarly, this provision also clarifies that an award or denial of a grant by the Bureau of Justice Assistance does not somehow allow a State, territory, or Indian tribe to pursue law enforcement activities that it otherwise lacks jurisdiction to pursue. For example, a law enforcement agency in one State, territory, or Indian reservation is not somehow enabled by this section, or by an award made pursuant to this section, to prosecute a methamphetamine crime arising in some other jurisdiction unless that agency already has the jurisdiction to do that. I would like to ask Senator McCain if my understanding of this provision is correct.

Mr. BINGAMAN. It is also my understanding that the language, ``Nothing in this subsection, or in the award or denial of any grant pursuant to this subsection. . . (B) has any effect other than to authorize, award, or deny a grant of funds to a state, territory, or Indian tribe for the purposes described in this subsection'' is intended to make it clear that the provisions of section 2996(a) and grant awards or denials pursuant to section 2996(a) have no effect beyond simply authorizing, awarding, or denying a grant of funds to a State, territory, or Indian tribe for the purposes described in section 2996(a). So, for example, if a State, territory, or Indian tribe is awarded or denied a grant of funds under this section, that award or denial has no relevance to or effect on the eligibility of the State, territory, or Indian tribe to participate in any other program or activity unrelated to the award or denial of grants under section 2996(a). The award or denial of a grant under this subsection, in other words, is relevant only to the award or denial of the grant under this subsection and nothing else. I would like to ask Senator McCain whether my understanding of this provision of the bill is correct in this particular regard as well.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, earlier this week, Claude Wood celebrated his centennial. His name is familiar to several long-serving Members of this body, for he was the chief of staff to one of the Senate's giants, Clinton Anderson of New Mexico. For all of Senator Anderson's career in this Chamber, Claude was at his right hand. A native New Mexican, he served our State, our Nation, and the Senate with distinction and honor. He retains an active interest in what we do here and is a great friend of the Senate Historian, Richard Baker. I myself have known Claude for many years and am very glad to have this opportunity to send him best wishes on this milestone birthday.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, unless a Republican Senator appears wishing to speak, that Senator Stabenow of Michigan be allowed to follow.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about two issues, legislative issues, that still require attention before this Congress adjourns. The first is related to Medicare cuts. Effective January 1, Medicare reimbursement to health care providers is scheduled to be cut by 5 percent. I believe it is imperative that Congress step in and prevent that cut from occurring. Failure to do so will lessen access to quality health care for many in this country. The sustainable growth rate, the SGR, as it is referred to here in Washington more commonly, was implemented in 1998 as a means to annually adjust Medicare's physician fees in line with a set of spending targets. Until 2002, the total physician spending was below the set targets, so physicians received an annual increase in their fees. However, starting in 2002, the trend was reversed. Spending on physician services began to exceed the target. The result was a 4.8 percent reduction in physician fees in 2002 and the realization that the SGR, or this sustainable growth rate formula, was flawed. This was the beginning of what has become a yearly game of brinksmanship, and we are in that game of brinksmanship again today with Medicare threatening to enact the cuts deemed appropriate by the SGR formula and Congress averting the fee cuts one year after another. As of January 1 of next year, physician fees will be cut by 5 percent. In my view, this is causing understandable concern in the medical community. I hear on a daily basis from physicians, both within and without my State of New Mexico, that these cuts will adversely affect patient care and access. I have no reason to doubt that statement. The Albuquerque Journal in my home State of New Mexico reports that the proposed cuts will cost New Mexico doctors $12 million in 2007 alone. Presbyterian Health Plan president David Scrase believes the cuts will result in closer to $32 million in cuts. I believe this chart which was just put up here makes the point I am trying to make very well. It is labeled ``Crisis in Medicare Physician Payments.'' The black line, which is going up, as everyone can see, is the increase we have seen in the cost of medical practice in the last 5 years. We can see very clearly that continues. It is a relentless increase. The red line is physician payment updates under Medicare. We can see those have been declining and are scheduled for a substantial decline in 2007 again. What I am trying to say is Congress needs to step in and at least keep this line flat, at least hold physicians harmless in this 5 percent cut. I hope we are able to do even more than that. In my view, these reductions will result in access problems for Medicare patients across the Nation. Cuts such as these, along with the yearly uncertainty of whether the reduction will be implemented, make long- term planning for small to medium physician practices almost impossible. In addition to the financial stresses of potential decreases in Medicare payments, physicians are being asked to adopt expensive health information technologies to improve the quality of medical care. This is a lot to expect from even large health systems, much less smaller physician groups. If the Medicare cuts go into effect--and all expert advice I have received leads me to believe they will--there will be access problems encountered by Medicare beneficiaries. But what may be even equally problematic are the other measures physicians will be forced to take to compensate for this cut. I am talking about the reduction of staff, forgoing health insurance for their employees, and delaying implementation of new technologies. All of these are substantial new burdens we are putting on physicians operating their medical practices throughout our country. Where does this leave us? I believe we need to act both in the short term and in the long term. Congress needs to take immediate action to halt the scheduled 5 percent cut. I hope this can occur before this week is over. Over the long term, we need to find solutions to continue to provide quality care to Medicare beneficiaries as well as fair payment to physicians for their work. That is not going to be easy. Frankly, we are going to have to rethink this whole SGR system we adopted nearly a decade ago, and we are going to have to find ways to have a fair formula that provides a fair level of compensation. In my opinion, this is a priority. It is something that has been the subject of intense negotiations between House and Senate Members in the last few days. I understand that. I hope reason will prevail and that we can come out with a solution that makes sense for seniors in this country and for those who depend upon the Medicare system for their health care. Finding long-term solutions to continue to provide quality care to Medicare beneficiaries as well as fair payment to physicians for their work will require effort and collaboration between lawmakers and the medical community. Earlier this year I introduced legislation that I believe is part of the solution. Because part of the payment that Medicare makes to physicians is based upon geographic location, physicians in rural parts of the country are paid less than those in more urban areas. This known as the geographic practice cost indices, or GPCIs. Congress determined that such extensive geographic disparities were unfair and, as part of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, language from one of my bills was included that brought all geographic areas up to the national average for the calculation of this piece of the Medicare physician payment formula. This year I introduced legislation to extend this law. We should extend this law before Congress adjourns and, at the very least prevent the cuts that are set to occur at the end of the year. To do less is to fail in our responsibility to the million of Americans who depend on Medicare.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to speak about the problem of funding for wildfire suppression. This is an issue that particularly affects us in the West. We have a looming train wreck with regard to emergency wildfire suppression funding. This year, wildfires burned a record of more than 9.5 million acres, most of that in the West. The wildfires are still burning out of control in southern California, where five more houses burned this weekend. Federal wildfire-fighting expenditures also set a record at nearly $2 billion in fiscal year 2006. That was more than twice what was appropriated for that fiscal year. When the cost of suppressing wildfires exceeds what has been appropriated, the agencies spend what they have been appropriated for the fiscal year and the amount that has been provided to them in emergency supplemental appropriations. This year, they also spent $500 million from what is called the emergency wildfire reserve account and an additional $110 million which they had to borrow from other accounts. Congress has not repaid any of that money as of yet. There is $610 million that has not been repaid to this wildfire reserve account and to the other accounts from which the Forest Service has had to borrow. Those agencies, particularly the Forest Service, have been left short. They are financially unprepared for even an average wildfire year in 2007. As we begin to look forward into next year, we are faced with a very severe problem. In addition to the proposed 2007 appropriations, the agencies will need about $835 million if they are to maintain recent levels of financial preparedness. If the continuing resolution goes into effect, as we are advised it is likely to, the numbers are likely to get even worse. I filed an amendment to the Agriculture appropriations bill to begin to address the problem by providing $360 million in emergency wildfire suppression funding for the Departments of Agriculture and Interior. That amendment was sponsored by many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Senator Burns filed a similar amendment to the Military Construction bill. But it is apparent that neither of those bills will get to the President for signature this year. We have an enormous need for wildfire suppression funding and no clear way to address it. I urge my colleagues to find a way to address it before we leave at the end of this week. Providing some additional funds to these agencies for this purpose is essential. I believe it will be unfortunate if this Congress adjourns leaving those agencies in the financial straits which they are in. I know there are many agencies across the Federal Government which are going to encounter great difficulty in carrying on these activities if we adopt a continuing resolution, as is being proposed, but this particular area of wildfire suppression funding is one that deserves particular attention.