Jeff Bingaman

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 Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, April 23, 2009, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nomination of Kristina M. Johnson, to be Under Secretary of Energy. 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 may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to amanda__kelly@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my distinguished colleagues Senators Bennett, Udall, Kyl, and Hatch to introduce the Indian School Bus Route Safety Reauthorization Act of 2009. This bill continues an important Federal program begun in 1998 that addresses a unique problem with the roads in and around the nation's single largest Indian reservation and the neighboring counties. Through this program, Navajo children who had been prevented from getting to school by roads that were often impassable are now traveling safely to and from their schools. Because of the unusual nature of this situation, I believe it must continue to be addressed at the Federal level. I would like to begin with some statistics on this unique problem and why I believe a Federal solution continues to be necessary. The Navajo Nation is by far the Nation's largest Indian Reservation, covering 25,000 square miles. Portions of the Navajo Nation are in three states: Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. No other reservation comes anywhere close to the size of Navajo. To give you an idea of its size, the State of West Virginia is about 24,000 square miles. In fact, 10 States are smaller in size than the Navajo reservation. According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, about 9,700 miles of public roads serve the Navajo nation. Only about one-third of these roads are paved. The remaining 6,500 miles, 67 percent, are dirt roads. Every day school buses use nearly all of these roads to transport Navajo children to and from school. About 6,200 miles of the roads on the Navajo reservation are BIA roads, and about 3,300 miles are State and county roads. All public roads within, adjacent to, or leading to the reservation, including BIA, State, and county roads are considered part of the Federal Indian Reservation Road System. However, only BIA and tribal roads are eligible for Federal maintenance funding from BIA. Moreover, construction funding and improvement funding from the Federal Lands Highways Program in SAFETEA is generally applied only to BIA or tribal roads. Thus, the States and counties are responsible for maintenance and improvement of their 2,500 miles of roads that serve the reservation. The counties in the 3 States that include the Navajo reservation are simply not in a position to maintain all of the roads on the reservation that carry children to and from school. Nearly all of the land area in these counties is under Federal or tribal jurisdiction. For example, in my State of New Mexico, \3/4\ of McKinley County is either tribal or Federal land, including BLM, Forest Service, and military land. The Indian land area alone comprises 61 percent of McKinley County. Consequently, the county can draw upon only a very limited tax base as a source of revenue for maintenance purposes. Of the nearly 600 miles of county-maintained roads in McKinley County, 512 miles serve Indian land. In San Juan County, Utah, the Navajo Nation comprises 40 percent of the land area. The county maintains 611 miles of roads on the Navajo Nation. Of these, 357 miles are dirt, 164 miles are gravel and only 90 miles are paved. On the reservation, the county has three high schools, two elementary schools, two BIA boarding schools and four pre-schools. The situation is similar in neighboring San Juan County, New Mexico, and Apache, Navajo, and Coconino Counties, Arizona. In light of the counties' limited resources, I do believe the Federal Government is asking the States and counties to bear too large a burden for road maintenance in this unique situation. Families living in and around the reservation are no different from families anywhere else; their children are entitled to the same opportunity to get to school safely and to get a good education. However, the many miles of unpaved and deficient roads on the reservation are frequently impassable, especially when they are wet, muddy or snowy. If the school buses do not get through, the kids simply cannot get to school. These children are literally being left behind. Because of the vast size of the Navajo reservation, the cost of maintaining the county roads used by the school buses is more than the counties can bear without Federal assistance. I believe it is essential that the Federal Government help these counties deal with this one-of- a-kind situation. In response to this unique situation, in 1998 Congress began providing direct annual funding to the counties that contain the Navajo reservation to help ensure that children on the reservation can get to and from their public schools. In 2005, the program was reauthorized in SAFETEA through 2009. Under this provision, $1.8 million is made available each year to be shared equally among the three states. The funding is provided directly to the counties in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah that contain the Navajo reservation. I want to be very clear: these Federal funds can be used only on roads that are located within or that lead to the reservation, that are on the State or county maintenance system, and that are used by school buses. This program has been very successful. For the last 12 years, the counties have used the annual funding to help maintain the routes used by school buses to carry children to school and to Headstart programs. I have had an opportunity to see firsthand the importance of this funding when I rode in a school bus over some of the roads that are maintained using funds from this program. The bill I am introducing today provides a simple 6-year reauthorization of that program, for fiscal years 2010 through 2015, with a modest increase in the annual funding to allow for inflation and for additional roads to be maintained in each of the 3 States. I believe that continuing this program for 6 more years is fully justified because of the vast area of the Navajo reservation by far the nation's largest and the unique nature of this need that only the Federal Government can deal with effectively. I do not believe any child wanting to get to and from school should have to risk or tolerate unsafe roads. Kids today, particularly in rural and remote areas, face enough barriers to getting a good education. The Senate already passed this legislation last year. I ask all Senators to join me again this year in assuring that Navajo schoolchildren at least have a chance to get to school safely and get an education. I look forward to working with Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Voinovich of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, to incorporate this legislation once again into the comprehensive 6-year reauthorization of the surface transportation programs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my distinguished colleagues Senators Bennett, Udall, Kyl, and Hatch to introduce the Indian School Bus Route Safety Reauthorization Act of 2009. This bill continues an important Federal program begun in 1998 that addresses a unique problem with the roads in and around the nation's single largest Indian reservation and the neighboring counties. Through this program, Navajo children who had been prevented from getting to school by roads that were often impassable are now traveling safely to and from their schools. Because of the unusual nature of this situation, I believe it must continue to be addressed at the Federal level. I would like to begin with some statistics on this unique problem and why I believe a Federal solution continues to be necessary. The Navajo Nation is by far the Nation's largest Indian Reservation, covering 25,000 square miles. Portions of the Navajo Nation are in three states: Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. No other reservation comes anywhere close to the size of Navajo. To give you an idea of its size, the State of West Virginia is about 24,000 square miles. In fact, 10 States are smaller in size than the Navajo reservation. According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, about 9,700 miles of public roads serve the Navajo nation. Only about one-third of these roads are paved. The remaining 6,500 miles, 67 percent, are dirt roads. Every day school buses use nearly all of these roads to transport Navajo children to and from school. About 6,200 miles of the roads on the Navajo reservation are BIA roads, and about 3,300 miles are State and county roads. All public roads within, adjacent to, or leading to the reservation, including BIA, State, and county roads are considered part of the Federal Indian Reservation Road System. However, only BIA and tribal roads are eligible for Federal maintenance funding from BIA. Moreover, construction funding and improvement funding from the Federal Lands Highways Program in SAFETEA is generally applied only to BIA or tribal roads. Thus, the States and counties are responsible for maintenance and improvement of their 2,500 miles of roads that serve the reservation. The counties in the 3 States that include the Navajo reservation are simply not in a position to maintain all of the roads on the reservation that carry children to and from school. Nearly all of the land area in these counties is under Federal or tribal jurisdiction. For example, in my State of New Mexico, \3/4\ of McKinley County is either tribal or Federal land, including BLM, Forest Service, and military land. The Indian land area alone comprises 61 percent of McKinley County. Consequently, the county can draw upon only a very limited tax base as a source of revenue for maintenance purposes. Of the nearly 600 miles of county-maintained roads in McKinley County, 512 miles serve Indian land. In San Juan County, Utah, the Navajo Nation comprises 40 percent of the land area. The county maintains 611 miles of roads on the Navajo Nation. Of these, 357 miles are dirt, 164 miles are gravel and only 90 miles are paved. On the reservation, the county has three high schools, two elementary schools, two BIA boarding schools and four pre-schools. The situation is similar in neighboring San Juan County, New Mexico, and Apache, Navajo, and Coconino Counties, Arizona. In light of the counties' limited resources, I do believe the Federal Government is asking the States and counties to bear too large a burden for road maintenance in this unique situation. Families living in and around the reservation are no different from families anywhere else; their children are entitled to the same opportunity to get to school safely and to get a good education. However, the many miles of unpaved and deficient roads on the reservation are frequently impassable, especially when they are wet, muddy or snowy. If the school buses do not get through, the kids simply cannot get to school. These children are literally being left behind. Because of the vast size of the Navajo reservation, the cost of maintaining the county roads used by the school buses is more than the counties can bear without Federal assistance. I believe it is essential that the Federal Government help these counties deal with this one-of- a-kind situation. In response to this unique situation, in 1998 Congress began providing direct annual funding to the counties that contain the Navajo reservation to help ensure that children on the reservation can get to and from their public schools. In 2005, the program was reauthorized in SAFETEA through 2009. Under this provision, $1.8 million is made available each year to be shared equally among the three states. The funding is provided directly to the counties in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah that contain the Navajo reservation. I want to be very clear: these Federal funds can be used only on roads that are located within or that lead to the reservation, that are on the State or county maintenance system, and that are used by school buses. This program has been very successful. For the last 12 years, the counties have used the annual funding to help maintain the routes used by school buses to carry children to school and to Headstart programs. I have had an opportunity to see firsthand the importance of this funding when I rode in a school bus over some of the roads that are maintained using funds from this program. The bill I am introducing today provides a simple 6-year reauthorization of that program, for fiscal years 2010 through 2015, with a modest increase in the annual funding to allow for inflation and for additional roads to be maintained in each of the 3 States. I believe that continuing this program for 6 more years is fully justified because of the vast area of the Navajo reservation by far the nation's largest and the unique nature of this need that only the Federal Government can deal with effectively. I do not believe any child wanting to get to and from school should have to risk or tolerate unsafe roads. Kids today, particularly in rural and remote areas, face enough barriers to getting a good education. The Senate already passed this legislation last year. I ask all Senators to join me again this year in assuring that Navajo schoolchildren at least have a chance to get to school safely and get an education. I look forward to working with Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Voinovich of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, to incorporate this legislation once again into the comprehensive 6-year reauthorization of the surface transportation programs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator. At the outset, I note that this credit is a product of the Senate; it was not included in the preconference legislation that was passed by the House. Overall, we intend the credit to promote the manufacture of property that, until recently, has not been widely deployed in the United States. In particular, the credit is intended to benefit manufacturers of property (including component parts of property) that (a) harnesses renewable resources to produce energy; (b) enhances the efficient use of energy derived from conventional or renewable resources; or (c) reduces greenhouse gas emissions from energy produced by conventional resources. Treasury's creation of transparent scoring criteria will be critical for efficient delivery of the allocated credit amount, which, in turn, will drive efficient deployment of private capital. The new section 48C requires the Treasury Secretary to make awards only to projects for which there is a reasonable expectation of commercial viability. Commercial viability primarily considers readiness for deployment. It also considers capital requirements to reach end-consumers in a cost-effective manner. Projects that have immediate and fungible markets and are positioned to compete in those markets have greater commercial viability than those that will require significant additional market development. Additionally, in determining viability the Secretary should consider the potential scale of market applications, and therefore the project's broader impact. In allocating credits, section 48C directs the Secretary to consider five additional factors. First, the Secretary shall consider projects that will provide the greatest domestic job creation, both direct and indirect, during the credit period. Because of their potential to catalyze additional growth, ARRA's stimulus objective will be maximized if the program supports emerging sectors and technologies. Accordingly, the Secretary should consider job creation estimates that include some evaluation of the potential breadth and scale of the property's applications, including job creation potential of the property's supply chain, distribution, installation, and maintenance. Second, the Secretary shall consider projects that will provide the greatest net impact in avoiding or reducing air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Emissions from both the manufacturing project's operations and the installed energy property should be considered. Applicant projects should be compared to the existing most-likely alternatives, and also to alternative new competing property. We expect that the Treasury Secretary will consult with the Department of Energy in estimating direct greenhouse gas emissions on a lifecycle basis for applicant projects. Additionally, the Treasury Secretary shall ensure that any potential project has received all Federal and State environmental authorizations or reviews necessary to commence construction of the project. Third, the Secretary shall look to projects that have the greatest potential for technological innovation and commercial deployment. This criterion will ensure that tax credits are directed to those projects that have the greatest opportunity to catalyze new technologies, and thus multiply the tax credit's impact. The Secretary might implement this standard by preferring projects that are first- or second-of-a- kind, or that employ significantly improved technologies--i.e., those that will achieve significant improvements in cost or technology performance relative to existing solutions. Fourth, the Secretary shall prioritize projects that have the lowest levelized cost either of generated or stored energy, or of measured reduction in energy consumption or greenhouse gas emissions. Because it takes into account the installed system price and associated costs, such as financing and operation, levelized cost of energy is an accepted and common metric for comparing the cost of generating energy or saving energy across properties. In the case of property that generates or stores energy, the appropriate measure is levelized cost of generated or stored energy, which factors the cost per kilowatt hours of energy generated. In the case of property that conserves or more efficiently deploys energy, such as smart grid and metering technologies, or that reduces greenhouse emissions, the appropriate measure is levelized cost of measured reduction in energy consumption or greenhouse gas emissions, which factors the cost per kilowatt of energy saved or ton of carbon captured. Section 48C mentions the ``full supply chain'' and, in the case of reductions in energy consumption or greenhouse gas emissions, the Secretary should also consider emissions reductions in other parts of the supply chain that are enabled by the applicant project. Finally, the legislation directs the Secretary to consider projects that have the shortest project time from certification to completion. ARRA's overarching goal is to create jobs as quickly as possible; the credit is intended to benefit firms that are able to move quickly and with certainty. Through the Chair, I would like to ask Senator Baucus to confirm his agreement with my description of these factors.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise for a colloquy with the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator BAUCUS, to discuss section 1302 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA, which the President signed into law on February 19, 2009 (Public Law 111-5). That section establishes a new tax credit, known as the section 48C credit, for investment in advanced energy facilities. I am very pleased that ARRA establishes this new credit. Because until now, all of our investment tax credits for renewable energy technologies have been concentrated downstream that is, at the commercial or individual consumer level. While those incentives have created some U.S. jobs, such as in installation, most advanced energy technologies that are installed in the United States continue to be manufactured overseas. One major driver for this overseas manufacturing is the significant tax incentives that other countries offer. For instance, Malaysia and the Philippines offer solar photovoltaic manufacturers income tax holidays, for 15 years in the case of Malaysia, while Germany offers them up to 50 percent of investment costs. As a result, the U.S. is far behind, and is falling further behind, in ``clean tech'' manufacturing. According to one recent study, Japan represents 45 percent of global solar cell production while the United States accounts for just 9 percent. And European manufacturers now account for more than 85 percent of the global wind component market. But just as the U.S. is losing ground in advanced energy manufacturing, we can anticipate rapid near- to mid-term growth in domestic demand for renewable energy technologies. This demand will be driven by numerous factors, including last year's extension of the commercial and residential investment tax credits through 2016; extension by ARRA of the production tax credit through 2013--2012 for wind; and declining product costs; anticipated enactment of national requirements for renewable electricity deployment; and anticipated enactment of a market-based system or tax to limit carbon emissions. But under the status quo, the corresponding growth in domestic demand would largely have been satisfied by imports. For that reason, I worked with my friend from Montana, Senator Baucus, to establish in ARRA the first tax credit for investment in advanced energy facilities those that manufacture property that enables Americans to harness renewable resources to generate energy, to make energy efficient improvements, and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I thank Senator Baucus for sharing my commitment to putting our country on the path to being a leader in advanced energy manufacturing.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I wish to join Senator Kennedy and Senator Voinovich in a colloquy about the importance of government service and the potential of the Roosevelt Scholars program to bring more talented young Americans into the Federal workforce. The important legislation before us today focuses its attention on volunteerism and community service. I commend Senators Kennedy, Hatch and of course, my colleague Senator Mikulski, who has so ably guided the Senate's consideration of the Serve America Act. I suggest that it would be wise for this body to address the value of government service with the same resolve and bipartisanship with which we have engaged on the volunteer service legislation before us today. Advancing service legislation without a government service component would be unfortunate in ordinary times, but it is doubly so given the extraordinary demands being placed on our government in a time of national crisis. It is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that we are building new pipelines of talent into the Federal workforce to ensure that our government is able to meet its responsibilities to the American people. The Roosevelt Scholars Act is a smart and efficient way to add one of these new--and needed--pipelines. The proposal is to create a scholarship program in mission-critical fields in exchange for a Federal service commitment. The Roosevelt Scholars program would provide tuition, support for room and board and a stipend for study in occupations critical to our government's success, including engineering, public health, science, foreign languages, accounting and information technology, to name but a few. In exchange for this support, Roosevelt Scholars would complete an internship in a Federal agency and, upon graduation, would be expected to complete a minimum of three years of Federal service. A Roosevelt Scholars Foundation would be established to administer all aspects of the program.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I appreciate the remarks of my colleague and look to my colleague from the State of Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, for some assurance that he regards government service as public service, as I do, and that the HELP Committee on which we both serve will pursue the Roosevelt Scholars Act as one way to enable more Americans to answer the call to national service.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Hatch to reintroduce the Equity for Our Nation's Self-Employed Act of 2009. This important legislation corrects an inequity that currently exists in our tax code that forces the self-employed to pay payroll taxes on the funds used to purchase their health insurance while larger businesses do not. Because of this inequity, health insurance is more expensive for the self-employed. At a time when the number of people uninsured is growing at an alarming rate, we need to find ways to reduce the cost of health insurance. This legislation is a first logical step. Under current law, corporations and other business entities are able to deduct health insurance premiums as a business expense and to forego payroll taxes on these costs. However, sole-proprietors are not allowed this same deduction and thus, are required to pay self-employment tax, their payroll tax, on health insurance premiums. The self-employed are the only segment of the business population that is additionally taxed on health insurance. The legislation we are introducing today would stop this inequitable tax treatment and allow sole proprietors to deduct the amount they pay for health insurance from their calculation of payroll taxes, leveling the playing field for the over 20 million self-employed in our Nation. This problem affects all self-employed who provide health insurance to their families. According to the IRS, there are almost 130,000 sole- proprietors in New Mexico. While we do not know how many of these people in New Mexico have health insurance, we do know that roughly 3.8 million working families in the U.S. paid self-employment tax on their health insurance premiums. Estimates indicate that roughly 60 percent of our Nation's uninsured are either self-employed or work for a small business. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, self-employed workers spent upwards of $12,000 per year in 2006 to provide health insurance for their families. Because they cannot deduct this as an ordinary business expense, those that spend this amount will pay a 15.3 percent payroll tax on their premiums, resulting in over $1,800 of taxes annually. This problem was identified by the National Taxpayer Advocate in several of her annual reports to Congress and our legislation to correct it is supported by over 40 national and State organizations including the National Association for the Self-Employed, the National Small Business Association, the National Federation of Independent Business, National Association of Realtors, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. I look forward to working with my colleagues to get this important legislation passed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Hatch to reintroduce the Equity for Our Nation's Self-Employed Act of 2009. This important legislation corrects an inequity that currently exists in our tax code that forces the self-employed to pay payroll taxes on the funds used to purchase their health insurance while larger businesses do not. Because of this inequity, health insurance is more expensive for the self-employed. At a time when the number of people uninsured is growing at an alarming rate, we need to find ways to reduce the cost of health insurance. This legislation is a first logical step. Under current law, corporations and other business entities are able to deduct health insurance premiums as a business expense and to forego payroll taxes on these costs. However, sole-proprietors are not allowed this same deduction and thus, are required to pay self-employment tax, their payroll tax, on health insurance premiums. The self-employed are the only segment of the business population that is additionally taxed on health insurance. The legislation we are introducing today would stop this inequitable tax treatment and allow sole proprietors to deduct the amount they pay for health insurance from their calculation of payroll taxes, leveling the playing field for the over 20 million self-employed in our Nation. This problem affects all self-employed who provide health insurance to their families. According to the IRS, there are almost 130,000 sole- proprietors in New Mexico. While we do not know how many of these people in New Mexico have health insurance, we do know that roughly 3.8 million working families in the U.S. paid self-employment tax on their health insurance premiums. Estimates indicate that roughly 60 percent of our Nation's uninsured are either self-employed or work for a small business. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, self-employed workers spent upwards of $12,000 per year in 2006 to provide health insurance for their families. Because they cannot deduct this as an ordinary business expense, those that spend this amount will pay a 15.3 percent payroll tax on their premiums, resulting in over $1,800 of taxes annually. This problem was identified by the National Taxpayer Advocate in several of her annual reports to Congress and our legislation to correct it is supported by over 40 national and State organizations including the National Association for the Self-Employed, the National Small Business Association, the National Federation of Independent Business, National Association of Realtors, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. I look forward to working with my colleagues to get this important legislation passed. Mr. President, 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 that the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a business meeting on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the Business Meeting is to consider pending legislation and the nomination of Thomas L. Strickland to be Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleagues, Senators Brown and Collins, to introduce bipartisan legislation entitled Ending the Medicare Disability Waiting Period Act of 2009. This legislation would phase out the current 2-year waiting period that people with disabilities must endure after qualifying for Social Security Disability Insurance, SSDI. In the interim or as the waiting period is being phased out, the bill would also create a process by which the Secretary can immediately waive the waiting period for people with life-threatening illnesses. When Medicare was expanded in 1972 to include people with significant disabilities, lawmakers created the 24-month waiting period. According to an April 2007 report from the Commonwealth Fund, it is estimated that over 1.5 million SSDI beneficiaries are in the Medicare waiting period at any given time, ``all of whom are unable to work because of their disability and most of whom have serious health problems, low incomes, and limited access to health insurance.'' Nearly 39 percent of these individuals do not have health insurance coverage for some point during the waiting period and 26 percent have no health insurance during this period. The stated reason at the time was to limit the fiscal cost of the provision. However, I would assert that there is no reason, be it fiscal or moral, to tell people that they must wait longer than 2 years after becoming severely disabled before we provide them access to much needed health care. In fact, it is important to note that there really are actually three waiting periods that are imposed upon people seeking to qualify for SSDI. First, there is the disability determination process through the Social Security Administration, which often takes many months or even longer than a year in some cases. Second, once a worker has been certified as having a severe or permanent disability, they must wait an additional five months before receiving their first SSDI check. And third, after receiving that first SSDI check, there is the 2-year period that people must wait before their Medicare coverage begins. What happens to the health and well-being of people waiting more than 2\1/2\ years before they finally receive critically needed Medicare coverage? According to Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund, which has conducted several important studies on the issue, ``Individuals in the waiting period for Medicare suffer from a broad range of debilitating diseases and are in urgent need of appropriate medical care to manage their conditions. Eliminating the 2-year wait would ensure access to care for those already on the way to Medicare.'' Again, we are talking about individuals that have been determined to be unable to engage in any ``substantial, gainful activity'' because of either a physical or mental impairment that is expected to result in death or to continue for at least 12 months. These are people that, by definition, are in more need of health coverage than anybody else in our society. The consequences are unacceptable and are, in fact, dire. The majority of people who become disabled were, before their disability, working full-time jobs and paying into Medicare like all other employed Americans. At the moment these men and women need coverage the most, just when they have lost their health, their jobs, their income, and their health insurance, Federal law requires them to wait 2 full years to become eligible for Medicare. Many of these individuals are needlessly forced to accumulate tens-of-thousands of dollars in healthcare debt or compromise their health due to forgone medical treatment. Many individuals are forced to sell their homes or go bankrupt. Even more tragically, more than 16,000 disabled beneficiaries annually, about 4 percent of beneficiaries, do not make it through the waiting period. They die before their Medicare coverage ever begins. Removing the waiting period is well worth the expense. According to the Commonwealth Fund, analyses have shown providing men and women with Medicare at the time that Social Security certifies them as disabled would cost $8.7 billion annually. This cost would be partially offset by $4.3 billion in reduced Medicaid spending, which many individuals require during the waiting period. In addition, untold expenses borne by the individuals involved could be avoided, as well as the costs of charity care on which many depend. Moreover, there may be additional savings to the Medicare program itself, which often has to bear the expense of addressing the damage done during the waiting period. During this time, deferred health care can worsen conditions, creating additional health problems and higher costs. Further exacerbating the situation, some beneficiaries have had the unfortunate fate of having received SSI and Medicaid coverage, applied for SSDI, and then lost their Medicaid coverage because they were not aware the change in income when they received SSDI would push them over the financial limits for Medicaid. In such a case, and let me emphasize this point, the Government is effectively taking their health care coverage away because they are so severely disabled. Therefore, for some in the waiting period, their battle is often as much with the Government as it is with their medical condition, disease, or disability. Nobody could possibly think this makes any sense. As the Medicare Rights Center has said, ``By forcing Americans with disabilities to wait 24 months for Medicare coverage, the current law effectively sentences these people to inadequate health care, poverty, or death. . . . Since disability can strike anyone, at any point in life, the 24-month waiting period should be of concern to everyone, not just the millions of Americans with disabilities today.'' Although elimination of the Medicare waiting period will certainly increase Medicare costs, it is important to note that there will be some decrease in Medicaid costs. Medicaid, which is financed by both Federal and State governments, often provides coverage for a subset of disabled Americans in the waiting period, as long as they meet certain income and asset limits. Income limits are typically at or below the poverty level, including at just 74 percent of the poverty line in New Mexico, with assets generally limited to just $2,000 for individuals and $3,000 for couples. Furthermore, from a continuity of care point of view, it makes little sense that somebody with disabilities must leave their job and their health providers associated with that plan, move on to Medicaid, often have a different set of providers, then switch to Medicare and yet another set of providers. The cost, both financial and personal, of not providing access to care or poorly coordinated care services for these seriously ill people during the waiting period may be greater in many cases than providing health coverage. Finally, private-sector employers and employees in those risk-pools would also benefit from the passage of the bill. As the Commonwealth Fund has noted, ``. . . to the extent that disabled adults rely on coverage through their prior employer or their spouse's employer, eliminating the waiting period would also produce savings to employers who provide this coverage.'' To address concerns about costs and immediate impact on the Medicare program, the legislation phases out the waiting period over a 10-year period. In the interim, the legislation would create a process by which others with life-threatening illnesses could also get an exception to the waiting period. Congress has previously extended such an exception to the waiting period to individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, and for hospice services. The ALS exception passed the Congress in December 2000 and went into effect July 1, 2001. Thus, the legislation would extend the exception to all people with life-threatening illnesses in the waiting period. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleagues, Senators Brown and Collins, to introduce bipartisan legislation entitled Ending the Medicare Disability Waiting Period Act of 2009. This legislation would phase out the current 2-year waiting period that people with disabilities must endure after qualifying for Social Security Disability Insurance, SSDI. In the interim or as the waiting period is being phased out, the bill would also create a process by which the Secretary can immediately waive the waiting period for people with life-threatening illnesses. When Medicare was expanded in 1972 to include people with significant disabilities, lawmakers created the 24-month waiting period. According to an April 2007 report from the Commonwealth Fund, it is estimated that over 1.5 million SSDI beneficiaries are in the Medicare waiting period at any given time, ``all of whom are unable to work because of their disability and most of whom have serious health problems, low incomes, and limited access to health insurance.'' Nearly 39 percent of these individuals do not have health insurance coverage for some point during the waiting period and 26 percent have no health insurance during this period. The stated reason at the time was to limit the fiscal cost of the provision. However, I would assert that there is no reason, be it fiscal or moral, to tell people that they must wait longer than 2 years after becoming severely disabled before we provide them access to much needed health care. In fact, it is important to note that there really are actually three waiting periods that are imposed upon people seeking to qualify for SSDI. First, there is the disability determination process through the Social Security Administration, which often takes many months or even longer than a year in some cases. Second, once a worker has been certified as having a severe or permanent disability, they must wait an additional five months before receiving their first SSDI check. And third, after receiving that first SSDI check, there is the 2-year period that people must wait before their Medicare coverage begins. What happens to the health and well-being of people waiting more than 2\1/2\ years before they finally receive critically needed Medicare coverage? According to Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund, which has conducted several important studies on the issue, ``Individuals in the waiting period for Medicare suffer from a broad range of debilitating diseases and are in urgent need of appropriate medical care to manage their conditions. Eliminating the 2-year wait would ensure access to care for those already on the way to Medicare.'' Again, we are talking about individuals that have been determined to be unable to engage in any ``substantial, gainful activity'' because of either a physical or mental impairment that is expected to result in death or to continue for at least 12 months. These are people that, by definition, are in more need of health coverage than anybody else in our society. The consequences are unacceptable and are, in fact, dire. The majority of people who become disabled were, before their disability, working full-time jobs and paying into Medicare like all other employed Americans. At the moment these men and women need coverage the most, just when they have lost their health, their jobs, their income, and their health insurance, Federal law requires them to wait 2 full years to become eligible for Medicare. Many of these individuals are needlessly forced to accumulate tens-of-thousands of dollars in healthcare debt or compromise their health due to forgone medical treatment. Many individuals are forced to sell their homes or go bankrupt. Even more tragically, more than 16,000 disabled beneficiaries annually, about 4 percent of beneficiaries, do not make it through the waiting period. They die before their Medicare coverage ever begins. Removing the waiting period is well worth the expense. According to the Commonwealth Fund, analyses have shown providing men and women with Medicare at the time that Social Security certifies them as disabled would cost $8.7 billion annually. This cost would be partially offset by $4.3 billion in reduced Medicaid spending, which many individuals require during the waiting period. In addition, untold expenses borne by the individuals involved could be avoided, as well as the costs of charity care on which many depend. Moreover, there may be additional savings to the Medicare program itself, which often has to bear the expense of addressing the damage done during the waiting period. During this time, deferred health care can worsen conditions, creating additional health problems and higher costs. Further exacerbating the situation, some beneficiaries have had the unfortunate fate of having received SSI and Medicaid coverage, applied for SSDI, and then lost their Medicaid coverage because they were not aware the change in income when they received SSDI would push them over the financial limits for Medicaid. In such a case, and let me emphasize this point, the Government is effectively taking their health care coverage away because they are so severely disabled. Therefore, for some in the waiting period, their battle is often as much with the Government as it is with their medical condition, disease, or disability. Nobody could possibly think this makes any sense. As the Medicare Rights Center has said, ``By forcing Americans with disabilities to wait 24 months for Medicare coverage, the current law effectively sentences these people to inadequate health care, poverty, or death. . . . Since disability can strike anyone, at any point in life, the 24-month waiting period should be of concern to everyone, not just the millions of Americans with disabilities today.'' Although elimination of the Medicare waiting period will certainly increase Medicare costs, it is important to note that there will be some decrease in Medicaid costs. Medicaid, which is financed by both Federal and State governments, often provides coverage for a subset of disabled Americans in the waiting period, as long as they meet certain income and asset limits. Income limits are typically at or below the poverty level, including at just 74 percent of the poverty line in New Mexico, with assets generally limited to just $2,000 for individuals and $3,000 for couples. Furthermore, from a continuity of care point of view, it makes little sense that somebody with disabilities must leave their job and their health providers associated with that plan, move on to Medicaid, often have a different set of providers, then switch to Medicare and yet another set of providers. The cost, both financial and personal, of not providing access to care or poorly coordinated care services for these seriously ill people during the waiting period may be greater in many cases than providing health coverage. Finally, private-sector employers and employees in those risk-pools would also benefit from the passage of the bill. As the Commonwealth Fund has noted, ``. . . to the extent that disabled adults rely on coverage through their prior employer or their spouse's employer, eliminating the waiting period would also produce savings to employers who provide this coverage.'' To address concerns about costs and immediate impact on the Medicare program, the legislation phases out the waiting period over a 10-year period. In the interim, the legislation would create a process by which others with life-threatening illnesses could also get an exception to the waiting period. Congress has previously extended such an exception to the waiting period to individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, and for hospice services. The ALS exception passed the Congress in December 2000 and went into effect July 1, 2001. Thus, the legislation would extend the exception to all people with life-threatening illnesses in the waiting period. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 682

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, how much time remains in opposition to this first amendment?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me take 2 of the 4 minutes because I know my colleague from Alaska was hoping to speak also. If she arrives, I will yield that time to her. If she does not, I will reclaim it.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, let me go ahead and briefly describe my reasons for urging we not support this first amendment. This first amendment is an amendment Senator Coburn offered and is very nearly identical to an amendment he offered to the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008. That was the package of public land bills the House sent us that year. Most of the Senate voted against the amendment. I hope they will again. The amendment required the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to post an annual report on the Internet detailing a great deal of information about lands owned by the Government: buildings, structures on those lands, extensive information on which are used, which are not used, the cost of operation of those lands, and those structures estimated backlog for maintenance of various structures of the agencies. The issue the Senator is trying to get at was dealt with in the previous administration, when President Bush issued Executive Order 13327. Therein, he set up the Federal Real Property Council, a Federal real property council, that has, as its job, tracking asset management, inventory of assets, setting up systems to do that, working under the auspices of the General Services Administration; the Government Accountability Office or the General Services Administration. I believe that is a much better thought-through way to proceed with this. The cost of this amendment would be fairly extensive. We do not have an exact estimate, but we have been told there are 1.2 billion pieces of real property or real property assets worldwide, over 636 million acres of land we are talking about here, that would have to be inventoried and reported on in an updated fashion every year. So this is an extensive undertaking. Madam President, how much time remains on my side?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I withhold my time until the Senator from Alaska can have a chance to get her thoughts together.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I yield myself 1 minute. Let me speak on that one issue. I think my colleague from Alaska is correct, this does involve a change in current law. It says that the decision as to what affects national security will be made by OMB for purposes of this inventory and display. It will not be made by agencies such as the Department of Defense, CIA, Department of Energy, and others that currently make those decisions. That is a mistake. It also specifies that items can be left out for national security reasons. The Executive order made clear that items could also be left out or should be left out if they involved foreign policy issues or safety issues for the public. The amendment is not consistent with what I believe we ought to be doing in this area. I urge colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, this amendment No. 682 is one I have advised the Senator from Oklahoma is acceptable to Senators on this side of the aisle. Let me briefly describe what it does. It would modify the underlying provisions of the substitute amendment dealing with the protection of fossil resources on Federal land by making three changes. First, the underlying bill says the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture may allow casual collecting of common fossils without a permit for personal use. That is consistent with the management policies of the Federal land in question. The Coburn amendment says it requires that the two Secretaries allow that casual collecting for personal use. Secondly, the Coburn amendment would remove a provision that would have authorized agencies under some circumstances to acquire new lands. Finally, the amendment removes a provision in the underlying bill that would have authorized forfeiture of any vehicle or equipment used by someone illegally removing fossil resources. I think all three of these changes improve the bill and I support the amendment. I believe we can act on this with a voice vote, but I will leave it to the Senator from Oklahoma to make his statement.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, we yield 2 minutes in opposition to this amendment to Senator Feinstein from California.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 19, 2009, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Perspectives From Main Street on Small Business Lending''.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 19, 2009 at 2 p.m. to conduct a financial institutions subcommittee hearing entitled ``Current Issues in Deposit Insurance.''

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 19, 2009 at 2:30 p.m.