Bonus TEFAP Assistance Act of 2008

Mr. President, a report by the Energy Information Administration released this week confirms that we have made real, measurable progress in our efforts to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil. The best estimating group in the world, the Energy Information Administration of America, made this determination. I know the occupant of the chair will be interested, because what we have done in the past 3 years with the passage of three major pieces of energy legislation is, for the first time in modern history, we have reduced the amount of consumption of crude oil from overseas to America by Americans here at home. In other words, during the next 30 years, we will finally get to the point where, instead of that importation going up, it will begin to reverse itself and start coming down.

Now, the bad news for Americans is you can't do that overnight, but we have done it with the passage of the CAFE standards, meaning smaller cars in the future for everyone, and with the passage of two or three other big bills, we have made a lasting impact on how much we use of this dread imported product that we call crude oil.

Over the last several years, as I indicated, Congress has passed three major pieces of legislation: the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, and the Energy Independence and Security Act. We put these together, and the estimates are that as a result of this action I just spoke about, more than 2 million barrels of oil per day will be saved by America by 2030. In addition, our action will lead to--and get this--5.3 billion fewer metric tons of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by that time--the equivalent of 71,500 megawatt coal-burning electric plants. Imagine that. By reducing that amount of oil consumed, we will reduce the amount of carbon dioxide by 5.3 billion fewer metric tons used.

Nevertheless, our work is not nearly done. I have been encouraged by the growth of clean energy technologies, but I have come to believe that in the long run, we will fall far short of the amount of financial resources necessary to move these projects along at a fast enough pace. Consider that nearly half of our current electric generation fleet is over 30 years old. Nearly a third of our overall generation comes from coal-fired plants, the majority of which are not equipped with emission control technology. Yet investor-owner utilities are not large enough to carry several multibillion dollar projects, and competitive electricity markets don't have an effective mechanism to encourage investment in larger, expensive new capacity. I come to the floor to propose at least a partial solution to this challenge.

Today I am introducing legislation to establish a clean energy investment bank. This bank will be a government corporation, modeled after the Export-Import Bank, designed to promote investment in domestic energy projects. I am pleased to have a number of cosponsors, including Senators Landrieu, Murkowski, Martinez, Bunning, Craig, Alexander, and Dole. I haven't worked very hard because I haven't had time, but I think I can get many more Senators to be cosponsors as well.

According to some analysis, over $350 billion will be needed over the next 15 years to meet our increased demands for energy. Not only do we face the challenge of needing to get more power on line, we also are trying to do it in a way that results in less pollution. By investing in clean energy technology, we will reap enormous benefits when it comes to energy, economic, environmental, and national security.

Investors have shown a willingness to support clean energy technology. A United Nations report recently revealed that investment in sustainable energy has nearly doubled since 2005. Additionally, private sector research and development has risen to over $16 billion. Yet the growth we have seen primarily comes from equity investment and venture capital, not long-term debt financing.

The clean energy industry faces unique challenges. Unlike traditional fossil fuel energy projects, which are able to more easily secure long- term debt financing, clean energy markets have a greater level of risk both economically and technically. That is why the certainty provided by Federal Government support would be beneficial. Our goal moving forward should be greater increases for all types of clean energy generation projects through secure financing.

Right now, we are lacking an institution able to undertake this kind of activity and fill this gap. The clean energy investment bank that will be created by the legislation which I introduce today has a real chance of filling that gap.

The bank will engage in investment activities to encourage long term debt

financing of clean energy projects. It will take responsibility for management of the Department of Energy's title 17 loan guarantee program, and have the authority to offer loans, insurance products, and take positions in commercially viable projects.

The clean energy investment bank will be a governmental corporation, with a bipartisan board of directors that will have significant autonomy in choosing the projects they believe are most worthy.

In this legislation, we do not seek to tell the bank exactly which specific types of projects to support. Our requirement is that the projects provide clean energy and that the bank considers a reasonable diversity of projects, technologies, and energy sectors. We give flexibility to the bank's board of directors and management so that they can provide support for the latest technologies, some of which may not even be under consideration right now.

The sole mission of the clean energy investment bank will be to advance the deployment of clean energy technologies. The bank will be staffed with investment professionals who will make informed decisions on loans, loan guarantees, and other investments.

Initially, we anticipate that the clean energy investment bank will be given a similar level of financial support as the Export-Import Bank. The Export-Import Bank assists financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets. By enabling companies in our country to turn exports into sales overseas, the bank helps create jobs and ensures a level playing field.

Export-Import provides a worthy and useful service to our economy and to growing economies overseas. Last year, Congress provided $68 million to the bank to subsidize its costs, and another $78 million for administrative expenses. But we must ask ourselves: shouldn't domestic energy diversification receive at least as much support as U.S. companies investing overseas?

The bank will be financed in part through the appropriations process, but in greater measure through a revolving fund. The goal would be for the bank to be self-funding through its investment of activity as soon as possible.

Congress will soon be embarking on a debate about climate change. It is simply a reality that much of that discussion will largely fall on partisan lines. Senators have diverse views about global climate change and the proposed solutions to handle it.

The clean energy investment bank, however, is something that we all can support. It gives us a chance to make real progress in a bipartisan way on our shared goals of increasing energy production and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Despite the odds, we have demonstrated that when we work together to find common ground on energy, we can succeed and pass legislation that will help make America stronger. In times of economic uncertainty, we need pro-growth strategies that incentivize large private investment, not complex regulatory structures that increase the cost of energy. The clean energy investment bank is such a pro-growth proposal that stands tall on its own.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this bill, and I hope the Senate will adopt it. We have made great strides in recent years to diversify our energy supply, but we should not rest on our laurels. This bill will help us keep up the momentum and shift America away from foreign oil and toward cleaner, home-grown technologies.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, you don't have to be an expert in health care policy to know our health care system is in need of reform. Today, we spend over $2 trillion on health care, almost $7,500 per person. In 10 years, national health care expenditures are expected to reach $4.3 trillion, or $13,000 per person, which would comprise 19.5 percent of our gross domestic product. Clearly, this rate of increase is unsustainable. We must work together to develop creative solutions that will change the way we deliver health care. The goal should be to allow health care providers to develop treatment plans based on what is in the best interest of the patient. But the current system under which we pay physicians neither puts patients first nor reduces costs.

A decade ago, instead of creating a mechanism that changed the way physicians deliver care, Congress attempted to curb rising health care costs through an arbitrary annual expenditure cap on physician payments. And what has the result been? Physicians have seen their reimbursements lag far behind their costs, in Texas and nationally--a 15-percent gap. In order to recoup lost revenue, physicians often increased the number of patients they were seeing per day, meaning they were spending less and less time with their patients, lowering the quality of care delivered. Moreover, we are starting to see problems with beneficiary access. At an increasing rate, beneficiaries across the country are reporting difficulties in scheduling appointments with their physicians.

But declining reimbursements are also influencing the development of future generations of physicians--especially in primary care--as there is a disincentive to enter the profession or an incentive to forgo primary care for more lucrative specialties. This is especially alarming, as the Medicare population grows and many physicians will be retiring. For example, my State of Texas already has a below-average physician-to-population ratio, while 39 percent of practicing physicians are already over 50.

There are over 30 health care reform plans floating around inside and outside of Congress. Few of these plans address the fundamental question: What good is coverage without access to that coverage?

If we are serious about changing our health care system, we need to start with changing the way we pay physicians--that would send a strong message not only about the need for better quality care but also the need to ensure a future generation of American physicians.

I am pleased to introduce the Ensuring the Future Physician Workforce Act of 2008. This bill will provide positive reimbursement updates for providers; eliminate the ineffectual expenditure cap; increase incentives for physician data reporting; facilitate adoption of Health Information Technology, HIT, by addressing cost and legislative barriers; educate and empower physicians and beneficiaries in relation to Medicare spending and benefits usage; and study ways to realign the way Medicare pays for health care.

Every few years, Congress goes through the same rituals of trying to fix the physician reimbursement mechanism. First, CMS tells us the expenditure cap requires Medicare physician reimbursements to be cut by a certain percent. Next, Congress struggles to find a way to prevent this cut, knowing how harmful it would be. Yet delaying this cut is extremely expensive. Congress then swears that this is the last time they will go through this process and that it must come up with a comprehensive fix. Ultimately, Congress never seems able to fix the problem. This bill stops the charade, resets the baseline for the next year and a half, and then eliminates the expenditure cap thereafter. Rather than pretending like we are going to adhere to an arbitrary cap of $80, for example, only to spend more later, this bill puts up front the true cost that we are really going to spend $100 or $101. The effect on spending is the same, but physicians and beneficiaries have certainty.

If Congress fails to act, Texas physicians will lose $860 million between July 2008 and December 2009, which is a cut of $18,000 to each Texas physician. That figure balloons to $16.5 billion by 2016 due to nearly a decade of scheduled cuts.

Two widely identified ways of moving toward lower costs and better quality stem from the collection of health care data and the implementation of health information technology.

First, increasing incentives for the reporting of data will improve our ability to assess how we deliver care and the level of that care. In this bill we go beyond general reporting and focus on the most expensive diseases. The director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, likes to ask the paradoxical question: ``How can the best medical care in the world cost twice as much as the best medical care in the world?'' It does because we deliver care in vastly different ways and at vastly different costs. By focusing our data collection efforts, we will better understand how these differences occur.

Second, there are few who would argue with the notion that implementation of HIT is beneficial from a cost and quality perspective; HIT provides transparency, efficiency, portability, safety, and reductions in duplicative and wasteful procedures. However, various cost and legislative barriers have inhibited widespread adoption. There is a large cost associated with implementing HIT because of the cost of hardware, software, and time needed to train staff. Additionally, there is a disincentive to invest in HIT because the Department of Health and Human Services has yet to finalize its standards. Providers are stuck in neutral.

Under the current regulatory environment, doctors have limited ability to accept hardware, software, or help in training from hospitals. Not only does this unfairly harm patients in these practices, it negatively impacts community health. This bill provides a safe harbor to that regulation but maintains the spirit of the law by allowing hospitals to help physicians in their implementation of HIT-- either in the purchasing of hardware or software or in training--as long as these hospitals do not restrict the physician's interoperability, clinical practice, or referral system for their own financial benefit. This bill provides the incentive to voluntarily implement HIT and commonsense regulations that move communities into the 21st century. Once beneficiaries begin to see the benefits HIT will have on the quality of their care and in their wallets, providers will not be able to ignore the demand.

Finally, this bill would provide comparative reports to physicians on their billings and to beneficiaries on their usage of services. Physicians want to do the right thing for their patients, but we need to ensure that they have the tools necessary to appropriately deliver that care. When physicians look at these reports and see how they compare to other providers in their area or across the Nation, they will take that report seriously and evaluate why their practices differ. Similarly, beneficiaries will have a tool to evaluate their level of care and a tool to engage the physician-patient relationship.

Mr. President, it is no secret that the path Medicare is on is unsustainable. So far, our only recourse has been to prolong the inevitable collapse, rather than reforming the doomed system. This bill is a small step toward righting the Medicare ship, and with it, America's health care system as a whole. It is time we move forward in health care and help create a system that provides the best care at the best prices. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill and ensuring a better future for American health care.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a crisis that is facing a growing number of Americans every day. That crisis is hunger. In this country, as food prices continue to rise, more and more American families find themselves desperately in need of help just to put food on the table for themselves and their families.

In 2006 alone, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, reported that 35.5 million Americans did not have enough money or resources to get food for at least some period during the year. This figure was an increase of 400,000 over 2005 and an increase of 2.3 million since 2000. And, with the fragile state of our economy, we can only assume that these figures for 2007 and 2008 will be even more disturbing. The only recourse for these millions of people is to turn to Federal food assistance programs and emergency food banks for their basic food needs.

Unfortunately, as recent articles in national publications like the USA Today and the New York Times have highlighted, there is a critical lack of food inventories available in local food pantries across the country. Rising demand, sharp drops in Federal supplies of excess commodities, and declining donations have forced food banks to cut back on rations, and in some cases, close their doors. In short, America's food banks are facing critical shortages now.

As a member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, I had a hand in helping to create a new farm bill. This bill, as passed by the Senate, will help food banks by providing additional annual funding to shore up food bank supplies. But, as we continue to conference this bill with the House, there are further steps we can take to help ensure that food banks can continue to fulfill their mission.

That is why today I am pleased to join with Senator Snowe to introduce the Bonus TEFAP Assistance Act of 2008. This act will provide critical support needed to ensure food assistance agencies, already in desperate need of supplies, can take full advantage of the distributions of bonus food commodities supplied by USDA through the Emergency Food Assistance Program, TEFAP. By helping to offset the intrastate storage, transportation, and distribution costs the food assistance agencies incur to distribute these bonus food surpluses, the act will ensure the commodities will be able to reach the greatest number of needy individuals.

The Emergency Food Assistance Program began in 1981 as a temporary program with dual purposes; it was intended to help reduce the Federal food inventories and storage costs while also assisting the needy. Because of the program's success in helping distribute food to those in need, in 1988, after much of the Federal inventory was depleted, the Hunger Prevention Act authorized funds to be appropriated to purchase food for TEFAP.

Under current-day TEFAP, the USDA provides States and food assistance agencies with food commodities bought specifically for the program and with funding to help cover distributing agencies' intrastate storage, handling, and distribution costs. In addition, when available, USDA provides any excess food not needed to fulfill other

program requirements to States for allocation to local food assistance agencies. This excess food is otherwise known as ``bonus TEFAP.'' Unfortunately, while the USDA generously distributes these bonus TEFAP commodities to the States, many of the State and food assistance agencies are unable to accept the bonus TEFAP commodities because they do not have the resources to store, transport, or distribute them.

The Bonus TEFAP Assistance Act of 2008 that I am introducing today with Senator Snowe alleviates this problem by providing offsetting funds to recipient agencies to assist with the costs of storing, transporting, and distributing bonus TEFAP commodities. The funds provided through this legislation will help to provide more food to those in need through food banks, food pantries, emergency shelters, soup kitchens, and other organizations that directly provide these resources to the public.

To solve the problem the inadequacy of local resources causes, the bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to use existing funds granted under section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935. Currently, section 32 funds are used to fund child nutrition programs and other programs to support the farm sector at the discretion of the Secretary. Through this legislation, a small portion of section 32 funds would be allocated to each eligible recipient agency in the lesser amount of $0.05 per pound or $0.05 per dollar value of bonus TEFAP commodities. With this modest increase in funding, the States and their food assistance agencies will be able to accept more food distributions from the USDA through TEFAP, benefitting the many low- income recipients who rely on the program for emergency food and nutrition assistance.

I urge all of my colleagues to join Senator Snowe and me in ensuring that the States and food assistance agencies can accept the available excess commodity foods the USDA provides under the Emergency Assistance Food Program. Food assistance agencies are in dire need of funds, food, and supplies and we owe it to them to ensure that they can take full advantage of every opportunity to serve those in our nation who are in desperate need.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a crisis that is facing a growing number of Americans every day. That crisis is hunger. In this country, as food prices continue to rise, more and more American families find themselves desperately in need of help just to put food on the table for themselves and their families.

In 2006 alone, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, reported that 35.5 million Americans did not have enough money or resources to get food for at least some period during the year. This figure was an increase of 400,000 over 2005 and an increase of 2.3 million since 2000. And, with the fragile state of our economy, we can only assume that these figures for 2007 and 2008 will be even more disturbing. The only recourse for these millions of people is to turn to Federal food assistance programs and emergency food banks for their basic food needs.

Unfortunately, as recent articles in national publications like the USA Today and the New York Times have highlighted, there is a critical lack of food inventories available in local food pantries across the country. Rising demand, sharp drops in Federal supplies of excess commodities, and declining donations have forced food banks to cut back on rations, and in some cases, close their doors. In short, America's food banks are facing critical shortages now.

As a member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, I had a hand in helping to create a new farm bill. This bill, as passed by the Senate, will help food banks by providing additional annual funding to shore up food bank supplies. But, as we continue to conference this bill with the House, there are further steps we can take to help ensure that food banks can continue to fulfill their mission.

That is why today I am pleased to join with Senator Snowe to introduce the Bonus TEFAP Assistance Act of 2008. This act will provide critical support needed to ensure food assistance agencies, already in desperate need of supplies, can take full advantage of the distributions of bonus food commodities supplied by USDA through the Emergency Food Assistance Program, TEFAP. By helping to offset the intrastate storage, transportation, and distribution costs the food assistance agencies incur to distribute these bonus food surpluses, the act will ensure the commodities will be able to reach the greatest number of needy individuals.

The Emergency Food Assistance Program began in 1981 as a temporary program with dual purposes; it was intended to help reduce the Federal food inventories and storage costs while also assisting the needy. Because of the program's success in helping distribute food to those in need, in 1988, after much of the Federal inventory was depleted, the Hunger Prevention Act authorized funds to be appropriated to purchase food for TEFAP.

Under current-day TEFAP, the USDA provides States and food assistance agencies with food commodities bought specifically for the program and with funding to help cover distributing agencies' intrastate storage, handling, and distribution costs. In addition, when available, USDA provides any excess food not needed to fulfill other

program requirements to States for allocation to local food assistance agencies. This excess food is otherwise known as ``bonus TEFAP.'' Unfortunately, while the USDA generously distributes these bonus TEFAP commodities to the States, many of the State and food assistance agencies are unable to accept the bonus TEFAP commodities because they do not have the resources to store, transport, or distribute them.

The Bonus TEFAP Assistance Act of 2008 that I am introducing today with Senator Snowe alleviates this problem by providing offsetting funds to recipient agencies to assist with the costs of storing, transporting, and distributing bonus TEFAP commodities. The funds provided through this legislation will help to provide more food to those in need through food banks, food pantries, emergency shelters, soup kitchens, and other organizations that directly provide these resources to the public.

To solve the problem the inadequacy of local resources causes, the bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to use existing funds granted under section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935. Currently, section 32 funds are used to fund child nutrition programs and other programs to support the farm sector at the discretion of the Secretary. Through this legislation, a small portion of section 32 funds would be allocated to each eligible recipient agency in the lesser amount of $0.05 per pound or $0.05 per dollar value of bonus TEFAP commodities. With this modest increase in funding, the States and their food assistance agencies will be able to accept more food distributions from the USDA through TEFAP, benefitting the many low- income recipients who rely on the program for emergency food and nutrition assistance.

I urge all of my colleagues to join Senator Snowe and me in ensuring that the States and food assistance agencies can accept the available excess commodity foods the USDA provides under the Emergency Assistance Food Program. Food assistance agencies are in dire need of funds, food, and supplies and we owe it to them to ensure that they can take full advantage of every opportunity to serve those in our nation who are in desperate need.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on October 6, 2007, the people of Virginia's First Congressional District lost one of its most respected and admired leaders, a dedicated Member of Congress and loyal friend, Representative Jo Ann Davis.

Today, I am proud to have Senator Jim Webb join me in introducing a bill to honor our dear colleague. This legislation would designate the United States Post Office at 6892 Main Street in Gloucester, Virginia, as the ``Congresswoman Jo Ann S. Davis Post Office.'' Representative Robert Wittman has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

Born in North Carolina, Jo Ann Davis attended Hampton Roads Business College in Virginia and later obtained her real estate license and real estate broker's license over the next several years. In 1990, she started her own company, Jo Ann Davis Realty, and followed this successful endeavor with a run for public office in 1997. Serving as a Delegate in the Virginia General Assembly for 4 years, Jo Ann Davis became the first Republican woman to serve Virginia in the U.S. Congress after winning her election in 2000.

Representative Davis was a relentless champion for the needs of the First District. It was my privilege to work with her on many matters, ranging from national defense to the environment, and in that regard, she worked hard to improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay. Also, I commend her diligent leadership in the removal of the James River Reserve Fleet from Newport News. From her support for the Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge to her concern with the preservation of Dragon Run or providing funding for oyster restoration, she always put the quality of Virginia's environment above politics.

With sincere passion and concern, Representative Davis worked to improve our Nation's armed services and the lives of the men and women who bravely answer the call to duty. She provided strong representation for the communities in and surrounding the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Dahlgren and the Marine Corps base at Quantico, ensuring that these facilities continue to make important contributions to protecting the nation and to the economic foundations of their respective areas. Her initiative to increase the life insurance benefit paid to survivors of military members and her advocacy on behalf of the rights and benefits of Federal employees will continue to be appreciated in the years ahead.

I have always admired Representative Davis for her strong convictions and the tenacity that she brought to bear in acting on them. She fought a courageous struggle against cancer, and I will miss her insights and her friendship in our Virginia Congressional Delegation.

I am pleased to offer this small token of recognition and gratitude for someone who has given so much to the Commonwealth and her country.

I close with a personal note that we both shared interests in equestrian activities. There is an old English saying that ``the outside of the horse is good for the inside of the man.'' As an avid, accomplished rider, she often quipped with me that the saying applies equally to a woman. She loved the noble horse.

I join with my colleagues from the Commonwealth and from the entire U.S. Congress in expressing my deepest sympathies to her husband, her two sons, and her extended family. They remain in our thoughts and prayers.