Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Hatch to reintroduce the Equity for Our Nation's Self-Employed Act of 2009. This important legislation corrects an inequity that currently exists in our tax code that forces the self-employed to pay payroll taxes on the funds used to purchase their health insurance while larger businesses do not. Because of this inequity, health insurance is more expensive for the self-employed. At a time when the number of people uninsured is growing at an alarming rate, we need to find ways to reduce the cost of health insurance. This legislation is a first logical step.

Under current law, corporations and other business entities are able to deduct health insurance premiums as a business expense and to forego payroll taxes on these costs. However, sole-proprietors are not allowed this same deduction and thus, are required to pay self-employment tax, their payroll tax, on health insurance premiums. The self-employed are the only segment of the business population that is additionally taxed on health insurance. The legislation we are introducing today would stop this inequitable tax treatment and allow sole proprietors to deduct the amount they pay for health insurance from their calculation of payroll taxes, leveling the playing field for the over 20 million self-employed in our Nation.

This problem affects all self-employed who provide health insurance to their families. According to the IRS, there are almost 130,000 sole- proprietors in New Mexico. While we do not know how many of these people in New Mexico have health insurance, we do know that roughly 3.8 million working families in the U.S. paid self-employment tax on their health insurance premiums. Estimates indicate that roughly 60 percent of our Nation's uninsured are either self-employed or work for a small business. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, self-employed workers spent upwards of $12,000 per year in 2006 to provide health insurance for their families. Because they cannot deduct this as an ordinary business expense, those that spend this amount will pay a 15.3 percent payroll tax on their premiums, resulting in over $1,800 of taxes annually.

This problem was identified by the National Taxpayer Advocate in several of her annual reports to Congress and our legislation to correct it is supported by over 40 national and State organizations including the National Association for the Self-Employed, the National Small Business Association, the National Federation of Independent Business, National Association of Realtors, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. I look forward to working with my colleagues to get this important legislation passed.

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

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a business meeting on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the Business Meeting is to consider pending legislation and the nomination of Thomas L. Strickland to be Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior.

For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836.

Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleagues, Senators Brown and Collins, to introduce bipartisan legislation entitled Ending the Medicare Disability Waiting Period Act of 2009. This legislation would phase out the current 2-year waiting period that people with disabilities must endure after qualifying for Social Security Disability Insurance, SSDI. In the interim or as the waiting period is being phased out, the bill would also create a process by which the Secretary can immediately waive the waiting period for people with life-threatening illnesses.

When Medicare was expanded in 1972 to include people with significant disabilities, lawmakers created the 24-month waiting period. According to an April 2007 report from the Commonwealth Fund, it is estimated that over 1.5 million SSDI beneficiaries are in the Medicare waiting period at any given time, ``all of whom are unable to work because of their disability and most of whom have serious health problems, low incomes, and limited access to health insurance.'' Nearly 39 percent of these individuals do not have health insurance coverage for some point during the waiting period and 26 percent have no health insurance during this period.

The stated reason at the time was to limit the fiscal cost of the provision. However, I would assert that there is no reason, be it fiscal or moral, to tell people that they must wait longer than 2 years after becoming severely disabled before we provide them access to much needed health care.

In fact, it is important to note that there really are actually three waiting periods that are imposed upon people seeking to qualify for SSDI. First, there is the disability determination process through the Social Security Administration, which often takes many months or even longer than a year in some cases. Second, once a worker has been certified as having a severe or permanent disability, they must wait an additional five months before receiving their first SSDI check. And third, after receiving that first SSDI check, there is the 2-year period that people must wait before their Medicare coverage begins.

What happens to the health and well-being of people waiting more than 2\1/2\ years before they finally receive critically needed Medicare coverage? According to Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund, which has conducted several important studies on the issue, ``Individuals in the waiting period for Medicare suffer from a broad range of debilitating diseases and are in urgent need of appropriate medical care to manage their conditions. Eliminating the 2-year wait would ensure access to care for those already on the way to Medicare.''

Again, we are talking about individuals that have been determined to be unable to engage in any ``substantial, gainful activity'' because of either a physical or mental impairment that is expected to result in death or to continue for at least 12 months. These are people that, by definition, are in more need of health coverage than anybody else in our society. The consequences are unacceptable and are, in fact, dire.

The majority of people who become disabled were, before their disability, working full-time jobs and paying into Medicare like all other employed Americans. At the moment these men and women need coverage the most, just when they have lost their health, their jobs, their income, and their health insurance, Federal law requires them to wait 2 full years to become eligible for Medicare. Many of these individuals are needlessly forced to accumulate tens-of-thousands of dollars in healthcare debt or compromise their health due to forgone medical treatment. Many individuals are forced to sell their homes or go bankrupt. Even more tragically, more than 16,000 disabled beneficiaries annually, about 4 percent of beneficiaries, do not make it through the waiting period. They die before their Medicare coverage ever begins.

Removing the waiting period is well worth the expense. According to the Commonwealth Fund, analyses have shown providing men and women with Medicare at the time that Social Security certifies them as disabled would cost $8.7 billion annually. This cost would be partially offset by $4.3 billion in reduced Medicaid spending, which many individuals require during the waiting period. In addition, untold expenses borne by the individuals involved could be avoided, as well as the costs of charity care on which many depend. Moreover, there may be additional savings to the Medicare program itself, which often has to bear the expense of addressing the damage done during the waiting period. During this time, deferred health care can worsen conditions, creating additional health problems and higher costs.

Further exacerbating the situation, some beneficiaries have had the unfortunate fate of having received SSI and Medicaid coverage, applied for SSDI, and then lost their Medicaid coverage because they were not aware the change in income when they received SSDI would push them over the financial limits for Medicaid. In such a case, and let me emphasize this point, the Government is effectively taking their health care coverage away because they are so severely disabled.

Therefore, for some in the waiting period, their battle is often as much with the Government as it is with their medical condition, disease, or disability.

Nobody could possibly think this makes any sense.

As the Medicare Rights Center has said, ``By forcing Americans with disabilities to wait 24 months for Medicare coverage, the current law effectively sentences these people to inadequate health care, poverty, or death. . . . Since disability can strike anyone, at any point in life, the 24-month waiting period should be of concern to everyone, not just the millions of Americans with disabilities today.''

Although elimination of the Medicare waiting period will certainly increase Medicare costs, it is important to note that there will be some decrease in Medicaid costs. Medicaid, which is financed by both Federal and State governments, often provides coverage for a subset of disabled Americans in the waiting period, as long as they meet certain income and asset limits. Income limits are typically at or below the poverty level, including at just 74 percent of the poverty line in New Mexico, with assets generally limited to just $2,000 for individuals and $3,000 for couples.

Furthermore, from a continuity of care point of view, it makes little sense that somebody with disabilities must leave their job and their health providers associated with that plan, move on to Medicaid, often have a different set of providers, then switch to Medicare and yet another set of providers. The cost, both financial and personal, of not providing access to care or poorly coordinated care services for these seriously ill people during the waiting period may be greater in many cases than providing health coverage.

Finally, private-sector employers and employees in those risk-pools would also benefit from the passage of the bill. As the Commonwealth Fund has noted, ``. . . to the extent that disabled adults rely on coverage through their prior employer or their spouse's employer, eliminating the waiting period would also produce savings to employers who provide this coverage.''

To address concerns about costs and immediate impact on the Medicare program, the legislation phases out the waiting period over a 10-year period. In the interim, the legislation would create a process by which others with life-threatening illnesses could also get an exception to the waiting period. Congress has previously extended such an exception to the waiting period to individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, and for hospice services. The ALS exception passed the Congress in December 2000 and went into effect July 1, 2001. Thus, the legislation would extend the exception to all people with life-threatening illnesses in the waiting period.

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

Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleagues, Senators Brown and Collins, to introduce bipartisan legislation entitled Ending the Medicare Disability Waiting Period Act of 2009. This legislation would phase out the current 2-year waiting period that people with disabilities must endure after qualifying for Social Security Disability Insurance, SSDI. In the interim or as the waiting period is being phased out, the bill would also create a process by which the Secretary can immediately waive the waiting period for people with life-threatening illnesses.

When Medicare was expanded in 1972 to include people with significant disabilities, lawmakers created the 24-month waiting period. According to an April 2007 report from the Commonwealth Fund, it is estimated that over 1.5 million SSDI beneficiaries are in the Medicare waiting period at any given time, ``all of whom are unable to work because of their disability and most of whom have serious health problems, low incomes, and limited access to health insurance.'' Nearly 39 percent of these individuals do not have health insurance coverage for some point during the waiting period and 26 percent have no health insurance during this period.

The stated reason at the time was to limit the fiscal cost of the provision. However, I would assert that there is no reason, be it fiscal or moral, to tell people that they must wait longer than 2 years after becoming severely disabled before we provide them access to much needed health care.

In fact, it is important to note that there really are actually three waiting periods that are imposed upon people seeking to qualify for SSDI. First, there is the disability determination process through the Social Security Administration, which often takes many months or even longer than a year in some cases. Second, once a worker has been certified as having a severe or permanent disability, they must wait an additional five months before receiving their first SSDI check. And third, after receiving that first SSDI check, there is the 2-year period that people must wait before their Medicare coverage begins.

What happens to the health and well-being of people waiting more than 2\1/2\ years before they finally receive critically needed Medicare coverage? According to Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund, which has conducted several important studies on the issue, ``Individuals in the waiting period for Medicare suffer from a broad range of debilitating diseases and are in urgent need of appropriate medical care to manage their conditions. Eliminating the 2-year wait would ensure access to care for those already on the way to Medicare.''

Again, we are talking about individuals that have been determined to be unable to engage in any ``substantial, gainful activity'' because of either a physical or mental impairment that is expected to result in death or to continue for at least 12 months. These are people that, by definition, are in more need of health coverage than anybody else in our society. The consequences are unacceptable and are, in fact, dire.

The majority of people who become disabled were, before their disability, working full-time jobs and paying into Medicare like all other employed Americans. At the moment these men and women need coverage the most, just when they have lost their health, their jobs, their income, and their health insurance, Federal law requires them to wait 2 full years to become eligible for Medicare. Many of these individuals are needlessly forced to accumulate tens-of-thousands of dollars in healthcare debt or compromise their health due to forgone medical treatment. Many individuals are forced to sell their homes or go bankrupt. Even more tragically, more than 16,000 disabled beneficiaries annually, about 4 percent of beneficiaries, do not make it through the waiting period. They die before their Medicare coverage ever begins.

Removing the waiting period is well worth the expense. According to the Commonwealth Fund, analyses have shown providing men and women with Medicare at the time that Social Security certifies them as disabled would cost $8.7 billion annually. This cost would be partially offset by $4.3 billion in reduced Medicaid spending, which many individuals require during the waiting period. In addition, untold expenses borne by the individuals involved could be avoided, as well as the costs of charity care on which many depend. Moreover, there may be additional savings to the Medicare program itself, which often has to bear the expense of addressing the damage done during the waiting period. During this time, deferred health care can worsen conditions, creating additional health problems and higher costs.

Further exacerbating the situation, some beneficiaries have had the unfortunate fate of having received SSI and Medicaid coverage, applied for SSDI, and then lost their Medicaid coverage because they were not aware the change in income when they received SSDI would push them over the financial limits for Medicaid. In such a case, and let me emphasize this point, the Government is effectively taking their health care coverage away because they are so severely disabled.

Therefore, for some in the waiting period, their battle is often as much with the Government as it is with their medical condition, disease, or disability.

Nobody could possibly think this makes any sense.

As the Medicare Rights Center has said, ``By forcing Americans with disabilities to wait 24 months for Medicare coverage, the current law effectively sentences these people to inadequate health care, poverty, or death. . . . Since disability can strike anyone, at any point in life, the 24-month waiting period should be of concern to everyone, not just the millions of Americans with disabilities today.''

Although elimination of the Medicare waiting period will certainly increase Medicare costs, it is important to note that there will be some decrease in Medicaid costs. Medicaid, which is financed by both Federal and State governments, often provides coverage for a subset of disabled Americans in the waiting period, as long as they meet certain income and asset limits. Income limits are typically at or below the poverty level, including at just 74 percent of the poverty line in New Mexico, with assets generally limited to just $2,000 for individuals and $3,000 for couples.

Furthermore, from a continuity of care point of view, it makes little sense that somebody with disabilities must leave their job and their health providers associated with that plan, move on to Medicaid, often have a different set of providers, then switch to Medicare and yet another set of providers. The cost, both financial and personal, of not providing access to care or poorly coordinated care services for these seriously ill people during the waiting period may be greater in many cases than providing health coverage.

Finally, private-sector employers and employees in those risk-pools would also benefit from the passage of the bill. As the Commonwealth Fund has noted, ``. . . to the extent that disabled adults rely on coverage through their prior employer or their spouse's employer, eliminating the waiting period would also produce savings to employers who provide this coverage.''

To address concerns about costs and immediate impact on the Medicare program, the legislation phases out the waiting period over a 10-year period. In the interim, the legislation would create a process by which others with life-threatening illnesses could also get an exception to the waiting period. Congress has previously extended such an exception to the waiting period to individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, and for hospice services. The ALS exception passed the Congress in December 2000 and went into effect July 1, 2001. Thus, the legislation would extend the exception to all people with life-threatening illnesses in the waiting period.

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

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

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

Madam President, let me go ahead and briefly describe my reasons for urging we not support this first amendment. This first amendment is an amendment Senator Coburn offered and is very nearly identical to an amendment he offered to the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008. That was the package of public land bills the House sent us that year.

Most of the Senate voted against the amendment. I hope they will again. The amendment required the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to post an annual report on the Internet detailing a great deal of information about lands owned by the Government: buildings, structures on those lands, extensive information on which are used, which are not used, the cost of operation of those lands, and those structures estimated backlog for maintenance of various structures of the agencies.

The issue the Senator is trying to get at was dealt with in the previous administration, when President Bush issued Executive Order 13327. Therein, he set up the Federal Real Property Council, a Federal real property council, that has, as its job, tracking asset management, inventory of assets, setting up systems to do that, working

under the auspices of the General Services Administration; the Government Accountability Office or the General Services Administration.

I believe that is a much better thought-through way to proceed with this. The cost of this amendment would be fairly extensive. We do not have an exact estimate, but we have been told there are 1.2 billion pieces of real property or real property assets worldwide, over 636 million acres of land we are talking about here, that would have to be inventoried and reported on in an updated fashion every year. So this is an extensive undertaking.

Madam President, how much time remains on my side?

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

Madam President, I yield myself 1 minute.

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

The amendment is not consistent with what I believe we ought to be doing in this area. I urge colleagues to oppose it.

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

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 682

Madam President, this amendment No. 682 is one I have advised the Senator from Oklahoma is acceptable to Senators on this side of the aisle.

Let me briefly describe what it does. It would modify the underlying provisions of the substitute amendment dealing with the protection of fossil resources on Federal land by making three changes. First, the underlying bill says the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture may allow casual collecting of common fossils without a permit for personal use. That is consistent with the management policies of the Federal land in question. The Coburn amendment says it requires that the two Secretaries allow that casual collecting for personal use. Secondly, the Coburn amendment would remove a provision that would have authorized agencies under some circumstances to acquire new lands. Finally, the amendment removes a provision in the underlying bill that would have authorized forfeiture of any vehicle or equipment used by someone illegally removing fossil resources.

I think all three of these changes improve the bill and I support the amendment. I believe we can act on this with a voice vote, but I will leave it to the Senator from Oklahoma to make his statement.

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

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

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, let me take 5 of the 15 minutes we have. If you will advise me when that time is used.

In just a few minutes, the Senate will vote on final passage of H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Lands Act. I believe our actions this week will make it

more likely that the House of Representatives will be able to consider and approve the Senate amendments expeditiously.

Today's vote will culminate many years of work on more than 160 bills that are included in this package and represents a major achievement for the protection of our Nation's cultural, natural, and historic resources. As I have observed before, when you take all of these bills together, I believe they represent the most significant conservation legislation passed by the Senate, at least in the last 15 years.

In addition, the bill will finally resolve three very important and complex water rights settlements in three different States and literally decades of litigation and controversy about that water. The wilderness and other conservation areas designated in the bill represent years and years of efforts by local citizens, through countless public meetings, in an effort to find a way to protect some of the most important scenic areas in their States, while balancing wilderness designations against other uses. In my opinion, the sponsors of these provisions have gone to great lengths to find that balance.

Some contend that the wilderness, national parks, wild and scenic rivers, and other conservation designations will frustrate our Nation's ability to develop new domestic energy supplies. I strongly disagree. We have gone to great lengths to assess the energy potential of the new areas, and in almost all cases the Bureau of Land Management has concluded that the wilderness areas do not have significant energy development potential.

The Energy and Natural Resources Committee which I am privileged to chair and of which Senator Murkowski is ranking member is assembling a comprehensive energy bill. We hope to bring it to the Senate floor for consideration soon. That bill will provide an opportunity to promote programs to expand the development of domestic energy resources.

I believe the question of whether we should protect our Nation's natural and cultural heritage or instead develop our energy and other resources is a false choice. They are mutually exclusive goals. We can accomplish them both.

A former Senator from my State, who also chaired the then-Interior Committee in the Senate, once said the following:

Wilderness is an anchor to windward. Knowing it is there,

we can also know that we are still a rich Nation, tending our

resources as we should--not a people in despair searching

every last nook and cranny of our land for a board of lumber,

a barrel of oil, a blade of grass, or a tank of water.

Let me also indicate that there are many provisions in this bill that are of particular importance to my State: the Navajo Nation Indian Water Rights Settlement; the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Project; the Rio Grande Pueblo Irrigation Infrastructure legislation; the SECURE Water Act, which has national implications but is important to my State as well; Prehistoric Trackways National Monument; Fort Stanton-Snowy River Cave National Conservation Area; Sabinoso Wilderness, which Senator Udall has spearheaded; Rio Puerco Watershed Act; and also the Forest Landscape Restoration Act.

This bill will have a far-reaching and positive impact on New Mexico's precious and scarce water resources. The most significant provision is the settlement of the Navajo Nation's water rights claims in the San Juan River basin.

This settlement will avoid conflicts, risks, and costs that would be borne by the Navajo Nation, individual water users, municipalities, the State of New Mexico, and the Federal Government if the Navajo claims were litigated in-full. Instead, defining the Navajo Nation's water rights by agreement will improve water management in the basin and ensure that future water demands can be addressed through an efficient administrative process.

Most important, however, is that the settlement will provide a sustainable water supply to Navajo communities in the eastern portion of the Navajo Reservation. Currently, 40 percent of the population on the reservation--approximately 70,000 people--must haul water for use in their homes. This situation has resulted in serious health, education, and economic consequences for the Navajo people. This legislation will begin to address these issues, as well as the United States' obligations to the Navajo Nation.

On the opposite side of the State, several communities are facing an uncertain water future due to falling levels of groundwater in the Ogallala aquifer. To address this problem, the bill authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to help develop the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System. This project will use an available water supply in Ute Reservoir to provide communities in eastern New Mexico with a renewable water supply and the long-term security that is critical to the region's future. As a measure of its importance, the State of New Mexico already has provided about $8 million to develop the project. Enacting this legislation will help communities in Curry and Roosevelt Counties secure the water needed to sustain current economic activity and support future development in the region.

In the heart of New Mexico is the Rio Grande. Over the past decade, there have been many conflicts over this magnificent, but limited resource. Conserving water and improving inefficient infrastructure has been a key factor in minimizing these conflicts. Unfortunately, Native Americans residing in the Rio Grande basin have not benefited greatly from these improvements. This bill will change that situation by directing the Bureau of Reclamation to work with the Rio Grande Pueblos to assess irrigation infrastructure and initiate projects to rehabilitate and repair such infrastructure on Pueblo lands.

By focusing Federal resources and expertise on this problem now, the Federal Government, as part of its trust responsibility, will help prevent further deterioration of Pueblo irrigation systems and avoid additional rehabilitation costs in the future. The Pueblos will benefit markedly from increased agricultural productivity, increased water conservation, and safer facilities. More importantly, however, these improvements will help the Pueblos to sustain their historical way of life, both economically and culturally. Finally, the overall health of the Rio Grande basin will likely benefit through increased efficiency in water use.

The final water provision I want to mention is one that will benefit New Mexico and many other States. The SECURE Water Act is based on the view that effectively addressing water issues requires a better understanding of the resource, and increasing the efficiency of its use. For that reason, the bill seeks to strengthen the national streamflow program, improve ground water monitoring efforts, enhance our understanding of water uses and availability, and provide grants to implement water conservation and efficiency projects.

It also will improve our understanding of the impacts of climate change on water and ensure that adaptation strategies are formulated and implemented. This is particularly important in New Mexico, where one recent study by researchers at the University of New Mexico and New Mexico State predicts that surface water in the Rio Grande basin could decline by as much as 12 percent by 2030 and 33 percent by 2080.

New Mexico will also benefit from a number of important public land provisions, including the designation of a new national monument.

The Prehistoric Trackways National Monument in Dona Ana County, New Mexico, will protect a remarkable ``megatracksite'' of 290 million- year-old fossils. This site of worldwide scientific significance has preserved the trackways of some of the earliest creatures to make their way out of the ocean, which will help fill in the gaps left from studying only their fossilized bones.

Las Cruces resident Jerry MacDonald first brought the find to light in 1988, and thanks to a more recent discovery by MacDonald, we now know that the National Monument also will protect a well-preserved 290 million-year-old petrified forest where three new species of trees already have been discovered. The local curation of these specimens should provide unique scientific and educational opportunities for the surrounding community and visitors to the region.

The Fort Stanton-Snowy River Cave National Conservation Area in Lincoln

County, NM, will permanently protect the cave system, including a passageway containing a more than 4-mile-long continuous calcite- crystal river bed, a unique formation that is believed to be the longest one of its kind in the world.

While exploration of this cave began centuries ago, it was not until 2001 that volunteers with the Fort Stanton Cave Study Group discovered the Snowy River passageway, which defied their wildest expectations. This discovery already has yielded valuable scientific research in hydrology, geology, and microbiology, the last of which may even have applications in interplanetary exploration. We will be proud to include the Fort Stanton-Snowy River Cave on New Mexico's prestigious list of world-class sites.

The bill also includes legislation spearheaded by Senator Tom Udall-- the designation of the 16,000 acre Sabinoso Wilderness in San Miguel County, NM. The Sabinoso Wilderness will protect a rugged and beautiful landscape that provides important wildlife habitat and represents an important watershed to our State.

New Mexico is the home of the first congressionally designated wilderness area, and the Sabinoso Wilderness represents a well-deserved addition to the National Wilderness Preservation System. I hope our efforts to permanently protect this area will ensure that future generations can enjoy this outstanding public resource.

This bill also will reauthorize the Rio Puerco Watershed Act, which formalized the Rio Puerco Management Committee in New Mexico. The committee has become one of the most effective collaborative land management efforts in the Southwest. And for more than 10 years, it has helped facilitate the restoration of the highly degraded Rio Puerco Watershed, the largest tributary to the Rio Grande. There is much more work to be done to restore this watershed, and this legislation will assist the committee in that effort.

Title IV of the bill--the Forest Landscape Restoration Act--holds great promise for our fire-dependant forests and communities in New Mexico and across the country. Wildfire activity and suppression costs have grown dramatically in recent years. The affects of global warming are increasingly impacting forest and watershed health. And communities across the country are struggling economically.

This legislation will establish a program to select and fund collaborative landscape-scale forest restoration projects that will improve forest health, reduce wildfire management costs, and benefit local economies. The positive response that we have seen from Members of Congress, State and local officials, and communities across the country speaks to the importance of these issues and the promise of this approach. I hope we can quickly provide funding to implement the legislation, as we cannot afford to wait to begin this critical work.

It is past time for us to enact these measures to provide water to our communities, to protect our natural wonders, and to restore our natural resources. Many New Mexicans have worked for years to see these provisions enacted into law, and I am pleased the Senate is taking the important steps toward achieving that goal.

I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Alaska.

Madam President, before the Senator from Oklahoma has the final say, which he certainly should, let me say there are a great many people, excellent staff working for the Democratic side of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and staff working for Senator Murkowski on the Republican side of the committee who deserve great credit. We enumerated those staff when we dealt with this legislation 2 months ago, and we will do so again in the Record. Let me particularly indicate David Brooks here with me and Kara Finkler as the two who have done the most to make this possible. Without their good work, this would not be legislation coming up for final consideration.

Madam President, let me add two additional individuals to the list of folks I particularly mentioned by name. Mike Connor, who is responsible for all the water rights legislation contained in the legislation in the Secure Water Act, I note for my colleagues that he has been named just today as the President's choice to be head of the Bureau of Reclamation, which I think is a great thing for the country; and Scott Miller, who worked very hard on the forest issues involved with this legislation.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I am informed the time to vote has arrived, and I yield back any time that remains on our side.

Madam President, today the Senate has passed H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009. As I said during the debate, H.R. 146 includes over 160 bills from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and reflects many years of hard work.

This achievement would not have been possible without the hard work of our outstanding staff. Both our ranking member, Senator Murkowski, and I are very fortunate to have a very dedicated and experienced professional staff. They service the committee and the Senate well. They deserve our thanks.

On the Democratic staff of the committee, I would like to thank the committee's staff director, Bob Simon, and chief counsel, Sam Fowler, for all of their work on this legislation, as on all the legislation that comes through our committee. I would also like to thank senior counsel Patty Beneke; counsel Mike Connor, who worked on all of the water issues included in the bill; counsels David Brooks, Kira Finkler, and Scott Miller, who coordinated all of the park and public lands bills; professional staff members Jorge Silva-Banuelos, who worked very hard on many of the New Mexico land bills; and Jonathan Epstein; and two National Park Service fellows, Karl Cordova, who worked on the committee last year, and Mike Gauthier, who is on the staff for the current year.

I would also like to thank the committee's chief clerk, Mia Bennett; executive assistant Amanda Kelly; communications director Bill Wicker; press secretary David Marks; and staff assistants Rachel Pasternack, Anna-Kristina Fox, Gina Weinstock, and Rosemarie Calabro.

On the Republican side, let me acknowledge Senator Murkowski's new staff director, McKie Campbell, and chief counsel Karen Billups. I would also like to note my thanks to former Senator Domenici's staff director during the previous Congress, Frank Macchiarola, former minority chief counsel, Judy Pensabene, and former professional staff member Tom Lillie. I would also like to recognize counsel Kellie Donnelly; as well as professional staff members Frank Gladics, Josh Johnson, Chuck Kleeschulte, and Kaleb Froehlich, all of whom made significant contributions to this bill.

In addition, I am very grateful to the committee's nondesignated staff: Allison Seyfurth, Dawson Foard, Nancy Hall, Amber Passmore, Monica Chestnut, and Wanda Green.

H.R. 146 contains over 1,200 pages of text, and was the subject of numerous revisions. I am grateful to the help of the Senate legislative counsel office, and Gary Endicott, Heather Burnham, and Colin Campbell in particular.

I would also like to thank Cliff Isenberg from the Senate Budget Committee for his help; as well as Deb Reis from the Congressional Budget Office, and Tyler Kruzich, formerly with CBO.

Finally, let me acknowledge the great help in bringing the bill to the floor we received from the majority leader and his staff: Neil Kornze, Chris Miller, Randy DeValk, Gary Myrick, and, as always, the secretary for the majority, Lula Davis, as well as Tim Mitchell, the assistant secretary for the majority. I would also like to thank the cloakroom staff, Joe Lapia, Meredith Mellody, Brandon Durflinger, and Estaban Galvan, for all of their assistance.

All of these fine staff members had a hand in putting H.R. 146 together and moving it through the legislative process. We would not have been able to pass the bill without their hard work and their professionalism. I wish to thank each and every one of them for their good work.

Mr. president, I rise today with Senators Snowe and Sanders to introduce the Medicare Access to Community Health Centers, MATCH, Act of 2009.

This legislation addresses a long standing payment issue experienced by a key component of our Nation's health care safety net, community health centers. These centers provide high quality, comprehensive care and serve as the medical home to 18 millions individuals. Over one million of those patients are medicare beneficiaries.

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 that centers be paid their reasonable costs for providing care to their Medicare patients. The centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, later established a per visit payment cap in regulations based on a payment cap applicable to Rural Health Clinics. CMS applied the cap to FQHCs without much data support and with the promise of future reviews to guarantee that Health Centers were adequately reimbursed. However, these reviews have not taken place. Currently, over 75 percent 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, NACHC. In my home State of New Mexico, NACHC estimates that health centers lose 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. The MATCH Act will establish a Prospective Payment System for FQHCs, based on the 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.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, with Senators Susan Collins, Debbie Stabenow, Olympia Snowe, Evan Bayh, Sherrod Brown, and Mark Pryor that would enable the retooling and transformation of our industrial sector by using less energy, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and producing the technologies that will help the U.S. and the world break its dependence on fossil fuel.

Today our country is facing some of the toughest economic hurdles that many of us have ever seen. In our manufacturing sector, we have lost nearly a million, high quality jobs in the last year, with over 200,000 jobs lost in just the last month. These are not just jobs that we are losing--the industrial foundation upon which our Nation's wealth has been built is eroding. We are losing technical expertise and the skilled and inventive workforce that go with these jobs. We are losing the opportunity to grow our economy and the ability to compete on a global scale.

With this current economic downturn, and the energy, climate, and global competitiveness challenges lying before us, we have come to a critical juncture in our Nation's industrial history--we must make a choice as to what the future of manufacturing will be for this country. At this moment, while the rest of the world is at a pause, this nation has the opportunity to re-invent and transform our industrial base to compete globally through technical innovation and product superiority, all while, reducing our dependence on carbon-based fuels, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing productivity.

The Restoring America's Manufacturing Leadership through Energy Efficiency Act of 2009 establishes the financing mechanisms for both small and large manufactures to adopt the advanced energy efficient production technologies and processes that will allow them to be more productive and less fuel dependent, cutting costs, not jobs.

Second, this bill provides for public/private partnerships with industry to map out the future of advanced American manufacturing and to develop and deploy the breakthrough technologies that will take us there. By spurring innovation in our manufacturing sector to decrease energy intensity and environmental impacts, while increasing productivity, we can create the high tech, high-value manufacturing processes and jobs for the 21st century that will allow the U.S. to compete against anyone, anywhere.

Third, this legislation supports the domestic production of advanced energy technologies to fuel the growth of renewables and efficiency and capture the clean energy market, creating millions of American jobs.

These steps, combined with the manufacturing tax credit that I included in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, a national renewable portfolio standard, and the President's commitment to doubling renewable energy production in just 3 years will serve as a strong base and commitment on which to build the New American Manufacturing. I look forward to the impact that this legislation will have on increasing our industrial competitiveness and hope that we can incorporate additional ideas as the legislative process proceeds.

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

Mr. president, I rise today with Senators Snowe and Sanders to introduce the Medicare Access to Community Health Centers, MATCH, Act of 2009.

This legislation addresses a long standing payment issue experienced by a key component of our Nation's health care safety net, community health centers. These centers provide high quality, comprehensive care and serve as the medical home to 18 millions individuals. Over one million of those patients are medicare beneficiaries.

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 that centers be paid their reasonable costs for providing care to their Medicare patients. The centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, later established a per visit payment cap in regulations based on a payment cap applicable to Rural Health Clinics. CMS applied the cap to FQHCs without much data support and with the promise of future reviews to guarantee that Health Centers were adequately reimbursed. However, these reviews have not taken place. Currently, over 75 percent 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, NACHC. In my home State of New Mexico, NACHC estimates that health centers lose 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. The MATCH Act will establish a Prospective Payment System for FQHCs, based on the 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.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, with Senators Susan Collins, Debbie Stabenow, Olympia Snowe, Evan Bayh, Sherrod Brown, and Mark Pryor that would enable the retooling and transformation of our industrial sector by using less energy, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and producing the technologies that will help the U.S. and the world break its dependence on fossil fuel.

Today our country is facing some of the toughest economic hurdles that many of us have ever seen. In our manufacturing sector, we have lost nearly a million, high quality jobs in the last year, with over 200,000 jobs lost in just the last month. These are not just jobs that we are losing--the industrial foundation upon which our Nation's wealth has been built is eroding. We are losing technical expertise and the skilled and inventive workforce that go with these jobs. We are losing the opportunity to grow our economy and the ability to compete on a global scale.

With this current economic downturn, and the energy, climate, and global competitiveness challenges lying before us, we have come to a critical juncture in our Nation's industrial history--we must make a choice as to what the future of manufacturing will be for this country. At this moment, while the rest of the world is at a pause, this nation has the opportunity to re-invent and transform our industrial base to compete globally through technical innovation and product superiority, all while, reducing our dependence on carbon-based fuels, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing productivity.

The Restoring America's Manufacturing Leadership through Energy Efficiency Act of 2009 establishes the financing mechanisms for both small and large manufactures to adopt the advanced energy efficient production technologies and processes that will allow them to be more productive and less fuel dependent, cutting costs, not jobs.

Second, this bill provides for public/private partnerships with industry to map out the future of advanced American manufacturing and to develop and deploy the breakthrough technologies that will take us there. By spurring innovation in our manufacturing sector to decrease energy intensity and environmental impacts, while increasing productivity, we can create the high tech, high-value manufacturing processes and jobs for the 21st century that will allow the U.S. to compete against anyone, anywhere.

Third, this legislation supports the domestic production of advanced energy technologies to fuel the growth of renewables and efficiency and capture the clean energy market, creating millions of American jobs.

These steps, combined with the manufacturing tax credit that I included in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, a national renewable portfolio standard, and the President's commitment to doubling renewable energy production in just 3 years will serve as a strong base and commitment on which to build the New American Manufacturing. I look forward to the impact that this legislation will have on increasing our industrial competitiveness and hope that we can incorporate additional ideas as the legislative process proceeds.

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

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, March 26, 2009, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The Committee will conduct a legislative hearing on legislation to strengthen American manufacturing through improved industrial energy efficiency.

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, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Alicia Jackson at (202) 224- 3607 or Rachel Pastemack at (202) 224-0883.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 19, 2009, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 19, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Modernizing Bank Supervision and Regulation.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation by authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 19, 2009, at 10:45 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Thursday, March 19, 2009, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 19, 2009, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct an executive business meeting on Thursday, March 19, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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

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

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

Madam President, I believe at 2 o'clock we are proceeding to vote on a nomination and then also on three of the six amendments that are being proposed by the Senator from Oklahoma to this omnibus lands bill. I just want to speak briefly about the three amendments that we are expected to vote on in the sequence of votes beginning at 2 o'clock.

Amendment No. 680

As I understand it, the first of those is an amendment, SA 680, prohibiting construction in the national parks. This amendment prohibits the National Park Service from beginning any new construction until the Secretary determines that ``all existing sites, structures, trails, and transportation infrastructure of the National Park Service are--fully operational; fully accessible to the public; and propose no health or safety risk to the general public or employees of the National Park Service.''

The amendment excludes from the new construction ban, first, ``the replacement of existing structures in cases in which rehabilitation costs exceed new construction costs''; or, second, the second area that is excluded from the construction ban would be ``any new construction that the Secretary determines to be necessary for public safety.''

The amendment, as I read it, would eliminate the ability of Congress to determine what funds should be appropriated to each park. In all likelihood, the Secretary would never be able to make the certification called for in the amendment since there would always be some backlog. So this amendment would ensure that we would not proceed with new construction in our national parks.

The amendment also appears to prohibit the expenditure of already appropriated funds, if the construction has not yet begun, which would negate funds recently appropriated as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and also funds contained in the Omnibus Appropriations Act that was approved by this Congress.

For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose that amendment.

Amendment No. 679

The second amendment I wanted to talk about is Coburn amendment No. 679. That amendment states:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, nothing in

this Act shall restrict the development of renewable energy

on public land, including geothermal, solar and wind energy

and related transmission infrastructure.

Madam President, the proponent of the amendment argues we should not designate the wilderness or national park or other conservation in the areas set out in this bill because they will restrict our sources of energy. I disagree with that.

For example, the bill, as it stands before us, designates 15 new wilderness areas. None of those areas have significant energy development potential. Three of the wilderness areas are within national parks where energy development is already not allowed. So the wilderness designation would not change that in any way.

The remaining wilderness areas are on land administered by the Bureau of Land Management or the Forest Service, and those agencies have provided information to our committee, the Energy Committee, that the new wilderness areas have low or no potential for energy development within the areas designated.

In addition to the wilderness areas, the amendment would undermine the designation of several other areas that are created to protect naturally significant features. For example, the bill designates a new national monument and a new national conservation area in my home State of New Mexico, one of which will protect a series of fossilized prehistoric trackways and the other which protects a large cave system. Neither site is appropriate for energy development. Neither designation would reduce the contribution made by New Mexico as a major energy provider.

We are currently working on an energy bill in our Energy and Natural Resources Committee that will encourage the development of renewable energy. However, the areas designated in this bill will not reduce our Nation's ability to develop these resources.

Amendment No. 675

The third amendment I wished to briefly describe or discuss is the amendment No. 675 offered by the Senator from Oklahoma. This amendment states that no land or interest in land shall be acquired under this act by eminent domain.

First, it is important to understand that there are no provisions in this act that grant the Federal Government eminent domain authority. That authority already exists. It has existed since the founding of the country.

The use of eminent domain authority, however, is limited and controlled by the fifth amendment and by certain Federal statutes. These provisions require just compensation when eminent domain is actually used.

Secondly, there are no major land acquisitions in the bill. The amendment could impact the water projects that are authorized by the bill, particularly the Indian water rights settlement and rural water projects that are authorized in titles IX and X of the regulation.

Eminent domain, while sparingly used, has at times been a crucial tool for the Bureau of Reclamation in its attempts to complete important water projects. Examples that come to mind are the Central Arizona Project. My colleagues from Arizona are very familiar with the benefits that has brought to the State of Arizona.

The Central Utah Project, again, my colleagues from Utah undoubtedly know the value of that project. In such cases, without this tool, it likely would have been impossible to complete the reservoirs and drinking water pipelines and irrigation canals that are so crucial to the communities that are served by those projects.

The amendment that is being offered is problematic for several reasons. Let me recount those: First, it would impede the construction or increase the cost of several of the water projects provided for in this bill. This could result in the failure to complete projects or to implement one or more of the Indian water rights settlements that are being resolved.

The Navajo settlement, which includes a rural water project critical to the Navajo people, is one of particular importance to me. It needs to be fully implemented without delay, and elimination of this authority would impede that. The language of the amendment is not limited to Federal agencies. Accordingly, it would be interpreted to restrict eminent domain by State-based entities if Federal money is involved as part of a condemnation.

The Eastern New Mexico Project is an example of a project where the local water authority will be responsible for securing rights of way for the project. It does not intend to condemn any property rights, but it will have that power, if needed, to deliver much needed water to the communities in rural New Mexico that will be served by the project. The Coburn amendment could interfere with the authority of that local entity to complete that project.

Finally, the Bureau of Reclamation indicates it has at times used so- called friendly condemnation to acquire State and local lands when the relevant government entities do not have the authority to sell such land. This has been a valuable tool to the Bureau of Reclamation and could be prohibited by the Coburn amendment.

In sum, for well over 100 years, the Bureau of Reclamation, as one agency, has balanced public needs with private property rights to help address critical water needs throughout the West. I expect that Reclamation's approach will not change as a result of anything in this bill. The Coburn amendment is unnecessary, would likely complicate the work done by numerous communities to address the water issues that affect their future.

I urge my colleagues to oppose that amendment as well.

I yield the floor. I see my colleague from Oklahoma is here and would like to continue with his other amendments.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I will take the first minute, and my colleague from Alaska will take the second minute.

This amendment would prohibit the National Park Service from beginning any new construction in national parks until the Secretary of the Interior can certify that the backlog of maintenance in all structures, trails, sites and transportation infrastructure has all been accomplished. I would argue he or she will never be able to certify that; therefore, we could not have new construction in our national parks. This would apply to funds we have already appropriated, including those in this American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that we voted on a couple of weeks ago.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and at the appropriate time I will move to table the amendment.

I yield the remainder of the time to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to table.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to table that motion.

Mr. President, I oppose this amendment as well. This would open the wilderness areas, the parks, and the wild and scenic rivers that are designated in the bill to potential development of new energy projects, renewable energy projects, as well as the associated facilities that go with those such as transmission lines, generating stations, access roads.

There are 2 million acres of new wilderness area here. We do not want wind farms in those wilderness areas. There are over 1,000 miles of wild and scenic rivers. We do not want hydroelectric powerplants on those wild and scenic rivers. I think this would be a major mistake for us to make an exception and say that renewable energy sources should go in regardless of the designation in the bill.

I yield the balance of my time to the Senator from Alaska.

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, first, it is important to understand there are no provisions in the bill granting the Federal Government eminent domain authority. That authority already exists. It has existed for many years. The Supreme Court first recognized it in 1876 and acknowledged that the Government had that authority.

What I believe is important is that there are water projects in this bill which are very important--the San Joaquin project in California, various water projects throughout the West--and it is important the Bureau of Reclamation have authority, if it needs to use it, to proceed with eminent domain proceedings.

My colleague from Arizona, I am sure, takes great pride in the Central Arizona project. It is very doubtful that project could have been accomplished had not the Federal Government had eminent domain authority. That is true of these water projects in this legislation as well.

So we should not be writing provisions in here that take that tool away from our Federal land managers and particularly the Bureau of Reclamation, and that is exactly what the effect of this amendment would be.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

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

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 Energy of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, March 25, 2009, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the legislative hearing is to receive testimony on draft legislation to improve energy market transparency and regulation.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to [email protected] .gov.

For further information, please contact Tara Billingsley at (202) 224-4756 or Rosemarie Calabro at (202) 224-5039.

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 Energy of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, March 25, 2009, at 2 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the legislative hearing is to receive testimony on draft legislation to improve energy market transparency and regulation.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to [email protected] .gov.

For further information, please contact Tara Billingsley at (202) 224-4756 or Rosemarie Calabro at (202) 224-5039.

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

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent agreement that I am going to propound, and I believe it is acceptable on all sides.

I ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time be yielded back, and the motion to proceed to H.R. 146 be agreed to; that once the bill is reported, the Bingaman substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be called up for consideration; that once the substitute amendment has been reported, it be considered read; that the following list of amendments be the only first-degree amendments in order; that upon disposition of the listed amendments, the substitute amendment, as amended, if amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, and the Senate then vote on passage of the bill, that passage of the bill be subject to a 60-vote threshold; that if the threshold is achieved and upon passage, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the

title amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; provided further debate time prior to a vote in relation to each amendment be limited to 60 minutes, equally divided and controlled in the usual form; and that no amendment be in order to any amendment prior to a vote in relation thereto; that if there is a sequence of votes in relation to the amendments, then prior to each vote in a sequence, there be 4 minutes of debate, divided as specified above, and that after the first vote in any sequence, subsequent votes be limited to 10 minutes each.

Here is the list of amendments: Coburn amendment No. 680, regarding barring new construction. The second is Coburn amendment No. 679, regarding striking provisions restricting alternative energy. The third is Coburn amendment No. 683, regarding striking targeted provisions. The fourth is Coburn amendment No. 675, regarding eminent domain. The fifth is Coburn amendment No. 677, regarding annual report. And the sixth is Coburn amendment No. 682 regarding subtitle D clarification.