Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senators for their assurances in this regard, and congratulate them on their amendment. rolling spot contracts

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. 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. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. 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. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. 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. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. 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. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. 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. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. 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. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. 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.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on December 11, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 2156 (SECURE Water Act), a bill to authorize and facilitate the improvement of water management by the Bureau of Reclamation, to require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Energy to increase the acquisition and analysis of water-related data to assess the long-term availability of water resources for irrigation, hydroelectric power, municipal, and environmental uses, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, December 13, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on Reform of the Mining Law of 1872. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, December 13, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding forest restoration and hazardous fuels reduction efforts in the forests of Oregon and Washington. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a joint hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 11, 2007, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building. This joint hearing will examine the role of speculation in recent record crude oil prices. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to recognize Kitty L. Roberts, the superintendent of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, who will retire on December 3, 2007, after 28 years with the National Park Service. Currently the superintendent of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Rainbow Bridge National Monument, for many years Kitty headed the National Park Service's Office of Legislative and Congressional Affairs, where she worked very closely with the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. A native of Milton, WV, Kitty graduated from the University of Maryland and attended graduate school at Indiana University. She then worked for the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission, where she remained for 9 years. Kitty began her career with the National Park Service in 1979 as a management assistant in the National Capital Region. She went on to become the assistant superintendent at the George Washington Memorial Parkway between 1980 and 1984. From 1984 to 1990, Kitty was the Deputy Associate Regional Director, White House Liaison, in the National Capital Region. During this time, Kitty was the NPS Inaugural coordinator and oversaw the development of East Executive Park that now serves as a visitor entrance to the White House. In 1990, Kitty returned to the George Washington Memorial Parkway, where she served as superintendent. In 1993, former National Park Service Director Roger Kennedy asked Kitty to become the assistant director for Legislative and Congressional Affairs. Kitty served in that position for 8 years, and during that time was extremely helpful to the committee in its consideration of national park-related legislation. During Kitty's tenure as assistant director, over 230 laws were passed affecting our national parks. Among the notable laws passed during that period were the California Desert Protection Act and the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, with its creation of 5 new park units, 10 new national heritage areas, 12 park boundary adjustments, and numerous other changes that benefited several units of the National Park System. Kitty also worked on the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, which doubled the amount of funding for national park roads, and the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998, which reformed the National Park Service's concessions program, created a park research mandate, and supported employee career development and training. In February 2001, Kitty left Washington to become the superintendent of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Rainbow Bridge National Monument. During her time at the park, Kitty has worked on a policy for personal watercraft and off-highway vehicle use. She has found ways to maintain access to Lake Powell even as ongoing drought conditions have led to a 145-foot drop in the lake's water level. Perhaps one of her most important contributions has been a program of public education to prevent needless deaths due to individuals swimming behind boats where exhaust fumes were vented. In early June of this year, Kitty presided with the President of the Navajo Nation at the grand opening of the new floating marina village at Antelope Point, with its architectural elements from the surrounding red rock landscape and its unique cooling system using lake water from 75 feet below the surface. Kitty has had a distinguished career with the National Park Service and will be greatly missed by those she has worked with over the years, both in the Park Service and in Congress. I want to congratulate Kitty on her retirement and thank her for the many contributions she has made toward making our national parks the pride of our Nation, and I wish her the best in the years ahead.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Albuquerque Biological Park Title Clarification Act with my colleague Senator Domenici. A slightly different version of this bill passed the Senate during the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congress. We are introducing this legislation again in hopes of assisting the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico clear title to several parcels of land located along the Rio Grande. If title is cleared, the city will be free to proceed with plans to improve the properties as part of a biological park project, a city funded initiative to create a premier environmental educational center for its citizens and the entire State of New Mexico. The biological park project has been in the works since 1987 when the city began to develop an aquarium and botanic garden along the banks of the Rio Grande. Those facilities constitute just a portion of the overall project. As part of this effort, in 1997, the city purchased two properties from the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, MRGCD, for $3,875,000. The first property, Tingley Beach, had been leased by the city from MRGCD since 1931 and used for public park purposes. The second property, San Gabriel Park, had been leased by the city since 1963, and also used for public park purposes. In the year 2000, the city's plans were interrupted when the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation asserted that in 1953, it had acquired ownership of all of MRGCD's property associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project. The United States assertion called into question the validity of the 1997 transaction between the city and MRGCD. Both MRGCD and the city dispute the United States' claim of ownership. This dispute is unnecessarily complicating the city's progress in developing the biological park project. If the matter is left to litigation, the delay will be indefinite. Reclamation has already determined that the two properties are surplus to the needs of the Middle Rio Grande Project. In fact, the record indicates that Reclamation once considered releasing its interest in the properties for $1.00 each. Obviously, the Federal interest in these properties is low while the local interest is high. This bill is tailored to address this local interest by disclaiming any Federal interest in the two properties at issue. To avoid future complications, the bill also disclaims any Federal interest in several other parcels associated with the BioPark. The general dispute concerning title to Middle Rio Grande Project works is left for the courts to decide. I hope my colleagues will work with me to resolve this issue. This bill represents a simple solution to a local problem caused by Federal action. I urge my colleagues to once again support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Albuquerque Biological Park Title Clarification Act with my colleague Senator Domenici. A slightly different version of this bill passed the Senate during the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congress. We are introducing this legislation again in hopes of assisting the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico clear title to several parcels of land located along the Rio Grande. If title is cleared, the city will be free to proceed with plans to improve the properties as part of a biological park project, a city funded initiative to create a premier environmental educational center for its citizens and the entire State of New Mexico. The biological park project has been in the works since 1987 when the city began to develop an aquarium and botanic garden along the banks of the Rio Grande. Those facilities constitute just a portion of the overall project. As part of this effort, in 1997, the city purchased two properties from the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, MRGCD, for $3,875,000. The first property, Tingley Beach, had been leased by the city from MRGCD since 1931 and used for public park purposes. The second property, San Gabriel Park, had been leased by the city since 1963, and also used for public park purposes. In the year 2000, the city's plans were interrupted when the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation asserted that in 1953, it had acquired ownership of all of MRGCD's property associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project. The United States assertion called into question the validity of the 1997 transaction between the city and MRGCD. Both MRGCD and the city dispute the United States' claim of ownership. This dispute is unnecessarily complicating the city's progress in developing the biological park project. If the matter is left to litigation, the delay will be indefinite. Reclamation has already determined that the two properties are surplus to the needs of the Middle Rio Grande Project. In fact, the record indicates that Reclamation once considered releasing its interest in the properties for $1.00 each. Obviously, the Federal interest in these properties is low while the local interest is high. This bill is tailored to address this local interest by disclaiming any Federal interest in the two properties at issue. To avoid future complications, the bill also disclaims any Federal interest in several other parcels associated with the BioPark. The general dispute concerning title to Middle Rio Grande Project works is left for the courts to decide. I hope my colleagues will work with me to resolve this issue. This bill represents a simple solution to a local problem caused by Federal action. I urge my colleagues to once again support this legislation. 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 to speak about the nomination of Michael Mukasey to be the next United States Attorney General. First, let me say that by all accounts Judge Mukasey is a good man with a long distinguished record. In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he made clear that he understands the need to restore the public's trust and confidence in the Department of Justice. I also believe he demonstrated a willingness to take the necessary steps to de-politicize the Department, and to provide the leadership required to repair its credibility. However, I am also deeply troubled by the positions Judge Mukasey has taken regarding several important issues. Much has been said about Judge Mukasey's unwillingness to clearly state that certain interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, are unlawful and amount to torture. I share this concern, but I would also like to highlight another area that I find particularly disturbing; that is the idea that the President doesn't have to comply with a constitutional law passed by Congress. Over the last 6 years, the Bush administration has put forth a view of Executive power that is incredibly expansive, and in my opinion, an unjustified and dangerous threat to our fundamental rights and our commitment to the rule of law. The President has asserted the right to unilaterally imprison whomever he wants without judicial review, whether or not they are a United States citizen, if he determines that they are a so-called ``enemy combatant.'' The administration has taken the position that the President can authorize the use of techniques that amount to torture, and then immunize any person acting pursuant to his orders from criminal liability. The President also authorized warrantless surveillance in direct contravention to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In all of these instances, the President justified his actions on the basis that he was acting within his authority as commander-in-chief to defend the country, and that neither Congress nor the courts can infringe on this power. While many of these assertions have ultimately been rejected by Federal courts, Congress, or overturned internally when they became public, the President continues to assert that there are few restraints on his power when it comes to national security matters. During his confirmation hearing, Judge Mukasey stated that he would step down if he determined that the President's actions were unlawful and the President refused to heed his advice to change course. Although this does signal a welcomed degree of independence, I remain concerned about what Judge Mukasey will find to be ``lawful.'' Let me read an exchange that took place during a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee which illustrates this point. Senator Leahy: . . . where Congress has clearly legislated in an area, as we've done in the area of surveillance with the FISA law, something we've amended repeatedly at the request of various administrations . . . if it's been legislated and stated very clearly what must be done, if you operate outside of that, whether it's with a presidential authorization or anything else, wouldn't that be illegal? Judge Mukasey: That would have to depend on whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country. Senator Leahy: Can the President put someone above the law by authorizing illegal conduct? Judge Mukasey: If by illegal you mean contrary to a statute but within the authority of the President to defend the country, the President is not putting somebody above the law, the President is putting somebody within the law. While this view may be consistent with the current administration's position regarding Executive authority, this stance is not consistent with how the powers of the president have traditionally been interpreted. The notion that the President may disregard a valid law by citing his inherent power to defend the country is disconcerting. And frankly, it is all too reminiscent of President Nixon's assertion that actions taken in the name of national security, whether or not they are in accordance with relevant statues, are by definition legal if they are carried out on behalf of the President. This assertion was widely rejected, as it should have been. As our Nation's highest law enforcement officer, it is essential that the Attorney General faithfully execute laws passed by Congress. It is one thing for the Attorney General to state that he or she will not enforce a certain measure because it is unconstitutional; however, it is a very different matter if the Executive Branch asserts that it is not bound by a law that is clearly constitutional. It is for this reason that I cannot support the nomination of Judge Mukasey to be the next Attorney General.

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, November 15, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 2203, a bill to reauthorize the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to Rosemarie_Calabro@energy. senate.gov. For further information, please contact Jonathan Epstein at (202) 228-3031 or Rosemarie Calabro at (202) 224-5039. committee on small business and entrepreneurship

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, November 14, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership as it relates to U.S. policy on nuclear fuel management. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to Rosemarie_Calabro@energy.senate. gov. For further information, please contact Jonathan Epstein at (202) 228-3031 or Rosemarie Calabro at (202) 224-5039. committee on small business and entrepreneurship

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on whether domestic energy industry will have the available workforce--crafts and professional--to meet our Nation's growing energy needs and if gaps exist, what policies the Congress should take to address these gaps. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to rosemarie_calabro@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Jonathan Epstein at (202) 228-3031 or Rosemarie Calabro at (202) 224-5039. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 13, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977: Policy Issues Thirty Years Later. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to gina_weinstock@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Patty Beneke at 202-224-5451 or Gina Weinstock at (202) 224-5684. committee on indian affairs

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, on June 19, 2007, the administration transmitted draft legislation entitled the Cooperative Conservation Enhancement Act, which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. I am pleased today to introduce the Cooperative Conservation Enhancement Act, by request, as a courtesy to the administration. This bill would clarify the responsibilities and authorities of the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative conservation partnerships. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a letter of support, and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I, along with Senator Hatch, am re-introducing the Equity for Our Nation's Self-Employed Act of 2007. 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 pay for 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 are 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 family. 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.