Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I very much appreciate that assurance. As I say, I hope very much we can get language that is acceptable to the Senator from Arizona. If not, I think we can allow the Senate to work its will, and hopefully the amendment will pass.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment would ensure that communities throughout Indian country have the resources they need to fight the meth epidemic. The amendment is based on a bipartisan bill I introduced along with Senator Smith entitled the Native American Methamphetamine and Treatment Act of 2007. It would ensure that Native American communities are able to access essential Federal funding to fight the use of methamphetamines. Senators Dorgan, Cantwell, Feingold, Salazar, and Baucus are also cosponsors of this amendment. This last March, after hearings were held in the House Judiciary Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed this legislation by a vote of 423 to 0. We all know that Indian country has been hard hit by the use of meth. Over 70 percent of Indian tribes surveyed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs identified meth abuse as the greatest threat to their communities, and about 40 percent of violent crime cases investigated in Indian country involve meth in some capacity. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, or SAMHSA, American Indians, Alaskan natives, and native Hawaiians have the highest rate of meth abuse of any ethnic group in our country. Unfortunately, when Congress passed the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, tribes were unintentionally left out as eligible applicants under some of the newly authorized grant programs. They were left out of the Department of Justice Hot Spots Program, which helps local law enforcement agencies obtain the tools they need to reduce the production, distribution, and use of meth and to clean up meth labs, support health and environmental agencies, and purchase equipment and support systems. The Combat Meth Act authorized $99 million in new funding under this program. Tribes were also left out of the Drug Endangered Children Grant Program, which helps children who live in a home in which meth has been used or manufactured or sold. Under this program, law enforcement agencies and prosecutors, child protective services, social services, and health care services work together to ensure that these children get the help they need. The act authorized $20 million for this program. I can see absolutely no reason Native-American communities that are struggling to contain the meth epidemic should be denied the resources necessary to address the problem, and to this end I hope my colleagues will agree with me and support this important amendment when the time comes for its important consideration. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first, I thank the manager of the bill, my colleague from Maryland, and respond that, yes, I am anxious to deal with any concern any Senator has, and I have spoken to the Senator from Arizona about his concerns and have tried to accommodate them. To date, we have not been able to get his agreement to an accommodation that has been suggested. So I just want to be sure we have reserved the right to have a vote on the amendment if we are still not able to get agreement.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we have all seen the news that our friend and colleague, Pete Domenici, is planning to announce today that he will retire from the Senate at the conclusion of his term. Senator Domenici called me yesterday afternoon to tell me of this decision. My reaction was one of surprise first, and then that gave way to admiration and appreciation for this man's decision to conclude his distinguished career of public service on his own terms. He and his wife Nancy are traveling to Albuquerque this morning for the announcement this afternoon. This is a great gesture to the people of New Mexico, and in New Mexico the Domenicis will be greeted with the affection and respect which they richly deserve. When I arrived in the Senate in 1983, Pete Domenici was then a 10- year veteran of this place, and he was here to welcome me at that time. In his 34 years in the Senate, Pete has earned a reputation as a fierce and effective champion for New Mexico. While he and I have not agreed on some issues, I have never questioned his commitment to do what he believed was right for our State and for this country. Today, and during his entire Senate career, Pete has achieved what all of us try to achieve; that is, to be effective in getting results in Washington, while also staying close to the people who have sent us here to represent them. Pete and I, of course, have worked together on many issues and projects, but our most productive collaboration has been on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. For the last few years, he has been the most senior Republican, and I have been the most senior Democrat. In the last Congress, when Pete was chairman of the committee and I was the ranking Democrat, we were able to secure passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Pete deserves substantial credit for the passage of that important legislation. Senator Domenici's announcement today is not, I am glad to say, that he is leaving the Senate at this time. His announcement will be that he will serve out his term, but he will not stand for reelection to another term. He has assured me that he expects the remaining 15 months of his service in the Senate to be productive and, knowing Pete, I am sure they will be. There will be time later for valedictories. For today, we will listen to Senator Domenici's announcement and send our thanks and best wishes to him and to Nancy.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill entitled the SECURE Water Act, Science and Engineering to Comprehensively Understand and Responsibly Enhance Water Act to address some of the serious water-related challenges facing this country. My colleagues Senator Domenici, Senator Cantwell, and Senator Johnson are cosponsoring this measure and I am pleased to have their support. Water resource issues are putting State and local water managers to the test in all areas of the country. In the western U.S., these challenges are exacerbated due to drought, population increases, environmental needs, and climate change, all of which are affecting the sustainability of water supplies. Much needs to be done to ensure that sufficient quantities of water of adequate quality are available to meet the basic needs of our citizens, as well as sustaining important economic and environmental uses. As the intense competition for limited water supplies increases, more refined water management strategies are necessary. One way to improve in this area is to improve the nationwide data collection and monitoring activities associated with water. The SECURE Water Act will do this by requiring an expansion of the National Streamflow Information Program and the development of a systematic groundwater monitoring program. The bill also directs the U.S. Geological Survey to formally establish a water use and availability assessment program consistent with recommendations made by the National Research Council. Better data will lead to better modeling and improved decisionmaking by State, local, and Federal water managers. Another area needing more attention concerns the impacts of global climate change on water resources. Already well-documented is the fact that increasing temperatures are resulting in less snowpack and more rain in many regions, and changing the timing of snow-melt runoff. Moreover, at a recent hearing on climate change and water held by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the USGS indicated that current climate models are also projecting a long-term drying trend in the Southwest--the fastest growing region in the country. Fully understanding and adapting to these long-term impacts is imperative to the health and well-being of many communities. The SECURE Water Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish an Intra- Governmental Panel to help make the link between the scientific community and water managers to improve water availability forecasts and to implement adaptation strategies. The bill also requires the Bureau of Reclamation to initiate a climate change adaptation program to develop strategies and conduct feasibility studies to address water shortages, conflicts, and other impacts to water users and the environment. In addition, both Reclamation and the Department of Energy are directed to assess the effects of climate change on the water supplies needed for hydropower production, which represents the source of at least 7 percent of the Nation's electricity supply. Finally, the SECURE Water Act recognizes that promoting the efficient use of water is critical to respond to any of the threats that may impact available supplies. Accordingly, the Bureau of Reclamation is authorized to provide financial assistance to States, tribes, and local entities to construct improvements or take actions to increase water-use efficiencies that respond to drought, climate change, or other water-related crises. Of course, States bear the primary responsibility and authority for managing water resources in this country. Nonetheless, given the reality that adequate and safe water supplies are fundamental to the health, economy, and ecology of the United States, it is imperative that the Federal government be a strong partner in assisting State and local communities to address present and future water supply challenges. The SECURE Water Act was developed with this strong partnership in mind. I look forward to starting the dialogue on this important legislation and hope that my colleagues will ultimately support its enactment. Thank you for the opportunity to make these remarks. 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 for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, October 11, at 10 a.m., in the Thomas & Mack Moot Court at the William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, located at 4505 Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas, Nevada. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the major environmental threats to the Great Basin in the 21st century. 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 rachel_pasternack@energy.senate. gov For further information, please contact Scott Miller at (202) 224- 5488 or Rachel Pasternack at (202) 224-0883.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Lugar, to introduce the Proven Programs for the Future of Education Act of 2007, and the Education Research and Development to Improve Achievement Act of 2007. These bills would encourage the use and development of research-proven programs in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. In 2002, Congress enacted the No Child Left Behind Act to close the achievement gap between low-income, underperforming students, and their more affluent peers. Without a renewed dedication to the quality of programs used in our schools, this goal, as well as providing an excellent education for students, will be difficult to achieve. While there is no question that we have made progress in recent years in advancing educational opportunity, I remain concerned about the number of schools that are failing to meet the criteria set out in the No Child Left Behind Act. We need to look at ways to improve the quality of education in a meaningful and comprehensive manner. The purpose of the bills that I am introducing today is to create incentives for schools to use the programs that meet the highest standards for evidence of effectiveness and provide increased investment in the research and development to create and evaluate new programs. The future of our students' success depends on the quality of their educational experience. It is for that reason I have been committed to, and will continue to strive for, an improved educational system. It is my strong belief that one of the clearest ways we can improve the quality of education in our schools is to encourage schools to focus on existing proven programs that meet the highest quality standards. The Proven Programs for the Future of Education Act would offer a competitive preference of 10 percent of the total number of points awarded to grant applicants who choose to use research-proven programs. In addition, this legislation would also provide a ten-percent competitive preference for applicants who choose research-proven reading programs. I believe that the goals of the Reading First program are important in improving students' literacy levels. While I am very concerned that this program has been beleaguered by greed and partisanship, the program has shown to be effective, particularly in New Mexico, where according to reports from the U.S. Department of Education, in 2006-2007, 58 percent of New Mexico's third-grade students in Reading First programs scored proficient or above in reading. This is up from 39 percent in 2003-2004. That said, it is crucial that states such as New Mexico have the opportunity to consider and use research-proven reading programs to further advance educational opportunity. I believe that stressing quality education programs fosters greater academic achievement and motivation in later years, particularly for children from low-income families. To this end, this legislation provides schools the incentive to advance research-proven programs, raising the bar for all educational programs both now and in the future. As you know, title I-A provides supplemental services to low- achieving students attending schools with a relatively high concentration of students from low-income families. Title I-A is the largest Federal elementary and secondary education assistance program, with services provided to more than 90 percent of all local educational agencies; approximately 52,000--54 percent of all--public schools; and approximately 16.5 million--34 percent of all--pupils, including approximately 188,000 pupils attending private schools. If the national goal of leaving no child behind is to be met, attention and resources must also be invested in the research necessary to bring improved quality and increased innovation to core areas of title I. The Education Research and Development to Improve Achievement Act would authorize at least $100 million for rapid development and rigorous evaluation of practical programs for use in title I programs capable of increasing student achievement in such areas as School Improvement and Restructuring, Supplemental Educational Services, Reading First, and other areas determined to be in need of further development. I want to thank Senator Lugar for his leadership and commitment to improving education in this country. Senator Lugar remains a tireless advocate for our Nation's students, and I am pleased to be working with him on this legislation as we begin reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act. This legislation represents a critical step forward in advancing research-proven programs for millions of students across the country, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Lugar, to introduce the Proven Programs for the Future of Education Act of 2007, and the Education Research and Development to Improve Achievement Act of 2007. These bills would encourage the use and development of research-proven programs in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. In 2002, Congress enacted the No Child Left Behind Act to close the achievement gap between low-income, underperforming students, and their more affluent peers. Without a renewed dedication to the quality of programs used in our schools, this goal, as well as providing an excellent education for students, will be difficult to achieve. While there is no question that we have made progress in recent years in advancing educational opportunity, I remain concerned about the number of schools that are failing to meet the criteria set out in the No Child Left Behind Act. We need to look at ways to improve the quality of education in a meaningful and comprehensive manner. The purpose of the bills that I am introducing today is to create incentives for schools to use the programs that meet the highest standards for evidence of effectiveness and provide increased investment in the research and development to create and evaluate new programs. The future of our students' success depends on the quality of their educational experience. It is for that reason I have been committed to, and will continue to strive for, an improved educational system. It is my strong belief that one of the clearest ways we can improve the quality of education in our schools is to encourage schools to focus on existing proven programs that meet the highest quality standards. The Proven Programs for the Future of Education Act would offer a competitive preference of 10 percent of the total number of points awarded to grant applicants who choose to use research-proven programs. In addition, this legislation would also provide a ten-percent competitive preference for applicants who choose research-proven reading programs. I believe that the goals of the Reading First program are important in improving students' literacy levels. While I am very concerned that this program has been beleaguered by greed and partisanship, the program has shown to be effective, particularly in New Mexico, where according to reports from the U.S. Department of Education, in 2006-2007, 58 percent of New Mexico's third-grade students in Reading First programs scored proficient or above in reading. This is up from 39 percent in 2003-2004. That said, it is crucial that states such as New Mexico have the opportunity to consider and use research-proven reading programs to further advance educational opportunity. I believe that stressing quality education programs fosters greater academic achievement and motivation in later years, particularly for children from low-income families. To this end, this legislation provides schools the incentive to advance research-proven programs, raising the bar for all educational programs both now and in the future. As you know, title I-A provides supplemental services to low- achieving students attending schools with a relatively high concentration of students from low-income families. Title I-A is the largest Federal elementary and secondary education assistance program, with services provided to more than 90 percent of all local educational agencies; approximately 52,000--54 percent of all--public schools; and approximately 16.5 million--34 percent of all--pupils, including approximately 188,000 pupils attending private schools. If the national goal of leaving no child behind is to be met, attention and resources must also be invested in the research necessary to bring improved quality and increased innovation to core areas of title I. The Education Research and Development to Improve Achievement Act would authorize at least $100 million for rapid development and rigorous evaluation of practical programs for use in title I programs capable of increasing student achievement in such areas as School Improvement and Restructuring, Supplemental Educational Services, Reading First, and other areas determined to be in need of further development. I want to thank Senator Lugar for his leadership and commitment to improving education in this country. Senator Lugar remains a tireless advocate for our Nation's students, and I am pleased to be working with him on this legislation as we begin reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act. This legislation represents a critical step forward in advancing research-proven programs for millions of students across the country, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kerry, Salazar and Stabenow to introduce the Medicare Savings Program Improvement Act of 2007. This legislation would make critical improvements to the Medicare Savings Programs, which provide important cost-assistance for low-income Medicare beneficiaries through the Medicaid program and include the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary, QMB, Specified Low-income Medicare Beneficiary, SLMB, and Qualified Individuals-1, QI-1, programs. One of the most significant improvements within this legislation is to make permanent the QI-1 program, which expires at the end of this month. This program provides vital assistance to low-income Medicare beneficiaries in paying for Medicare Part B premiums. It was established as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and was authorized for 5 years. Unfortunately, every few years we in Congress must act to reauthorize this program, providing unnecessary uncertainty for beneficiaries and State Medicaid programs. Congress should not participate in this annual last minute scramble to try and extend the program for a few months or a year. It is a disservice to the States, who must watch the Congress closely to constantly prepare to send out disenrollment notices and lay off staff, even though they are relatively certain the program will be extended. But, more importantly, it is a disservice to the 185,000 beneficiaries that need this important assistance, as many of those enrolled worry this benefit will be taken away and many of those never enrolled are not told of the benefit since States and advocates are spending their time trying to get the program extended rather than conducting outreach. While I remain very hopeful that the Congress will pass an extension of the QI-1 program for an additional period in the coming week, I am introducing the Medicare Savings Program Improvement Act of 2007 today in the hope that Congress will end this process of temporary extensions and permanently authorize the program, as provided for in this legislation. Furthermore, the bill proposes several improvements to the Medicare Savings Programs and application processes that will make these low- income benefits both more efficient to administer and more accessible to the individuals who need them. It would also seek to simplify the process of applying for Medicare Savings Programs and make the Programs more understandable to low-income senior citizens and people with disabilities, as well as State and Federal Government officials. Rates of enrollment in the Medicare Savings Programs are well below those of other means-tested benefit programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 33 percent of eligible people are participating in the QMB program, and that the participation rate in the SLMB program is only 13 percent--these figures exclude people who are eligible for full Medicaid benefits. In comparison, participation rates are estimated to be 75 percent in the earned income tax credit, 66 percent to 73 percent for Supplemental Security Income, and 66 percent to 70 percent for Medicaid. In New Mexico, over 1,500 low-income Medicare beneficiaries receive the QI-1 benefit, which saves them almost $1,000 in Medicare Part B premium out-of-pocket costs annually. Unfortunately, according to estimates made by the Medicare Rights Center using Census Bureau data, over 11,000 are likely to be eligible. Many are completely unaware of the assistance this program offers. This is usually because many eligible individuals are difficult to reach or communicate with because they are isolated, cannot read or speak English, have difficulty seeing or hearing, or lack transportation. To briefly describe the most critical aspects of the legislation, Section 2 of the bill provides for one unified name for the Federal programs that offer cost sharing and benefit assistance for low income Medicare beneficiaries. Rather than separately referring to the QMB, SLMB, and QI-1 programs, the bill provides one common name for all of these programs, the ``Medicare Savings Programs.'' Aligning these programs under one title helps to establish greater uniformity in income and resource limits, simplifies the application process, makes more people eligible for subsidies and increases the enrollment in programs. Low enrollment in these assistance programs is in large part due to the lack of knowledge and understanding of the programs or benefits offered. For example, 79 percent of non-enrolled eligible people have ever heard of the Medicare Savings Programs and two thirds of enrollees need assistance in completing the lengthy application form. This simple change has been pilot tested with Medicare beneficiary groups and found to elicit a positive response and interest from Medicare beneficiaries. Section 3 of the legislation would make permanent the QI-1 category by incorporating these individuals into the SLMB category at 100 percent Federal medical percentage, FMAP, matching rate. In addition to simplifying and making permanent the program, such a change would ensure funding for QI-1 cost-sharing. Section 5 eliminates the limit on assets, which is set at $4,000 for an individual and $6,000 for a couple and disqualifies millions of Medicare beneficiaries with very low incomes from qualifying for assistance. Many potential beneficiaries do not apply for benefits because they incorrectly assume that they have too many assets to qualify or fear losing their estate. Some States have waived or disallowed the counting of some assets for the purposes of eligibility determination and have seen much higher enrollment rates. The requirements to document one's assets also makes the application process burdensome and deters potential enrollees who might pass the asset test. Finally, section 8 eliminates some of the critical barriers to enrollment. As I noted earlier, rates of enrollment in the Medicare Savings Programs are well below those of other means-tested. benefit programs. This section provides for several important enrollment simplification procedures, such as allowing self-certification of income and continuous eligibility, and expanded outreach efforts. For instance, instead of requiring people to apply for benefits at the state Medicaid office, the Social Security Administration took applications and forwarded them to Medicaid offices for processing and increased enrollment by 10 percent. Perhaps with more outreach efforts provided within this bill, even more low-income Medicare beneficiaries will receive the health care for which they are eligible. I urge the Congress to pass a temporary extension of the QI-1 program early next week, but then to immediately begin work to permanently authorize the QI-1 program and to simplify and streamline all the Medicare Savings Programs. Our Nation's low-income Medicare beneficiaries and the States deserve nothing less. 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 Senators Kerry, Salazar and Stabenow to introduce the Medicare Savings Program Improvement Act of 2007. This legislation would make critical improvements to the Medicare Savings Programs, which provide important cost-assistance for low-income Medicare beneficiaries through the Medicaid program and include the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary, QMB, Specified Low-income Medicare Beneficiary, SLMB, and Qualified Individuals-1, QI-1, programs. One of the most significant improvements within this legislation is to make permanent the QI-1 program, which expires at the end of this month. This program provides vital assistance to low-income Medicare beneficiaries in paying for Medicare Part B premiums. It was established as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and was authorized for 5 years. Unfortunately, every few years we in Congress must act to reauthorize this program, providing unnecessary uncertainty for beneficiaries and State Medicaid programs. Congress should not participate in this annual last minute scramble to try and extend the program for a few months or a year. It is a disservice to the States, who must watch the Congress closely to constantly prepare to send out disenrollment notices and lay off staff, even though they are relatively certain the program will be extended. But, more importantly, it is a disservice to the 185,000 beneficiaries that need this important assistance, as many of those enrolled worry this benefit will be taken away and many of those never enrolled are not told of the benefit since States and advocates are spending their time trying to get the program extended rather than conducting outreach. While I remain very hopeful that the Congress will pass an extension of the QI-1 program for an additional period in the coming week, I am introducing the Medicare Savings Program Improvement Act of 2007 today in the hope that Congress will end this process of temporary extensions and permanently authorize the program, as provided for in this legislation. Furthermore, the bill proposes several improvements to the Medicare Savings Programs and application processes that will make these low- income benefits both more efficient to administer and more accessible to the individuals who need them. It would also seek to simplify the process of applying for Medicare Savings Programs and make the Programs more understandable to low-income senior citizens and people with disabilities, as well as State and Federal Government officials. Rates of enrollment in the Medicare Savings Programs are well below those of other means-tested benefit programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 33 percent of eligible people are participating in the QMB program, and that the participation rate in the SLMB program is only 13 percent--these figures exclude people who are eligible for full Medicaid benefits. In comparison, participation rates are estimated to be 75 percent in the earned income tax credit, 66 percent to 73 percent for Supplemental Security Income, and 66 percent to 70 percent for Medicaid. In New Mexico, over 1,500 low-income Medicare beneficiaries receive the QI-1 benefit, which saves them almost $1,000 in Medicare Part B premium out-of-pocket costs annually. Unfortunately, according to estimates made by the Medicare Rights Center using Census Bureau data, over 11,000 are likely to be eligible. Many are completely unaware of the assistance this program offers. This is usually because many eligible individuals are difficult to reach or communicate with because they are isolated, cannot read or speak English, have difficulty seeing or hearing, or lack transportation. To briefly describe the most critical aspects of the legislation, Section 2 of the bill provides for one unified name for the Federal programs that offer cost sharing and benefit assistance for low income Medicare beneficiaries. Rather than separately referring to the QMB, SLMB, and QI-1 programs, the bill provides one common name for all of these programs, the ``Medicare Savings Programs.'' Aligning these programs under one title helps to establish greater uniformity in income and resource limits, simplifies the application process, makes more people eligible for subsidies and increases the enrollment in programs. Low enrollment in these assistance programs is in large part due to the lack of knowledge and understanding of the programs or benefits offered. For example, 79 percent of non-enrolled eligible people have ever heard of the Medicare Savings Programs and two thirds of enrollees need assistance in completing the lengthy application form. This simple change has been pilot tested with Medicare beneficiary groups and found to elicit a positive response and interest from Medicare beneficiaries. Section 3 of the legislation would make permanent the QI-1 category by incorporating these individuals into the SLMB category at 100 percent Federal medical percentage, FMAP, matching rate. In addition to simplifying and making permanent the program, such a change would ensure funding for QI-1 cost-sharing. Section 5 eliminates the limit on assets, which is set at $4,000 for an individual and $6,000 for a couple and disqualifies millions of Medicare beneficiaries with very low incomes from qualifying for assistance. Many potential beneficiaries do not apply for benefits because they incorrectly assume that they have too many assets to qualify or fear losing their estate. Some States have waived or disallowed the counting of some assets for the purposes of eligibility determination and have seen much higher enrollment rates. The requirements to document one's assets also makes the application process burdensome and deters potential enrollees who might pass the asset test. Finally, section 8 eliminates some of the critical barriers to enrollment. As I noted earlier, rates of enrollment in the Medicare Savings Programs are well below those of other means-tested. benefit programs. This section provides for several important enrollment simplification procedures, such as allowing self-certification of income and continuous eligibility, and expanded outreach efforts. For instance, instead of requiring people to apply for benefits at the state Medicaid office, the Social Security Administration took applications and forwarded them to Medicaid offices for processing and increased enrollment by 10 percent. Perhaps with more outreach efforts provided within this bill, even more low-income Medicare beneficiaries will receive the health care for which they are eligible. I urge the Congress to pass a temporary extension of the QI-1 program early next week, but then to immediately begin work to permanently authorize the QI-1 program and to simplify and streamline all the Medicare Savings Programs. Our Nation's low-income Medicare beneficiaries and the States deserve nothing less. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation entitled ``Ending the Medicare Disability Waiting Period Act of 2007 with Senators Obama, Salazar, Brown, Kerry, Stabenow, Cantwell, and Clinton. 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 a 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, Mr. President, I would assert that there is no reason, be it fiscal or moral, to tell people that they must wait longer than two years after becoming severely disabled before we give 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 two 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 by Medicaid, 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 possible 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 corresponding 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 individuals with amyothrophic 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. President, I rise today with Senators Obama, Salazar, Collins, and Lieberman to introduce the Medicare Independent Living Act of 2007. This legislation would eliminate Medicare's ``in the home'' restriction for the coverage of mobility devices, including wheelchairs and scooters, for those with disabilities and expected long-term needs. This includes people with multiple sclerosis, paraplegia, osteoarthritis, and cerebrovascular disease that includes acute stroke and conditions like aneurysms. As currently interpreted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, the ``in the home'' restriction only permits beneficiaries to obtain wheelchairs that are necessary for use inside the home. As a result, seriously disabled beneficiaries who would primarily utilize a wheelchair outside the home are prevented from receiving this critical and basic equipment through Medicare. For example, this restriction prevents beneficiaries from receiving wheelchairs to access their work, the community-at-large, place of worship, school, physician's offices, or pharmacies. On July 13, 2005, 34 senators wrote Secretary Leavitt asking the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, to modify the ``in the home'' requirement so as to ``improve community access for Medicare beneficiaries with mobility impairments.'' Unfortunately, CMS continues to impose the ``in the home'' restriction on Medicare beneficiaries in need of mobility devices. As the Medicare Rights Center in a report entitled ``Forced Isolation: Medicare's `In The home' Coverage Standards for Wheelchairs'' in March 2004 notes, ``This effectively disqualifies you from leaving your home without the assistance of others.'' Furthermore, in a Kansas City Star article dated July 3, 2005, Mike Oxford with the National Council on Independent Living noted, ``You look at mobility assistance as a way to liberate yourself.'' He added that the restriction ``is just backward.'' In fact, policies such as these are not only backward but directly contradict numerous initiatives aimed at increasing community integration of people with disabilities, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Ticket-to-Work Program, the New Freedom Initiative, and the Olmstead Supreme Court decision. According to the Medicare Rights Center update dated March 23, 2006, ``This results in arbitrary denials. People with apartments too small for a power wheelchair are denied a device that could also get them down the street. Those in more spacious quarters get coverage, allowing them to scoot from room to room and to the grocery store. People who summon all their willpower and strength to hobble around a small apartment get no help for tasks that are beyond them and their front door.'' In New Mexico, I have heard this complaint about the law repeatedly from our State's most vulnerable disabled and senior citizens. People argue the provision is being misinterpreted by the administration and results in Medicare beneficiaries being trapped in their home. The ITEM Coalition adds in a letter to CMS on this issue in November 25, 2005, ``There continues to be no clinical basis for the `in the home' restriction and by asking treating practioners to document medical need only within the home setting, CMS is severely restricting patients from receiving the most appropriate devices to meet their mobility needs.'' My legislation would clarify that this restriction does not apply to mobility devices, including wheelchairs, for people with disabilities in the Medicare Program. The language change is fairly simple and simply clarifies that the ``in the home'' restriction for durable medical equipment does not apply in the case of mobility devices needed by Medicare beneficiaries with expected long-term needs for use ``in customary settings such as normal domestic, vocational, and community activities.'' This legislation is certainly not intended to discourage CMS from dedicating its resources to reducing waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare system, as those efforts are critical to ensuring that Medicare remains financially viable and strong in the future. However, it should be noted that neither Medicaid nor the Department of Veterans Affairs impose such ``in the home'' restrictions on mobility devices. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter sent to Secretary Leavitt be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation entitled ``Ending the Medicare Disability Waiting Period Act of 2007 with Senators Obama, Salazar, Brown, Kerry, Stabenow, Cantwell, and Clinton. 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 a 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, Mr. President, I would assert that there is no reason, be it fiscal or moral, to tell people that they must wait longer than two years after becoming severely disabled before we give 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 two 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 by Medicaid, 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 possible 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 corresponding 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 individuals with amyothrophic 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 with Senators Obama, Salazar, Collins, and Lieberman to introduce the Medicare Independent Living Act of 2007. This legislation would eliminate Medicare's ``in the home'' restriction for the coverage of mobility devices, including wheelchairs and scooters, for those with disabilities and expected long-term needs. This includes people with multiple sclerosis, paraplegia, osteoarthritis, and cerebrovascular disease that includes acute stroke and conditions like aneurysms. As currently interpreted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, the ``in the home'' restriction only permits beneficiaries to obtain wheelchairs that are necessary for use inside the home. As a result, seriously disabled beneficiaries who would primarily utilize a wheelchair outside the home are prevented from receiving this critical and basic equipment through Medicare. For example, this restriction prevents beneficiaries from receiving wheelchairs to access their work, the community-at-large, place of worship, school, physician's offices, or pharmacies. On July 13, 2005, 34 senators wrote Secretary Leavitt asking the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, to modify the ``in the home'' requirement so as to ``improve community access for Medicare beneficiaries with mobility impairments.'' Unfortunately, CMS continues to impose the ``in the home'' restriction on Medicare beneficiaries in need of mobility devices. As the Medicare Rights Center in a report entitled ``Forced Isolation: Medicare's `In The home' Coverage Standards for Wheelchairs'' in March 2004 notes, ``This effectively disqualifies you from leaving your home without the assistance of others.'' Furthermore, in a Kansas City Star article dated July 3, 2005, Mike Oxford with the National Council on Independent Living noted, ``You look at mobility assistance as a way to liberate yourself.'' He added that the restriction ``is just backward.'' In fact, policies such as these are not only backward but directly contradict numerous initiatives aimed at increasing community integration of people with disabilities, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Ticket-to-Work Program, the New Freedom Initiative, and the Olmstead Supreme Court decision. According to the Medicare Rights Center update dated March 23, 2006, ``This results in arbitrary denials. People with apartments too small for a power wheelchair are denied a device that could also get them down the street. Those in more spacious quarters get coverage, allowing them to scoot from room to room and to the grocery store. People who summon all their willpower and strength to hobble around a small apartment get no help for tasks that are beyond them and their front door.'' In New Mexico, I have heard this complaint about the law repeatedly from our State's most vulnerable disabled and senior citizens. People argue the provision is being misinterpreted by the administration and results in Medicare beneficiaries being trapped in their home. The ITEM Coalition adds in a letter to CMS on this issue in November 25, 2005, ``There continues to be no clinical basis for the `in the home' restriction and by asking treating practioners to document medical need only within the home setting, CMS is severely restricting patients from receiving the most appropriate devices to meet their mobility needs.'' My legislation would clarify that this restriction does not apply to mobility devices, including wheelchairs, for people with disabilities in the Medicare Program. The language change is fairly simple and simply clarifies that the ``in the home'' restriction for durable medical equipment does not apply in the case of mobility devices needed by Medicare beneficiaries with expected long-term needs for use ``in customary settings such as normal domestic, vocational, and community activities.'' This legislation is certainly not intended to discourage CMS from dedicating its resources to reducing waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare system, as those efforts are critical to ensuring that Medicare remains financially viable and strong in the future. However, it should be noted that neither Medicaid nor the Department of Veterans Affairs impose such ``in the home'' restrictions on mobility devices. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter sent to Secretary Leavitt be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a bill has been added to a previously announced hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks. The hearing will be held on September 27, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The bill is S. 1039, a bill to extend the authorization for the Coastal Heritage Trail in the State of New Jersey. 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 rachel_pasternack@energy.senate. gov. For further information, please contact David Brooks at (202) 224- 9863 or Rachel Pasternack at (202) 224-0883.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment being offered by Senators Leahy and Specter to restore the writ of habeas corpus. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation, and it is my sincere hope that it will be adopted. One of the most troubling aspects of the administration's onslaught on basic civil rights, which has largely been carried out with the acquiescence of Congress, is with regard to the suspension of habeas corpus. The ``great writ,'' as it is known in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, is simply the basic right to challenge the legality of one's confinement by the Government. It is based on a core American value that it is unacceptable to give the executive branch unchecked authority to detain whomever it wants without an independent review of the legality of the Government's actions. The right dates back to the Magna Carta, and our Founding Fathers included it as one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution. I would like to take a moment to briefly recount how we ended up where we are today. In 2004, in the case Rasul v. Bush, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individuals held at the Guantanamo Bay naval base have the right to challenge the legality of their detention by filing a habeas petition in a U.S. Federal court. In November 2005, in response to the Supreme Court's decision, and at the behest of the Bush administration, Senator Graham offered an amendment to the 2006 Defense Authorization bill that sought to overrule the Rasul decision and strip Federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas claims filed by Guantanamo prisoners. I offered an alternative amendment aimed at preserving the right to habeas corpus. My amendment was voted on the day before the Senate recessed for Veterans Day. No hearings had been held in either the Senate Judiciary Committee or the Armed Services Committee regarding the impact of eliminating this longstanding right. After very little debate on the Senate floor, my amendment was defeated by a vote of 49- 42. The next week I offered a second amendment also aimed at preserving habeas rights, but it was also defeated after a deal was reached as part of what is known as the Graham-Levin compromise. Under the Graham-Levin compromise, which was ultimately included in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, habeas rights were curtailed but the D.C. Circuit was granted very limited jurisdiction to review the determination of a Combatant Status Review Tribunal. That compromise was adopted 84-14. In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled in the Hamdan case that it was unclear as to whether Congress intended to prospectively repeal habeas rights and that the military commissions in Guantanamo were improperly constituted in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Once again, the Senate had the opportunity to restore our Nation's commitment to the rule of law. Unfortunately, rather than standing up for the rights enshrined in our Constitution, the Senate passed, by a vote of 65-34, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which explicitly eliminated habeas rights. Today is almost exactly a year after the Senate voted to pass the Military Commissions Act, and the Senate once again has the opportunity do what is right. We have the chance to restore one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution, and I hope the Senate will take this important step in restoring our Nation's commitment to the rule of law. I yield the floor.

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, Subcommittee on National Parks. The hearing will be held on September 27, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing will be to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 128, to amend the Cache La Poudre River Corridor Act to designate a new management entity, make certain technical and conforming amendments, enhance private property protections, and for other purposes; S. 148, to establish the Paterson Great Falls National Park in the State of New Jersey, and for other purposes; S. 189, to decrease the matching funds requirement and authorize additional appropriations for Keweenaw National Historical Park in the State of Michigan; S. 697, to establish the Steel Industry National Historic Site in the State of Pennsylvania; S. 867, to adjust the boundary of Lowell National Historical Park, and for other purposes; S. 1341, to provide for the exchange of certain Bureau of Land Management land in Pima County, Arizona, and for other purposes; S. 1476, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resources study of the Tule Lake Segregation Center in Modoc County, California, to determine the suitability and feasibility of establishing a unit of the National Park System; S. 1709 and H.R. 1239, to amend the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act of 1998 to provide additional staff and oversight of funds to carry out the Act, and for other purposes; S. 1808, to authorize the exchange of certain land in Denali National Park in the State of Alaska; S. 1969, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of designating Estate Grange and other sites related to Alexander Hamilton's life on the island of St. Croix in the United States Virgin Islands as a unit of the National Park System, 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 e-mail to rachel_pasternack@energy.senate. gov. For further information, please contact David Brooks at (202) 224- 9863 or Rachel Pasternack at (202) 224-0883.

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 Wednesday, September 26, 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. 1543, a bill to establish a national geothermal initiative to encourage increased production of energy from geothermal resources by creating a program of geothermal research, development, demonstration and commercial application to support the achievement of a national geothermal energy goal. Due to 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 Allyson Anderson or Rosemarie Calabro.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a legislative hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 12, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purposes of this hearing are to receive testimony on the status of energy efficient lighting technologies and on S. 2017, the Energy Efficient Lighting for a Brighter Tomorrow Act. 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 two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to Britni_Rillera@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Deborah Estes or Britni Rillera. 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 two bills have been added to a previously announced hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. The hearing will be held on September 20, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The two bills are S. 1143, to designate the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse and the surrounding Federal land in the State of Florida as an Outstanding Natural Area and as a unit of the National Landscape System, and for other purposes; and S. 2034, to amend the Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984 to designate the Copper Salmon Wilderness and to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the North and South Forks of the Elk River in the State of Oregon as wild or scenic rivers, 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 rachel_pasternack@energy.senate .gov. For further information, please contact David Brooks or Rachel Pasternack. 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 Monday, September 24, 2007, at 3 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to consider scientific assessments of the impacts of global climate change on wildfire activity in the United States. 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 two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Scott Miller or Rachel Pasternack. 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 a legislative hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 25, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purposes of this hearing are to receive testimony on S. 1756, a bill to provide supplemental ex gratia compensation to the Republic of the Marshall Islands for impacts of the nuclear testing program of the United States, and for other purposes; and to receive testimony on the implementation of the Compact of Free Association between the United States and the Marshall Islands. 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 two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to Britni_Rillera@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Allen Stayman or Britni Rillera. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Rockefeller, Obama, Brown, Kerry, Byrd, Feinstein, Bill Nelson, Feingold, Murray, Bayh, Lincoln, Pryor, Whitehouse, Sanders, Cantwell, Tester, Clinton, Landrieu, and Salazar to offer a Joint Resolution that provides for Congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, relating to a cost limit for providers operated by units of government and other provisions under the Medicaid program, 72 Fed. Reg. 29748, May 29, 2007. This rule is a very blunt and sweeping instrument. It is purportedly intended to stamp out certain categories of Medicaid fraud, which by CMS's own admission may only be an issue in 3 States. As a result of the sweeping nature of this rule, many States like New Mexico will lose hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal Medicaid dollars. This would occur despite that fact that New Mexico and other States have worked hard to ensure the integrity of their Medicaid programs and have consistently received approval from CMS for the design and operation of their programs. Congress has reacted strongly to the proposed regulation with 65 Senators and 263 House Members publicly criticizing the rule. Ultimately, Congress temporarily prevented CMS from implementing the regulation. A 1-year moratorium of the rule was adopted in the recent supplemental appropriations bill, P.L. 110-28, Section 7002. This moratorium blocks CMS from implementing the Medicaid regulation before May 25, 2008. In spite of clear Congressional disapproval, CMS published a final rule in the Federal Register the very day the President signed the 1- year moratorium provision into law. The final regulation retains the most damaging components of the proposed regulation, including limiting Medicaid payments to safety-net hospitals. In addition, we have been contacted by State Medicaid agencies that have been asked to certify in State Plan Amendments being considered this year that they will be in compliance with rule as soon as the moratorium is lifted in 2008. Major Medicaid reforms require a Congressional role; by rushing to publish a final regulation, CMS has disregarded Congressional opposition and attempted to usurp our role. 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. This Resolution of Disapproval will permanently halt the damaging CMS regulation. At this time, it is the appropriate response given CMS's issuance of the final Medicaid rule and its devastating effect on State Medicaid programs, safety-net providers, and, ultimately, the ability of low-income Americans to receive the life-saving medical care to which they are entitled under Federal law. Therefore, I rise today to offer joint resolution with my colleagues and urge others to join in cosponsoring this important resolution. Together we can work to ensure its passage before the devastating Medicaid rule takes effect and jeopardizes our States' Medicaid programs. I ask unanimous consent that the text of joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Rockefeller, Obama, Brown, Kerry, Byrd, Feinstein, Bill Nelson, Feingold, Murray, Bayh, Lincoln, Pryor, Whitehouse, Sanders, Cantwell, Tester, Clinton, Landrieu, and Salazar to offer a Joint Resolution that provides for Congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, relating to a cost limit for providers operated by units of government and other provisions under the Medicaid program, 72 Fed. Reg. 29748, May 29, 2007. This rule is a very blunt and sweeping instrument. It is purportedly intended to stamp out certain categories of Medicaid fraud, which by CMS's own admission may only be an issue in 3 States. As a result of the sweeping nature of this rule, many States like New Mexico will lose hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal Medicaid dollars. This would occur despite that fact that New Mexico and other States have worked hard to ensure the integrity of their Medicaid programs and have consistently received approval from CMS for the design and operation of their programs. Congress has reacted strongly to the proposed regulation with 65 Senators and 263 House Members publicly criticizing the rule. Ultimately, Congress temporarily prevented CMS from implementing the regulation. A 1-year moratorium of the rule was adopted in the recent supplemental appropriations bill, P.L. 110-28, Section 7002. This moratorium blocks CMS from implementing the Medicaid regulation before May 25, 2008. In spite of clear Congressional disapproval, CMS published a final rule in the Federal Register the very day the President signed the 1- year moratorium provision into law. The final regulation retains the most damaging components of the proposed regulation, including limiting Medicaid payments to safety-net hospitals. In addition, we have been contacted by State Medicaid agencies that have been asked to certify in State Plan Amendments being considered this year that they will be in compliance with rule as soon as the moratorium is lifted in 2008. Major Medicaid reforms require a Congressional role; by rushing to publish a final regulation, CMS has disregarded Congressional opposition and attempted to usurp our role. 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. This Resolution of Disapproval will permanently halt the damaging CMS regulation. At this time, it is the appropriate response given CMS's issuance of the final Medicaid rule and its devastating effect on State Medicaid programs, safety-net providers, and, ultimately, the ability of low-income Americans to receive the life-saving medical care to which they are entitled under Federal law. Therefore, I rise today to offer joint resolution with my colleagues and urge others to join in cosponsoring this important resolution. Together we can work to ensure its passage before the devastating Medicaid rule takes effect and jeopardizes our States' Medicaid programs. I ask unanimous consent that the text of joint resolution be printed in the Record.