Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to authorize the minting of a commemorative coin in recognition of the 400th anniversary of the Spanish arrival in Santa Fe, NM. This bill has the strong support of the entire New Mexico delegation and is co- sponsored by Senator Domenici and a companion bill will be introduced in the House by Representative Tom Udall.

In 2010, the City of Santa Fe will commemorate the arrival of Spanish settlers and the designation of the City of Santa Fe as the capital city of the Spanish territory now known as New Mexico. On their arrival the Spaniards found a thriving Native American culture. These native American and Spanish cultures served to enrich each other and led to a creation of a vibrant social, cultural, and financial center that made the settlement of the western U.S. possible. Although it was not always a smooth road it is the unique combination of the Spanish, native American, and Anglo cultures in Santa Fe that make it an American treasure. Santa Fe has long been heralded for its thriving arts community, as a world class travel destination, and for its natural beauty. These treasures and its proud history as a cultural meeting place make Santa Fe worthy of the national recognition of a commemorative coin. I urge all Senators to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a business meeting on Wednesday, December 19, at 11:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to consider the nomination of Jon Wellinghoff to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the term expiring June 30, 2013. (Reappointment)

For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Rosemarie Calabro at (202) 224-5039.

Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for yielding me 5 minutes to discuss this bill we are going to vote on, the cloture vote we are going to have in relation to the energy legislation a little later this morning.

One of the objections that has been raised to this legislation is that it still contains a so-called energy tax package. It is very different from what the House passed.

Senator Baucus has worked with Senator Grassley to take out provisions that were objectionable to Members, particularly on the Republican side, but it is still a tax package.

Now, what does it do? What it does is extends the tax incentives and credits we put into law in 2005. Those are the tax incentives, the tax credit for the production of electricity from wind, biomass from our clean energy sources. It provides the extension of the solar energy investment tax credit. It provides an extension of residential solar credits to encourage people to use solar heating and energy generation in their own residences. It provides an extension of existing credits for biodiesel.

It creates a new credit for producing ethanol made from nonfood cellulosic material. It tries to extend into the future and expand upon the incentives we put into law in 2005 to encourage the

transition to more of a clean energy technology.

At the beginning of the week, I had the view or the understanding that the disagreement about the tax package centered around the question of which offsets should be used to pay for it. I thought there was general consensus that we ought to have an extension of these tax provisions but that there was disagreement about how we went about paying for them.

It is clear to me that at least for the administration, it is not a question of which offsets should be used to pay for it, the real issue, from their perspective, is they do not consider these tax incentives very important, and they do not believe they are important enough to be paid for.

They believe if they are going to be extended, they should be extended without any increase in revenue anywhere else in the Tax Code to offset that. This is a very unfortunate view on the part of the administration as I see it because it sets up a circumstance where, if we are not able to get the votes to pass this tax package as part of the overall energy package this morning, then we are in a circumstance where the administration says: We will not support--the administration will not support--a tax package that is paid for, and the Congress, under our pay-go rules, most likely will not be able to muster the votes to pass a tax package that is not paid for.

So we have a checkmate situation that is particularly bad for the country and cuts short the effort we tried to begin in 2005 to encourage more development of energy from renewable sources and more energy efficiency through these tax provisions.

There are some in the Congress, in the Senate, who are going to say, well, they support doing something on taxes but not here, not now. We should not do it as part of this bill. We ought to do what we can. It is nearly Christmas, and then we will come back next year and deal with taxes.

The problem is, it does not get any easier next year to deal with this situation. We have already made dramatic changes in this tax package to accommodate concerns of the administration, concerns of Republican Members. But the truth is, we need to go ahead and extend these tax provisions as part of this bill. We need to do so in a way that is paid for. Clearly we need to comply with our pay-go rules and not just add this to the deficit and say it is up to the next generation to worry about finding the revenue to pay for the tax provisions.

I believe it is essential that we pass this, that we go ahead and invoke cloture on the energy package. This energy package that Senator Reid is now bringing before the Senate does not have a renewable electricity standard in it. He dropped that again because of opposition from Republican members, opposition from the administration.

But it does have CAFE improvements, it does have renewable fuels standards, it does have energy efficiency standards, it is does have this tax package. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

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

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator for his question. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires Federal agencies to reduce their energy consumption by 30 percent by 2015 and includes provisions requiring new and renovated buildings to adopt energy efficient systems and technologies in

order to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Federal leadership in building performance and procurement standards in our Federal facilities and in commercial buildings generally is critically important in achieving our energy conservation goals. The energy savings requirements for our Nation's Federal facilities incorporated in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 are intended to apply to all building systems and technologies.

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

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

As I understand, 20 minutes and then 5 minutes for each of the leaders. So I would just speak for 3 minutes at this point and then yield to my colleague from New Mexico, who I know is planning to speak as well.

Mr. President, let me amend my earlier statement. I will take up to 5 minutes, please, if the Chair would advise me at the end of the 5 minutes.

The Senate has a very good energy bill before it. It would take a number of steps that will be viewed over the long term as very major steps in our energy policy.

This is the first increase in CAFE standards in well over 20 years. It has improved efficiency standards for lightbulbs, for lighting fixtures, which will eventually save more energy than all of our previous energy efficiency standards combined. This bill contains permanent authorization for energy savings performance contracts--the single most useful tool for increasing energy efficiency in the Federal Government. It contains a strengthened program for carbon dioxide capture and geological sequestration and a framework for working through issues associated with geologic storage of carbon dioxide on Federal lands. It also contains strong new protections for consumers against market manipulation in oil markets.

The story of this Energy bill is not only one of what we accomplished but also those items we were not able to accomplish.

In the case of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the biggest issue on which we did not make progress was energy efficiency, especially increased vehicle fuel economy. We have rectified that, or we will be rectifying that as we go forward and pass this legislation and get it signed into law.

For this bill, there were two big challenges we have proven unequal to here in the Senate. In my view, one is, of course, dealing with the very real problem of how to further incentivize the development of renewable energy. I hope we will have a chance to revisit the renewable electricity standard in the new Congress. I also hope we can revisit this issue of tax incentives. We failed earlier today to maintain in the legislation a package of tax incentives which I think is very important for the energy policy of this country.

We have an extremely capable staff that has worked long and hard on this legislation.

The Senate Energy Committee staff--there are many individuals here: Bob Simon, Sam Fowler, Allyson Anderson, Angela Becker-Dippmann, Patty Beneke, Mia Bennett, Tara Billingsley, Rosemarie Calabro, Michael Carr, Mike Connor, Jonathan Epstein, Deborah Estes, Alicia Jackson, Amanda Kelly, Leon Lowery, David Marks, Scott Miller, Rachel Pasternack, Britni Rillera, Gina Weinstock, and Bill Wicker. All of them have done a great job.

Senator Domenici's staff has also done a terrific job. Frank Macchiarola, Judy Pensabene, Kellie Donnelly, Kathryn Clay, Colin Hayes, Frank Gladics, and Kara Gleason, among others on his staff I know have done a good job.

The Senate owes a particular debt of gratitude to Senator Inouye's and Senator Stevens' staff, who developed the CAFE provisions in this bill. In particular, David Strickland of the Commerce Committee staff deserves recognition for his leadership, skill, and tenacity in negotiating these historic provisions.

Chris Miller, on Senator Reid's staff, deserves our thanks for helping with the overall coordination of the bill in the Senate and with the House of Representatives. His counterparts in Speaker Pelosi's office, Amy Fuerstenau and Lara Levison, also put in countless hours attending meetings and helping to coordinate the activities of about 10 different House committees with interests in this bill.

Special recognition also is due to the hard-working staff of the Office of Senate Legislative Counsel on this bill.

Their team leader, Gary Endicott, worked tirelessly to ensure that the provisions of this bill were expressed in clear and correct legal form.

His partner for the CAFE provisions was Lloyd Ator of the Commerce Committee staff.

Other key contributors in the office of Senate Legislative Counsel included Michelle Johnson-Weider, John Henderson, Matt McGhie, Mark Mathiesen, Mark McGunagle, and Jim Fransen. They enjoyed the cooperation of their colleagues in the House Office of Legislative Counsel, including Tim Brown and Pope Barrow. Without the many hours they invested in drafting, redrafting, and assembling this bill, we would not have a finished text to consider today.

Finally, staff in the Congressional Budget Office, including Kathy Gramp, Megan Carroll, Dave Hull, and Matthew Pickford, helped us ensure that the bill was compliant with the complicated scoring rules that face every major piece of legislation.

All of these staff in Leg Counsel and CBO made themselves available on evenings and weekends to help ensure that we could finish this bill this year.

With that, I will thank my colleagues for their support for this bill.

I urge my colleagues to vote aye on the motion to go ahead with this legislation and send this bill to the President.

I know there are others who wish to speak. How much time remains on the majority side?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to congratulate the primary sponsors of this amendment on achieving a hard-won compromise on an issue

that has been intensely debated by Members of this body for a number of years. As I understand the purpose of the amendment, it would essentially close what is come to be known as the ``Enron Loophole'' in the Commodity Exchange Act, CEA.

This loophole in the law, included in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, CFMA, of 2000, has allowed large volumes of energy derivatives contracts to be traded over-the-counter, OTC, and on electronic platforms, without the federal oversight necessary to protect both the integrity of the market and our nation's energy consumers.

Mr. President, my Committee--the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources--first heard testimony on this issue on January 29, 2002. At that hearing, Mr. James Newsome, then the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, described the impacts of the CFMA thusly:

With respect to the energy markets, the CFMA exempts two

types of markets from much of the CFTC's oversight. Such

markets are described in Section 2(h) of the CEA, as amended

by the CFMA. The Act defines exempt commodities as, roughly

speaking, all commodities except agricultural and financial

products. This category, which for the most part represents

futures contracts based on metals and energy products may be

traded on the two types of markets covered by Section 2(h).

The first is bilateral, principal-to-principal trading

between two eligible contract participants . . . The second

is electronic multilateral trading among eligible commercial

entities, which include, among others, eligible contract

participants that can also demonstrate an ability to either

make or take delivery of the underlying commodity and dealers

that regularly provide hedging services to those with such

ability.

It is my understanding that the amendment before us would address the current lack of regulatory authority governing the second category of trading that Mr. Newsome described back in 2002. It would grant the CFTC new authority to impose important requirements on electronic, OTC transactions that rely on the current exemption contained in Section 2(h)(3) of the CEA, but serve a significant price discovery function. These requirements include the implementation of market monitoring, the establishment of position limitations or accountability levels, the daily publication of trading information, and a number of other standards key to restoring transparency to this important corner of our energy markets.

Ensuring that proper oversight exists in these markets is of critical importance to our nation's energy consumers, and to the efficient operation of the physical, or cash, energy markets that fall under the purview of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--FERC--and my committee's jurisdiction. To illustrate why, I would like to once again go back to the testimony we heard at our January 2002 hearing. As described by Mr. Vincent Viola, the then-chairman of the NYMEX:

[In] the energy marketplace, there is a very substantial

interaction between NYMEX and the unregulated, physical and

over-the-counter energy markets. The interaction was clearly

apparent in the case of Enron.

Indeed, subsequent to that hearing, FERC, CFTC and the Department of Justice conducted investigations of the various aspects of what became perhaps one of the largest scandals in American corporate history. In its March 2003 ``Final Report on Price Manipulation in Western Markets,'' the FERC staff reported the following:

FERC Staff obtained information indicating that Enron

traders potentially manipulated the price of natural gas at

the Henry Hub in Louisiana to profit from positions taken in

the over-the-counter--OTC--financial derivatives markets--OTC

markets. It is staff's opinion that Enron traders, through

transactions falling within the commission's jurisdiction and

authorized through a blanket certificate, successfully

manipulated the physical natural gas markets. The

manipulation yielded profits in the financial OTC markets.

It was findings like these that motivated a number of Members of my Committee to work together to ensure FERC had the proper tools at its disposal, to stamp out the kind of manipulation that occurred during the Western energy crisis of 2000-2001. During consideration of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, EPACT 2005, Public Law 109-58, I was pleased to work with Senators Cantwell, Feinstein and Wyden on these provisions, along with Senator Domenici, who then chaired the Energy Committee, and Senators Craig and Smith.

Indeed, sections 315 and 1283 of EPACT 2005 added anti-manipulation provisions to both the Natural Gas Act and the Federal Power Act, respectively. Both make it unlawful for anyone to use ``any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance . . . in contravention of'' the rules of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Both closely track the language used in section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act and define ``any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance'' by reference to section 10(b). The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a final rule implementing the two anti- manipulation provisions in January 2006.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided FERC these much-needed, new authorities in response to the Western energy crisis. However, it is also clear that further regulatory authority is needed, to ensure the CFTC has the tools at its disposal to ensure the integrity of financial energy markets. The present circumstance is one in which the CFTC has essentially been blind to a large portion of these markets for a number of years. This is of critical concern to me, and to my committee, because--as Mr. Viola observed in 2002, and as Enron demonstrated--all of these markets are linked.

In fact, there is also significant reason to believe that these markets have become more fully intertwined since that hearing 5 years ago. In its 2006 State of the Markets Report, FERC devoted an entire section, section 7, to the ``Growing Influence of Futures and Financial Energy Markets'' on physical energy prices. The report notes that this impact is particularly acute as it relates to natural gas prices--but effects electricity prices as well, to the extent that a growing percentage of our nation's electric generating capacity is gas-fired. The FERC report details the link between prices set in the financial derivatives market, and the physical natural gas contracts that ultimately dictate the prices paid by American consumers.

Overall, I believe the current situation was most recently and accurately described by FERC Chairman Joseph Kelliher in December 12, 2007, testimony before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce:

[It] is important to understand that price formation in

sophisticated energy markets has become increasingly complex.

Regulators must understand and consider the interplay between

financial and futures energy markets, on the one hand, and

physical energy markets, on the other hand. While FERC has

jurisdiction over physical wholesale gas sales, and the

Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has jurisdiction

over futures, the link between futures and physical markets

cannot be overstated. In a sense, these markets have

effectively converged. Manipulation does not recognize

jurisdictional boundaries and we must be vigilant in

monitoring the interplay of these markets if we are to

adequately protect consumers.

For these reasons, I support the amendment being offered today. It would enhance the CFTC's authority to protect the integrity of financial energy markets, which in turn play an increasingly important price discovery role in physical energy markets. And it would do so in a manner that also preserves FERC's important role in guarding against market manipulation and protecting American natural gas and electricity consumers. For that, I congratulate the sponsors. In addition, I will enter into a colloquy with the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senator Harkin, along with Senators Feinstein and Levin, regarding the intent of this amendment with respect to its jurisdictional implications for FERC and the CFTC.

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

I would like to inquire of the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Harkin, do you concur in my assessment that nothing in this amendment would prejudice or interfere with ongoing, energy market enforcement-related litigation or administrative proceedings currently involving FERC and the CFTC?

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

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

I would also like to make an inquiry of the senior Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, another primary author of the amendment now before the Senate. As I understand this amendment, it expands the CFTC's authorities with respect to the requirements it may impose on transactions it deems ``significant price discovery contracts.'' This ``significant price discovery contract'' determination may be applied to contracts, agreements, and transactions that are conducted in reliance on the exemption included in section 2(h)(3) of the Commodity Exchange Act. As a conforming matter, paragraph (c)(1) of section 13203 extends the CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction over these ``significant price discovery contracts.''

As the Senator from Michigan knows, the meaning and expanse of CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of futures markets is currently the subject of litigation. As we have heard from the chairman of the Agriculture Committee and Senator Feinstein, another one of the amendment's authors, this amendment was written to ensure it would not interfere with any such ongoing litigation; and further, to maintain the current jurisdictional division between FERC and the CFTC. I am satisfied with those assurances.

But in addition, as a forward-looking matter, it is important to clarify the intent of the amendment with respect to this new class of ``significant price discovery contracts.'' I am aware of the fact that certain electronic trading facilities that currently operate under the exemption included in section 2(h)(3) of the Commodity Exchange Act for purposes of trading energy swaps also trade physical--or cash-- contracts in electricity and natural gas. For oversight and enforcement purposes, it is crucial that FERC retain its jurisdiction over these physical energy transactions. In your view, how would the amendment impact FERC's jurisdiction over these transactions?

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

I thank the Senators for their assurances in this regard, and congratulate them on their amendment.

rolling spot contracts

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table listing the various measures included in this bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table listing the various measures included in this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, let me speak briefly in opposition to one of the amendments the Senator from Tennessee has offered. It is amendment No. 3551.

I think one of the most important things we can do in order to encourage development of renewable resources is to encourage construction of power lines to bring the power from where it is produced to where it is needed. Many of the best areas for development of wind and solar power are in remote parts of our country. That is in the upper midwest Plains States or in the desert southwest in particular. Lack of transmission from these remote locations is seriously hampering the great potential for the generation of electricity from these resources.

Power lines to such places are expensive and often face local opposition from landowners and residents across whose lands the lines have to be built. The farm bill, section 12302, attempts to address the problem by creating a tax incentive to encourage farmers and ranchers and landowners to allow transmission lines to be built across their property. Landowners receive a payment whenever they agree to the siting of a transmission tower on their land, and these payments are currently taxable. Section 12302 would make those payments tax exempt if the power that is carried on the lines comes primarily from a renewable generator that is eligible for the renewable production tax credit. Senator Alexander's amendment here would strike that section. The cost of that section, as I have been advised, is $91 million over 5 years--a little less than $20 million per year.

It is clear from reports of the Western Governors' Association and many others that we are going to need substantial construction of new transmission lines throughout the West in the next several years if we are going to increase use of renewable energy. Transmission lines have more benefit than just to the generator. They enhance the reliability of the transmission system. They help break bottlenecks that make generation more expensive than it needs to be. They also can enhance local economies by opening areas that have been closed to development. My own view is that this tax exemption would help to encourage farmers and ranchers to seriously consider the siting of transmission lines in locations where it makes sense.

Senator Alexander argues that wind power receives enormous subsidies under current law and under the Energy bill that is being debated. It is difficult, of course, to look into the future, but if you look at the last 5 years, according to a GAO report issued this year, the Department of Energy received $11.5 billion in funding for electricity- related research and development, and $6.2 billion of that went to fund nuclear power research and development and $3.1 billion went to fund fossil fuel generation. Mr. President, $1.4 billion went to all renewables--not just wind but all renewables combined. GAO also estimates that during that same period, fossil fuels received about $13.7 billion in tax expenditures, and renewables, about $2.8 billion. When new nuclear power facilities are built--and there are some now on the verge of being built--they will receive very generous tax credits as well under current law. I have supported those tax credits.

I believe, as the Senator from Tennessee said, that nuclear power is an essential part of the solution to global warming and a central part of the solution to our future energy needs, but I believe alternative renewable power also fits in that category. For decades now, fossil fuel generation and nuclear power have received the lion's share of Federal support. If renewables are to take their rightful place in the market, we need to be providing support to them on an equal footing. I believe that an exemption extended to farmers and ranchers, who deserve adequate compensation when their land is used, is good public policy.

I know the Senator from Tennessee is proposing that the funds involved here would be shifted over to a land grant research program that Senator Alexander wants to fund. That is a good program. I understand the managers of the bill are working on funding for this program to be included in--increased funding for this program to be included in the managers' amendment. I would argue that there are better places to look for paying for that program than from the incentives for farmers and ranchers to engage in such a worthwhile purpose. So I would urge a ``no'' vote on that amendment by the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Dole, Durbin, Feinstein, Stabenow, Salazar, Kerry, Brown, McCaskill, Schumer, Boxer, Levin, Bayh, Burr, Martinez, Clinton, Pryor, Leahy, Lincoln, Hutchison, Chambliss, Rockefeller, and Isakson to introduce legislation vitally important to the ability of our States to continue to fund their Medicaid programs and ensure access to health care services for low-income constituents. The legislation would extend the existing 1 year moratorium for an additional year on a

CMS rule limiting Medicaid payments to public and teaching hospitals as well as the ability of States to fund critical healthcare programs for rural residents such as through Sole Community Hospital programs.

On January 18, 2007, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, published a proposed rule entitled ``Medicaid Program; Cost Limit for Providers Operated by Units of Government and Provisions to Ensure the Integrity of Federal- State-Financial Partnership'' that would make sweeping changes to public and other safety net provider payment and financing arrangements with State Medicaid programs. The proposed rule would: impose a cost limit on Medicaid payments to public and other safety net providers; impose a new Federal definition of public provider status; and, greatly restrict the sources of non-Federal share funding through intergovernmental transfers, IGTs, and certified public expenditures, CPEs.

National advocates report that over 400 comment letters were submitted to CMS on the proposed rule, none of which expressed support for the rule and the overall majority of which called for its withdrawal. In addition, a budget neutral reserve fund to block this regulation was introduced by me and approved by the Senate this year.

CMS subsequently issued an additional regulation that would force billions of dollars in additional Medicaid payment reductions to teaching hospitals, many of whom are public hospitals, hampering the ability of those providers to provide essential services including the education of the next generation of medical professionals despite a shortage of medical professionals. The proposed regulations would cut at least $5 billion in Medicaid funding for safety net hospitals nationwide over 5 years--weakening their effectiveness for all of us and jeopardizing the health of millions of vulnerable children and families.

In response to these rules, 66 Senators and 283 Members of the House have gone on record in opposition to the rules since they were released earlier this year. This includes a majority of the Finance Committee including Senators: Roberts, Snowe, Smith, Rockefeller, Kerry, Bingaman, Salazar, Stabenow, Wyden, Lincoln, Schumer, and Cantwell.

Furthermore, Congress showed its strong opposition to the rules by including a one-year moratorium in the recent supplemental appropriations bill, P.L. 110-28. The moratorium prohibits implementation of the rules for one year from the date of enactment of the supplemental. The supplemental was negotiated extensively by Congress and the White House and a deal was reached on May 23. On May 25--the day the President signed the supplemental, and the moratorium, into law--the administration put the final rule on display and published it in the Federal Register on May 29. The most damaging components of the proposed rule remain in the final rule, including Medicaid cuts limiting public and other safety net providers to cost.

Since then, CMS has issued a third rule of major concern to public and teaching hospitals. On September 28, 2007, CMS released a new proposed rule governing the calculation of the Medicaid outpatient upper payment limit, UPL. Many believe this action was in violation of the current moratorium enacted by Congress. For example, the outpatient regulation would exclude GME costs from the calculation of the Medicaid Outpatient UPL for all hospitals and would also eliminate many ancillary services from the UPL calculation for all-inclusive rate providers.

Major Medicaid reforms require a congressional role. By rushing to publish a final regulation, CMS has disregarded congressional opposition and attempted to usurp Congress's role. In addition, the status quo is now the administration's new policy, not what existed when Congress was in the process of enacting the moratorium. CMS's action requires states to prepare for implementation of the regulation and expend administrative resources to do so--all of this before Congress has the opportunity to address the key policy issues contained in the regulation.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Dole, Durbin, Feinstein, Stabenow, Salazar, Kerry, Brown, McCaskill, Schumer, Boxer, Levin, Bayh, Burr, Martinez, Clinton, Pryor, Leahy, Lincoln, Hutchison, Chambliss, Rockefeller, and Isakson to introduce legislation vitally important to the ability of our States to continue to fund their Medicaid programs and ensure access to health care services for low-income constituents. The legislation would extend the existing 1 year moratorium for an additional year on a

CMS rule limiting Medicaid payments to public and teaching hospitals as well as the ability of States to fund critical healthcare programs for rural residents such as through Sole Community Hospital programs.

On January 18, 2007, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, published a proposed rule entitled ``Medicaid Program; Cost Limit for Providers Operated by Units of Government and Provisions to Ensure the Integrity of Federal- State-Financial Partnership'' that would make sweeping changes to public and other safety net provider payment and financing arrangements with State Medicaid programs. The proposed rule would: impose a cost limit on Medicaid payments to public and other safety net providers; impose a new Federal definition of public provider status; and, greatly restrict the sources of non-Federal share funding through intergovernmental transfers, IGTs, and certified public expenditures, CPEs.

National advocates report that over 400 comment letters were submitted to CMS on the proposed rule, none of which expressed support for the rule and the overall majority of which called for its withdrawal. In addition, a budget neutral reserve fund to block this regulation was introduced by me and approved by the Senate this year.

CMS subsequently issued an additional regulation that would force billions of dollars in additional Medicaid payment reductions to teaching hospitals, many of whom are public hospitals, hampering the ability of those providers to provide essential services including the education of the next generation of medical professionals despite a shortage of medical professionals. The proposed regulations would cut at least $5 billion in Medicaid funding for safety net hospitals nationwide over 5 years--weakening their effectiveness for all of us and jeopardizing the health of millions of vulnerable children and families.

In response to these rules, 66 Senators and 283 Members of the House have gone on record in opposition to the rules since they were released earlier this year. This includes a majority of the Finance Committee including Senators: Roberts, Snowe, Smith, Rockefeller, Kerry, Bingaman, Salazar, Stabenow, Wyden, Lincoln, Schumer, and Cantwell.

Furthermore, Congress showed its strong opposition to the rules by including a one-year moratorium in the recent supplemental appropriations bill, P.L. 110-28. The moratorium prohibits implementation of the rules for one year from the date of enactment of the supplemental. The supplemental was negotiated extensively by Congress and the White House and a deal was reached on May 23. On May 25--the day the President signed the supplemental, and the moratorium, into law--the administration put the final rule on display and published it in the Federal Register on May 29. The most damaging components of the proposed rule remain in the final rule, including Medicaid cuts limiting public and other safety net providers to cost.

Since then, CMS has issued a third rule of major concern to public and teaching hospitals. On September 28, 2007, CMS released a new proposed rule governing the calculation of the Medicaid outpatient upper payment limit, UPL. Many believe this action was in violation of the current moratorium enacted by Congress. For example, the outpatient regulation would exclude GME costs from the calculation of the Medicaid Outpatient UPL for all hospitals and would also eliminate many ancillary services from the UPL calculation for all-inclusive rate providers.

Major Medicaid reforms require a congressional role. By rushing to publish a final regulation, CMS has disregarded congressional opposition and attempted to usurp Congress's role. In addition, the status quo is now the administration's new policy, not what existed when Congress was in the process of enacting the moratorium. CMS's action requires states to prepare for implementation of the regulation and expend administrative resources to do so--all of this before Congress has the opportunity to address the key policy issues contained in the regulation.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I would like to advise that the oversight hearing scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to receive testimony regarding Reform of the Mining Law of 1872, on Thursday, December 13, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., has been postponed. A rescheduled date and time will be announced when it becomes available.

For further information, please contact Patty Beneke at (202) 224- 5451, Angela Becker-Dippman at (202) 224-5269 or Gina Weinstock at (202) 224-5684.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a nomination hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 18, 2007, at 10:30 a.m., in room SD366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nomination of Jon Wellinghoff, of Nevada, to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, for the term expiring June 30, 2013.

For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Rosemarie Calabro at (202) 224-5039.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, let me speak first in support of this bill and going forward with cloture. I acknowledge the procedure we have gone through to get to this point has not been ideal. Clearly, when we were unable to get agreement to appoint a conference in the Senate, it became clear we were going to have to use a very awkward procedure. That is what has happened. But the substance of what is before us contains a substantial amount of very good public policy. These are policies we have tried very hard to enact for a very long time. On the whole, I believe this bill represents significant forward progress.

Let me mention a few of the things the bill does that I think are very worthwhile. First, the legislation brings about major improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency. My colleague, Senator Domenici, referred to that and clearly that is a centerpiece of this legislation, the improvements of corporate average fuel economy standards.

In addition to this hard-won compromise on CAFE, the bill will increase the production and use of biofuels with a particular emphasis on biofuels from cellulosic feedstock. That also is something the President spoke to us about in the State of the Union speech that many of us support, and it is a strong part of this legislation.

So I think the combination of improvements in CAFE standards and increases in production and use of biofuels are efforts we have had underway for a long time, and I believe it is important for us to continue with those efforts.

The bill also, beyond those two items, will boost energy efficiency on an economywide basis. It has numerous provisions improving efficiency standards for household appliances. It has provisions to establish efficiency standards for lightbulbs, for lighting fixtures, efficiency provisions related to building construction, which is very important throughout the country, requirements for greater efficiency savings from the Federal Government across the board. All of that is positive.

The legislation also makes significant contributions in the area of renewable energy technologies. It would increase our commitment to research and development of these renewable energy sources. It would help to demonstrate and commercialize the carbon capture and storage technologies.

It helps us by putting in place extensions of important tax incentives to increase both energy efficiency and more production of energy from renewable sources. And it will, as my colleagues pointed out, require electric utilities to produce 11 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.

I know that is a controversial provision in this bill. I know there is a great concern on the part of some Members here. Frankly, I do not share most of that concern. The Senate has passed a renewable electricity standard three different times. In the last three Congresses, we have passed such a provision with strong majorities in each case.

It has now passed the House of Representatives two times. It seems strange to me to say that this should be a showstopper; this should be something we need to suggest a possible veto about.

I could go through the arguments at great length, but let me just point out this is not a 15-percent requirement as it has been advertised and described by many; it is an 11-percent requirement, and the additional 4 percent that makes up the 15 percent can be achieved through energy savings, efficiency savings. Clearly, that is preferable. It also is substantially less ambitious in the first few years than what we were considering in the Senate before and, in fact, what we have passed through the Senate before.

So this is a provision I think Members can support. It is one that can give us lower greenhouse gas emissions, thousands of new jobs, cleaner air, and greater energy efficiency. It can do all of that at a low cost and perhaps even a savings to consumers because many studies have shown that the adoption of an electricity standard such as this, a renewable electricity standard, will have the effect of reducing the price of natural gas. It will take pressure off the price of natural gas and thereby reduce the price of natural gas. So we should pass that provision as part of this legislation.

The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy has estimated that when you total up all of those provisions I have elaborated here, the legislation before us would reduce U.S. energy use by almost 8 percent in 2030 compared to current Department of Energy forecasts. In doing so, these added efficiencies would reduce projected carbon dioxide emissions by 10 percent and save consumers more than $450 billion by 2030.

On balance, I believe the energy legislation we have before us deserves the support of my colleagues. It is not perfect in every respect. Legislation of this size and complexity obviously cannot be. However, it represents an opportunity to make significant steps forward in a number of key areas of energy policy. With the passage of this legislation, we can reduce our dependance on oil, we can increase our consumption of homegrown fuels, we can provide substantial savings to consumers, and we can create many new jobs. I think it is a real step forward, also, in curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

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

Mr. President, I do think we can make some changes that would make this bill acceptable to a vast majority of Senators. I look forward to working on that along with my colleague. I know the majority leader intends to revisit this issue as soon as this next week, perhaps.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bryan Mignone and Alicia Jackson, both AAAS fellows with my staff on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of debate on the Energy bill.