Jeff Bingaman

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. 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.

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 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. The hearing will be held on November 8, 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 on the following bills: S. 86, to designate segments of Fossil Creek, a tributary to the Verde River in the State of Arizona, as wild and scenic rivers; S. 1365, to amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements with any of the management partners of the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area, and for other purposes; S. 1449, to establish the Rocky Mountain Science Collections Center to assist in preserving the archeological, anthropological, paleontological, zoological, and geological artifacts and archival documentation from the Rocky Mountain region through the construction of an on-site, secure collections facility for the Denver Museum of Nature & Science in Denver, Colorado; S. 1921, to amend the American Battlefield Protection Act of 1996 to extend the authorization for that Act, and for other purposes; S. 1941, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the Wolf House, located in Norfolk, Arkansas, as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes; S. 1961, to expand the boundaries of the Little River Canyon National Preserve in the State of Alabama; S. 1991, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to determine the suitability and feasibility of extending the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail to include additional sites associated with the preparation and return phases of the expedition, and for other purposes; S. 2098, to establish the Northern Plains Heritage Area in the State of North Dakota; S. 2220, to amend the Outdoor Recreation Act of 1963 to authorize certain appropriations; and H.R. 1191, to authorize the National Park Service to pay for services rendered by subcontractors under a General Services Administration Indefinite Deliver/Indefinite Quantity Contract issued for work to be completed at the Grand Canyon National Park. 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 rachel

Mr. BINGAMAN

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I understand there is still some checking to see if there is any objection to setting aside the pending amendment so I may offer an amendment. While we are waiting, I wish to describe the substance of the amendment I intend to offer. This amendment is intended to reduce the Social Security backlog. Most of us who go back to our home States on weekends and during recesses know about the Social Security backlog. We hear from individuals in our States about how long they have to wait to find out whether their Social Security disability claims have been approved. We hear about elderly people waiting in long lines for service at Social Security offices. We hear about busy signals when they call the 1-800 number that is provided for people trying to find out the status of their Social Security claim. But I am not sure most of us understand the extent of the backlog, the consequences of it, or the reasons. For more than 70 years Social Security has provided millions of American workers and their families with a basic level of protection against poverty when a worker can no longer work due to old age. Of course, we are all aware of disability now being covered by Social Security. Social Security benefits are the only means of survival for millions of individuals with severe disabilities. These individuals rely on the Social Security Administration to promptly and fairly adjudicate their applications for disability benefits. Unfortunately, we are witnessing a trend where this is simply not happening. According to the Social Security Administration, there are currently over 756,000 cases waiting for hearing. That is not waiting for a final determination, waiting for a hearing. The average time to get a hearing is 523 days. That is the longest it has been in the history of the Social Security Administration. The average processing time for a hearing is projected to increase next year, based on the numbers we have in the appropriations bill before us. This is a problem for individuals with disabilities in my State of New Mexico. Currently the average processing time per case in the Albuquerque hearing office is 528 days. Keep in mind, this is only the time it takes to get a hearing. This does not include the time it takes for an initial determination or for a final determination. This past May the Finance Committee, on which I am privileged to serve, received testimony indicating there are thousands of individuals with disabilities who currently have cases pending with the Social Security Administration and have had those cases pending for 3 years or more. The Finance Committee received testimony regarding the extreme hardships individuals with severe disabilities must endure while awaiting a final decision on their disability claims. We heard instance after instance where individuals with severe disabilities were unable to work and were forced to declare bankruptcy. They lost their homes, suffered deterioration in their medical conditions, and some even died while their claims lingered in Social Security Administration offices. According to the Social Security Administration, staffing levels are at their lowest since 1972. Thirty years ago, the Social Security Administration had more than 82,000 employees. In 2005 the Social Security Administration had 66,000 employees. In a few months, the expected employment at the Social Security Administration will drop below 60,000. Thousands of employees are leaving the Social Security Administration's field and hearing offices without being replaced. As many of us know, the field offices around the country are reducing their hours. In Carlsbad, NM--which I visited 2 weeks ago--due to a reduction in hours of service, seniors and people with disabilities are forced to line up around the building, often waiting hours to get served. Even worse, some field offices are shutting their doors permanently. Meanwhile, since 1990, the number of disabled workers drawing disability benefits has more than doubled. That number has gone from 3 million in 1990 to 6.8 million today. Field offices are averaging over 850,000 visitors a week during this current year. As we know from the press, the first baby boomer officially filed for Social Security last week. So the demands on Social Security are only going to increase. In addition, Congress has significantly increased the Social Security Administration's responsibilities as part of the Medicare Part D legislation. So the Social Security Administration finds itself in a very dire circumstance. The Social Security Administration has over 1,400 field and hearing offices in cities and towns across the country. Mandatory costs, such as program integrity, rent, guards, postage, employees' salaries, and benefits are continuing to rise. Unfortunately, Congress appropriated on average each year for the last 7 years about $150 million less than the administration requested. The current budget situation has simply been compounded by years of sustained underfunding by the Congress. According to the Social Security Administration, the present cost of processing the hearing backlog would be $794 million. The difference between the amount of funding requested for administrative expenses and the amount appropriated for fiscal years 2001 through 2007 is $962 million--more than enough to address the backlog. So if we had actually appropriated what the administration asked for during fiscal years 2001 through 2007, we would largely have this backlog problem solved. Unfortunately, we did not do that. I thank the chairman and the ranking member of this subcommittee on the Appropriations Committee for their significant efforts to address the backlog. As you know, the chairman of the subcommittee has been a tireless leader on issues affecting individuals with disabilities. For decades, he has led the way in the Senate on reducing barriers for individuals with disabilities and ensuring full community participation. Fortunately, the chairman and the ranking member recognized the current challenges individuals with disabilities are facing in accessing disability benefits, and they have worked hard to increase administrative funds for the Social Security Administration by $125 million over the amount that was requested by the President. I believe we all recognize how important that infusion of funds will be. In the committee report accompanying the bill that we are considering, the chairman requested the Commissioner of Social Security to set forth a plan to reduce the backlog. As submitted, the Commissioner's plan would include: accelerating review of cases that are likely or certain to be approved; improving hearing procedures; increasing adjudicatory capacity; and increasing efficiency through automation and improved business processes. Unfortunately, the amount of funding in the bill does not go far enough, in my view, to substantially reduce the backlog. According to the Commissioner, this amount of funding will merely ``stem the tide.'' It will not address the backlog in a significant way. The fiscal year 2008 budget resolution--which we all considered on the floor, and many of us voted for--recommends an increase of $430 million above the President's request for the Social Security Administration's administrative budget in order to reduce this backlog. The amendment I am intending to offer later today would get us to half that amount by increasing the Social Security Administration's administrative budget by an additional $160 million. The amendment would give the Social Security Administration the resources it needs to reduce the backlog to help get rid of these long lines. The amendment is paid for. The amendment would shift excess Medicare funds to pay for this critical increase in funding to the Social Security Administration in this 1 year. These offsetting funds have been identified in close collaboration with Finance Committee staff and, of course, Senator Baucus is a cosponsor of the amendment. Importantly, these funds would be immediately replaced at the beginning of fiscal year 2009 with generally available funding that was passed as part of the Transitional Medical Assistance extenders package. Finally, the amendment would also permit the U.S. Treasury Department to invest its excess operating capital. So this represents responsible oversight by the Treasury Department. This policy has been recommended by the Government Accountability Office and others. It is estimated this policy will generate tens of millions of dollars for the Federal Government over the next 10 years. The bottom line is millions of American workers and their families-- people whom we represent--rely on Social Security to protect them against poverty in the event they are no longer able to work. This incredible insurance program is breaking down because of our failure to fund the administration of the program. So I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. It is being offered on behalf of myself, Senator Snowe from Maine, and Senator Baucus from Montana. Mr. President, I do not believe we have yet gotten to a point procedurally where I am able to offer the amendment, so I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield back the remaining time and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3440, as modified.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment to add $150 million to the Social Security Administration account so that they can deal with the enormous backlog of cases that are pending there in people applying for disability benefits. The average wait is 523 days now. If a person filed today for a hearing in Social Security, they would expect to get that hearing in June of 2009. That is unacceptable. We need to do better. This amendment will help us do that. I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Domenici.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. No. While the local communities surrounding the test in my State have talked of illnesses such as thyroid cancer for years, the recent CDC study is the first technical compilation of historical documents in the technical files of Los Alamos National Laboratory. Detailed technical dose reconstructions must first be attempted to take place to show the probable cause of the illnesses. I would like to request that the managers of this bill work in conference to insert the strongest possible language to have the National Cancer Institute undertake a study that estimates the number of fatal and nonfatal radiogenic illnesses compared to a baseline of what would be expected to occur naturally. This analysis must be completed by the National Cancer Institute with the utmost urgency given that, as the chairman knows well from the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, many of the affected population are reaching an advanced age.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank both managers of this bill for their willingness to work with me on this important issue. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I rise to discuss a matter of great importance to my State with the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Harkin. As he is aware, New Mexico was host to the Nation first test of a nuclear weapon on July 16, 1945--the ``Trinity'' test. At the time, this test, like the entire Manhattan Project, was classified, with a public cover story of an ammunition magazine exploding at Alamogordo Air Force Base some 40 miles to the south of the test. The surrounding communities were not told that this was a nuclear weapons test until after the detonation of the ``fat man'' bomb over Nagasaki nearly 1 month later. In fact, the decision was knowingly made by the Army not to give any advance warning or evacuate any of the surrounding communities. The radioactive fallout from this test traveled northeast for at least 100 miles, and the effects were felt all around my State and beyond. Communities 96 miles north in Vaughn, NM, were affected; windows in Silver City, 120 miles west, were shattered. For 4 or 5 days after the test, the surrounding communities northeast to the test reported a ``white substance like flour settled on everything.'' Cattle that grazed on Chupadera Mesa suffered beta radiation burns and loss of hair, indicating levels of radiation exceeding today's permissible dose by factors of several thousand. The government made no effort to monitor for contamination the bodies of members of the public. A recently released CDC study, ``Los Alamos Historical Document Retrieval Project,'' indicates that the towns of Bingham to the northeast and Carrizozo 30 miles to the east of the test received external doses of radiation far exceeding today's maximum allowable doses. The absorbed ground level radiation 14 days after the test in Bingham was approximately 13 times what the Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows today for emergency lifesaving. The CDC report quotes documents reporting that a Geiger counter in Carrizozo went ``off-scale'' at 4:20 p.m., 11 hours after the test. There is evidence that the fission products from this test were detected as far as Indiana, where a Kodak film plant observed spotting on their film from contaminated intake water used to make the paper pulp to store the film.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for putting together an excellent bill and bringing this critical legislation to the floor. This bill is a major step forward in strengthening education, health care, and job training in this country. As the chairman knows, this Congress recently passed the America Competes Act--comprehensive legislation designed to ensure the United States remains competitive in the 21st century economy. I believe the cornerstone of this legislation is its effort to strengthen math and science education in this country.

Mr. BINGAMAN. As the chairman knows, the National Academy of Sciences reported that students in the United States are simply not keeping up with their international peers in the areas of math and science. The National Academy recommended training an additional 150,000 advanced placement, AP, and pre-AP instructors, and to quadruple the number of students who take AP math or science courses to 4.5 million by 2010. Is the chairman aware that America Competes makes a downpayment on this recommendation and authorizes a program to increase the number of students in high-need schools taking AP and international baccalaureate, IB, classes in math, science, and critical foreign languages?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes, and the chairman's support for this provision was critical to its passage. I'd also like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for increasing funding for Advanced Placement programs in this mark to $42 million. As the Chairman knows, the House FY 08 Labor HHS Education Appropriations bill increases funding for AP to $50 million. I ask the Chairman if he thinks it's a good idea to increase AP to at least $50 million in the final bill that emerges from Conference, and use this additional increase to fund the provisions in America Competes.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their support of this critical program. workforce investment act

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Snowe, Salazar, Smith, Akaka, and Sanders to introduce the Medicare Access to Community Health Center, MATCH, Act, which would address a long standing problem for a key component of our Nation's health care safety net, community health centers. These facilities serve as medical homes to nearly 16 million underserved patients. Over 1 million of those patients are Medicare beneficiaries. Health centers are known for providing high quality, comprehensive care to some of our Nation's most vulnerable populations. Over 15 years ago, Congress created the Federally Qualified Health Center, FQHC, Medicare benefit to ensure that health centers were not forced to subsidize Medicare payments with Federal grant dollars. Congress required centers to be paid their reasonable costs for providing care to their patients. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services later established a per visit payment cap in regulations based on a statute applicable to Rural Health Clinics. CMS applied the cap to FQHCs without meaningful data to support the payment limit but with the promise of future reviews to guarantee that health centers were adequately reimbursed. However, these reviews have not taken place. Now, 15 years later, over \3/4\ of health centers are losing money serving Medicare beneficiaries, with losses totaling over $50 million annually according to an analysis done by the National Association of Community Health Centers. In my home State of New Mexico, NACHC estimates that health centers have lost more than a million dollars annually. I have repeatedly asked CMS to review this antiquated cap but I have had little success. So I rise today to introduce legislation to improve the Medicare payment mechanism for FQHCs. MATCH will establish a Prospective Payment System for FQHCs, based on actual cost of providing care to health center patients. This new mechanism mirrors the successful Medicaid FQHC Prospective Payment System. By reforming the payment structure at FQHCs, we will ensure health centers are able to dedicate their Federal grant dollars for their original intent, providing care to the uninsured. This new mechanism will also increase efficiency and stability in the Medicare program for health centers. This legislation is long overdue. I ask my colleagues to join me in strengthening the Medicare FQHC program to ensure that health centers can continue to provide high quality, affordable primary and preventive care to our Nation's seniors and people with disabilities. 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 Senators Snowe, Salazar, Smith, Akaka, and Sanders to introduce the Medicare Access to Community Health Center, MATCH, Act, which would address a long standing problem for a key component of our Nation's health care safety net, community health centers. These facilities serve as medical homes to nearly 16 million underserved patients. Over 1 million of those patients are Medicare beneficiaries. Health centers are known for providing high quality, comprehensive care to some of our Nation's most vulnerable populations. Over 15 years ago, Congress created the Federally Qualified Health Center, FQHC, Medicare benefit to ensure that health centers were not forced to subsidize Medicare payments with Federal grant dollars. Congress required centers to be paid their reasonable costs for providing care to their patients. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services later established a per visit payment cap in regulations based on a statute applicable to Rural Health Clinics. CMS applied the cap to FQHCs without meaningful data to support the payment limit but with the promise of future reviews to guarantee that health centers were adequately reimbursed. However, these reviews have not taken place. Now, 15 years later, over \3/4\ of health centers are losing money serving Medicare beneficiaries, with losses totaling over $50 million annually according to an analysis done by the National Association of Community Health Centers. In my home State of New Mexico, NACHC estimates that health centers have lost more than a million dollars annually. I have repeatedly asked CMS to review this antiquated cap but I have had little success. So I rise today to introduce legislation to improve the Medicare payment mechanism for FQHCs. MATCH will establish a Prospective Payment System for FQHCs, based on actual cost of providing care to health center patients. This new mechanism mirrors the successful Medicaid FQHC Prospective Payment System. By reforming the payment structure at FQHCs, we will ensure health centers are able to dedicate their Federal grant dollars for their original intent, providing care to the uninsured. This new mechanism will also increase efficiency and stability in the Medicare program for health centers. This legislation is long overdue. I ask my colleagues to join me in strengthening the Medicare FQHC program to ensure that health centers can continue to provide high quality, affordable primary and preventive care to our Nation's seniors and people with disabilities. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has reported over 70 individual bills and resolutions this Congress. Most of these bills are authorizations for specific projects and activities in the Department of the Interior, although we have also reported several measures involving National Forest lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, as well as a few authorizations related to the Department of Energy. Typically these bills would be considered in the Senate under a unanimous consent procedure. Unfortunately, although all of these bills are noncontroversial and all were reported unanimously by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, we have been unable to get consent to pass these bills. In an effort to facilitate passage of these bills, today I am introducing two bills which contain the individual measures reported by the committee. The first bill, the National Forests, Parks, Public Land, and Reclamation Projects Authorization Act of 2007, includes the text of 25 bills and 1 resolution which have been passed by the House of Representatives and which were reported, or their Senate companion measure was reported, without substantive amendment by the committee. If considered as individual bills, upon passage in the Senate, these bills would have been cleared for the President. Since they will now be included as part of this comprehensive bill, it will require additional action by the House of Representatives, but I am hopeful that because all of the measures included in this bill were previously approved by the other body that they will be able to approve this bill expeditiously. The second bill, the Natural Resource Projects and Programs Authorization Act of 2007, includes the text of 44 bills which originated in the Senate, or which passed the House of Representatives and were substantively amended in committee. Like the previous bill, all of the individual bills were reported unanimously by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. While the House of Representatives has not previously acted on all of the individual components of this new bill, I believe these bills are non-controversial, and I hope that the House will be able to consider this bill in a timely manner as well. Mr. President, I have prepared a table identifying the individual measures that are included in both comprehensive bills, including references to the corresponding calendar numbers. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the table to which I just referred.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007. The Presidential Records Act of 1978 declared a President's papers were the property of the people of the United States and were to be administered by the National Archives and Records Administration. The act provided that Presidential papers would be available 12 years after a President left office, allowing the former or incumbent President the right to claim executive privilege for particularly sensitive documents. In order to fulfill that mandate--that mandate that was in the 1978 law--President Reagan, in 1989, signed Executive Order 12667, which gave the former or incumbent President 30 days to claim executive privilege. However, in 2001, early in his administration, President Bush issued Executive Order 13233, and this executive order by President Bush nullified President Reagan's order and imposed new regulations for obtaining Presidential and Vice Presidential documents. President Bush's new order greatly restricts access to Presidential papers by requiring that all requests for documents, no matter how innocuous, be approved by both the former President, whose papers are involved, and also by the current White House occupant. There is no time limit to the White House review, and the right to review and assert executive privilege has been extended by President Bush in his Executive order to include the Vice President and to include Presidential family members. In this way, the order goes against the spirit of the Presidential Records Act and against the letter of the Presidential Records Act by creating a presumption of nondisclosure and expanding the executive privilege claim, thus allowing the White House to prevent the release of records literally for generations in the future. H.R. 1255, the Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007--which is the bill I came to the floor to speak about--was passed in the House by a vote of 333 to 93 on June 20 of this year. I introduced a similar bill, S. 886, in March of this year in the Senate. The bill I introduced is a bipartisan bill which is cosponsored by Senators Cornyn, Leahy, Sununu, Feinstein, and Obama. Two weeks ago, Senator Feinstein sought unanimous consent for the Senate to proceed to H.R. 1255, but an objection was heard from another Senator. H.R. 1255 is a bipartisan bill that merely seeks to clarify the process under which the Presidential Records Act is to be implemented. The bill seeks to nullify President Bush's Executive order by limiting claims of executive privilege to the President and to former Presidents in requiring that the President notify the Archivist of any claims of executive privilege within 60 days preceding a notice of a request for a document with an additional 30 days if requested. These measures essentially return the process to the procedural framework that had been in place since President Reagan issued his original Executive order. This is an important matter that deserves to be brought to a vote in the Senate. There is strong bipartisan support for the reasonable approach to the Presidential Records Act that is contained in H.R. 1255. Now is not the time, in my view, for political ploys but for, instead, a thoughtful debate and an ultimate vote on this bill. Two weeks ago, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Executive Order 13233 is, in part--this is the Executive order President Bush entered--invalid in requiring the Archivist of the United States to delay release of the records of former Presidents at their request as permitted under the order. The Court found that the Archivist's reliance on section 3(b) of that Executive order is without constitutional basis and violates the Administrative Procedures Act. This holding gives us clear direction in legislatively addressing the problems that have arisen as a result of Executive Order 13233. Under the Presidential Records Act, there is a clear and an unequivocal assumption that the records of a President's administration belong to the people of this Nation, barring the national security interests or an executive privilege claim. The people of this Nation hired the President. His work is undertaken on behalf of the people. Can anyone doubt that the Nation is made stronger and our Government and the electorate are better served by the study of the actions of past Presidents? This is not a matter of trying to uncover dark secrets; rather, it is in everyone's interests and certainly in the interests of this Nation that scholars, students, and the public have access to the records of former Presidents in order to fully understand and appreciate the work of those Presidents and to provide guidance for future Presidents and future administrations. I strongly urge that H.R. 1255 be brought to the Senate floor for debate and for ultimate passage. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I certainly do withhold.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate that, and I am glad to advise the Senator if we reach an accommodation. I think, for purposes of ensuring a vote, if there is a group of stacked votes scheduled for tomorrow, if this can be included in that list, and then, of course, if agreement is reached prior to the time of the vote, we could delete it.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank my colleague, and I suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. President.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have an amendment that has been filed. I will call it up so it can be considered at the appropriate time. I gather that to do that I must ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment, and I do so now.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3208.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.