Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on December 11, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 2156 (SECURE Water Act), a bill to authorize and facilitate the improvement of water management by the Bureau of Reclamation, to require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Energy to increase the acquisition and analysis of water-related data to assess the long-term availability of water resources for irrigation, hydroelectric power, municipal, and environmental uses, and for other purposes.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Thursday, December 13, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on Reform of the Mining Law of 1872.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Thursday, December 13, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding forest restoration and hazardous fuels reduction efforts in the forests of Oregon and Washington.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a joint hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 11, 2007, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

This joint hearing will examine the role of speculation in recent record crude oil prices.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

Mr. President, I would like to recognize Kitty L. Roberts, the superintendent of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, who will retire on December 3, 2007, after 28 years with the National Park Service. Currently the superintendent of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Rainbow Bridge National Monument, for many years Kitty headed the National Park Service's Office of Legislative and Congressional Affairs, where she worked very closely with the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

A native of Milton, WV, Kitty graduated from the University of Maryland and attended graduate school at Indiana University. She then worked for the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission, where she remained for 9 years.

Kitty began her career with the National Park Service in 1979 as a management assistant in the National Capital Region. She went on to become the assistant superintendent at the George Washington Memorial Parkway between 1980 and 1984. From 1984 to 1990, Kitty was the Deputy Associate Regional Director, White House Liaison, in the National Capital Region. During this time, Kitty was the NPS Inaugural coordinator and oversaw the development of East Executive Park that now serves as a visitor entrance to the White House. In 1990, Kitty returned to the George Washington Memorial Parkway, where she served as superintendent. In 1993, former National Park Service Director Roger Kennedy asked Kitty to become the assistant director for Legislative and Congressional Affairs. Kitty served in that position for 8 years, and during that time was extremely helpful to the committee in its consideration of national park-related legislation.

During Kitty's tenure as assistant director, over 230 laws were passed affecting our national parks. Among the notable laws passed during that period were the California Desert Protection Act and the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, with its creation of 5 new park units, 10 new national heritage areas, 12 park boundary adjustments, and numerous other changes that benefited several units of the National Park System. Kitty also worked on the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, which doubled the amount of funding for national park roads, and the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998, which reformed the National Park Service's concessions program, created a park research mandate, and supported employee career development and training.

In February 2001, Kitty left Washington to become the superintendent of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Rainbow Bridge National Monument. During her time at the park, Kitty has worked on a policy for personal watercraft and off-highway vehicle use. She has found ways to maintain access to Lake Powell even as ongoing drought conditions have led to a 145-foot drop in the lake's water level. Perhaps one of her most important contributions has been a program of public education to prevent needless deaths due to individuals swimming behind boats where exhaust fumes were vented. In early June of this year, Kitty presided with the President of the Navajo Nation at the grand opening of the new floating marina village at Antelope Point, with its architectural elements from the surrounding red rock landscape and its unique cooling system using lake water from 75 feet below the surface.

Kitty has had a distinguished career with the National Park Service and will be greatly missed by those she has worked with over the years, both in the Park Service and in Congress. I want to congratulate Kitty on her retirement and thank her for the many contributions she has made toward making our national parks the pride of our Nation, and I wish her the best in the years ahead.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Albuquerque Biological Park Title Clarification Act with my colleague Senator Domenici. A slightly different version of this bill passed the Senate during the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congress. We are introducing this legislation again in hopes of assisting the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico clear title to several parcels of land located along the Rio Grande. If title is cleared, the city will be free to proceed with plans to improve the properties as part of a biological park project, a city funded initiative to create a premier environmental educational center for its citizens and the entire State of New Mexico.

The biological park project has been in the works since 1987 when the city began to develop an aquarium and botanic garden along the banks of the Rio Grande. Those facilities constitute just a portion of the overall project. As part of this effort, in 1997, the city purchased two properties from the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, MRGCD, for $3,875,000. The first property, Tingley Beach, had been leased by the city from MRGCD since 1931 and used for public park purposes. The second property, San Gabriel Park, had been leased by the city since 1963, and also used for public park purposes.

In the year 2000, the city's plans were interrupted when the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation asserted that in 1953, it had acquired ownership of all of MRGCD's property associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project. The United States assertion called into question the validity of the 1997 transaction between the city and MRGCD. Both MRGCD and the city dispute the United States' claim of ownership.

This dispute is unnecessarily complicating the city's progress in developing the biological park project. If the matter is left to litigation, the delay will be indefinite. Reclamation has already determined that the two properties are surplus to the needs of the Middle Rio Grande Project. In fact, the record indicates that Reclamation once considered releasing its interest in the properties for $1.00 each. Obviously, the Federal interest in these properties is low while the local interest is high. This bill is tailored to address this local interest by disclaiming any Federal interest in the two properties at issue. To avoid future complications, the bill also disclaims any Federal interest in several other parcels associated with the BioPark. The general dispute concerning title to Middle Rio Grande Project works is left for the courts to decide.

I hope my colleagues will work with me to resolve this issue. This bill represents a simple solution to a local problem caused by Federal action. I urge my colleagues to once again support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Albuquerque Biological Park Title Clarification Act with my colleague Senator Domenici. A slightly different version of this bill passed the Senate during the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congress. We are introducing this legislation again in hopes of assisting the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico clear title to several parcels of land located along the Rio Grande. If title is cleared, the city will be free to proceed with plans to improve the properties as part of a biological park project, a city funded initiative to create a premier environmental educational center for its citizens and the entire State of New Mexico.

The biological park project has been in the works since 1987 when the city began to develop an aquarium and botanic garden along the banks of the Rio Grande. Those facilities constitute just a portion of the overall project. As part of this effort, in 1997, the city purchased two properties from the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, MRGCD, for $3,875,000. The first property, Tingley Beach, had been leased by the city from MRGCD since 1931 and used for public park purposes. The second property, San Gabriel Park, had been leased by the city since 1963, and also used for public park purposes.

In the year 2000, the city's plans were interrupted when the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation asserted that in 1953, it had acquired ownership of all of MRGCD's property associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project. The United States assertion called into question the validity of the 1997 transaction between the city and MRGCD. Both MRGCD and the city dispute the United States' claim of ownership.

This dispute is unnecessarily complicating the city's progress in developing the biological park project. If the matter is left to litigation, the delay will be indefinite. Reclamation has already determined that the two properties are surplus to the needs of the Middle Rio Grande Project. In fact, the record indicates that Reclamation once considered releasing its interest in the properties for $1.00 each. Obviously, the Federal interest in these properties is low while the local interest is high. This bill is tailored to address this local interest by disclaiming any Federal interest in the two properties at issue. To avoid future complications, the bill also disclaims any Federal interest in several other parcels associated with the BioPark. The general dispute concerning title to Middle Rio Grande Project works is left for the courts to decide.

I hope my colleagues will work with me to resolve this issue. This bill represents a simple solution to a local problem caused by Federal action. I urge my colleagues to once again support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the nomination of Michael Mukasey to be the next United States Attorney General.

First, let me say that by all accounts Judge Mukasey is a good man with a long distinguished record. In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he made clear that he understands the need to restore the public's trust and confidence in the Department of Justice. I also believe he demonstrated a willingness to take the necessary steps to de-politicize the Department, and to provide the leadership required to repair its credibility.

However, I am also deeply troubled by the positions Judge Mukasey has taken regarding several important issues. Much has been said about Judge Mukasey's unwillingness to clearly state that certain interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, are unlawful and amount to torture. I share this concern, but I would also like to highlight another area that I find particularly disturbing; that is the idea that the President doesn't have to comply with a constitutional law passed by Congress.

Over the last 6 years, the Bush administration has put forth a view of Executive power that is incredibly expansive, and in my opinion, an unjustified and dangerous threat to our fundamental rights and our commitment to the rule of law.

The President has asserted the right to unilaterally imprison whomever he wants without judicial review, whether or not they are a United States citizen, if he determines that they are a so-called ``enemy combatant.'' The administration has taken the position that the President can authorize the use of techniques that amount to torture, and then immunize any person acting pursuant to his orders from criminal liability. The President also authorized warrantless surveillance in direct contravention to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

In all of these instances, the President justified his actions on the basis that he was acting within his authority as commander-in-chief to defend the country, and that neither Congress nor the courts can infringe on this power. While many of these assertions have ultimately been rejected by Federal courts, Congress, or overturned internally when they became public, the President continues to assert that there are few restraints on his power when it comes to national security matters.

During his confirmation hearing, Judge Mukasey stated that he would step down if he determined that the

President's actions were unlawful and the President refused to heed his advice to change course. Although this does signal a welcomed degree of independence, I remain concerned about what Judge Mukasey will find to be ``lawful.''

Let me read an exchange that took place during a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee which illustrates this point.

Senator Leahy: . . . where Congress has clearly legislated

in an area, as we've done in the area of surveillance with

the FISA law, something we've amended repeatedly at the

request of various administrations . . . if it's been

legislated and stated very clearly what must be done, if you

operate outside of that, whether it's with a presidential

authorization or anything else, wouldn't that be illegal?

Judge Mukasey: That would have to depend on whether what

goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the

authority of the president to defend the country.

Senator Leahy: Can the President put someone above the law

by authorizing illegal conduct?

Judge Mukasey: If by illegal you mean contrary to a statute

but within the authority of the President to defend the

country, the President is not putting somebody above the law,

the President is putting somebody within the law.

While this view may be consistent with the current administration's position regarding Executive authority, this stance is not consistent with how the powers of the president have traditionally been interpreted. The notion that the President may disregard a valid law by citing his inherent power to defend the country is disconcerting.

And frankly, it is all too reminiscent of President Nixon's assertion that actions taken in the name of national security, whether or not they are in accordance with relevant statues, are by definition legal if they are carried out on behalf of the President. This assertion was widely rejected, as it should have been.

As our Nation's highest law enforcement officer, it is essential that the Attorney General faithfully execute laws passed by Congress. It is one thing for the Attorney General to state that he or she will not enforce a certain measure because it is unconstitutional; however, it is a very different matter if the Executive Branch asserts that it is not bound by a law that is clearly constitutional.

It is for this reason that I cannot support the nomination of Judge Mukasey to be the next Attorney General.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Thursday, November 15, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 2203, a bill to reauthorize the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, and for other purposes.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to Rosemarie_Calabro@energy. senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Jonathan Epstein at (202) 228-3031 or Rosemarie Calabro at (202) 224-5039.

committee on small business and entrepreneurship

Mr. President, I would like to announce that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Wednesday, November 14, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership as it relates to U.S. policy on nuclear fuel management.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected]. gov.

For further information, please contact Jonathan Epstein at (202) 228-3031 or Rosemarie Calabro at (202) 224-5039.

committee on small business and entrepreneurship

Mr. President, I would like to announce that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on whether domestic energy industry will have the available workforce--crafts and professional--to meet our Nation's growing energy needs and if gaps exist, what policies the Congress should take to address these gaps.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Jonathan Epstein at (202) 228-3031 or Rosemarie Calabro at (202) 224-5039.

committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 13, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977: Policy Issues Thirty Years Later.

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

For further information, please contact Patty Beneke at 202-224-5451 or Gina Weinstock at (202) 224-5684.

committee on indian affairs

Mr. President, on June 19, 2007, the administration transmitted draft legislation entitled the Cooperative Conservation Enhancement Act, which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

I am pleased today to introduce the Cooperative Conservation Enhancement Act, by request, as a courtesy to the administration. This bill would clarify the responsibilities and authorities of the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative conservation partnerships.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a letter of support, and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I, along with Senator Hatch, am re-introducing the Equity for Our Nation's Self-Employed Act of 2007. This important legislation corrects an inequity that currently exists in our tax code that forces the self-employed to pay payroll taxes on the funds used to pay for their health insurance while larger businesses do not. Because of this inequity, health insurance is more expensive for the self-employed. At a time when the number of people uninsured is growing at an alarming rate, we need to find ways to reduce the cost of health insurance. This legislation is a first logical step.

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

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

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

I look forward to working with my colleagues to get this important legislation passed.

Mr. President, on June 19, 2007, the administration transmitted draft legislation entitled the Cooperative Conservation Enhancement Act, which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

I am pleased today to introduce the Cooperative Conservation Enhancement Act, by request, as a courtesy to the administration. This bill would clarify the responsibilities and authorities of the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative conservation partnerships.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a letter of support, and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I, along with Senator Hatch, am re-introducing the Equity for Our Nation's Self-Employed Act of 2007. This important legislation corrects an inequity that currently exists in our tax code that forces the self-employed to pay payroll taxes on the funds used to pay for their health insurance while larger businesses do not. Because of this inequity, health insurance is more expensive for the self-employed. At a time when the number of people uninsured is growing at an alarming rate, we need to find ways to reduce the cost of health insurance. This legislation is a first logical step.

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

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

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

I look forward to working with my colleagues to get this important legislation passed.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks.

The hearing will be held on November 8, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to rachel<[email protected] .gov.

For further information, please contact David Brooks at (202) 224- 9863 or Rachel Pasternack at (202) 224-0883.

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

Mr. President, I understand there is still some checking to see if there is any objection to setting aside the pending amendment so I may offer an amendment. While we are waiting, I wish to describe the substance of the amendment I intend to offer.

This amendment is intended to reduce the Social Security backlog. Most of us who go back to our home States on weekends and during recesses know about the Social Security backlog. We hear from individuals in our States about how long they have to wait to find out whether their Social Security disability claims have been approved. We hear about elderly people waiting in long lines for service at Social Security offices. We hear about busy signals when they call the 1-800 number that is provided for people trying to find out the status of their Social Security claim. But I am not sure most of us understand the extent of the backlog, the consequences of it, or the reasons.

For more than 70 years Social Security has provided millions of American workers and their families with a basic level of protection against poverty when a worker can no longer work due to old age. Of course, we are all aware of disability now being covered by Social Security. Social Security benefits are the only means of survival for millions of individuals with severe disabilities. These individuals rely on the Social Security Administration to promptly and fairly adjudicate their applications for disability benefits. Unfortunately, we are witnessing a trend where this is simply not happening.

According to the Social Security Administration, there are currently over 756,000 cases waiting for hearing. That is not waiting for a final determination, waiting for a hearing. The average time to get a hearing is 523 days. That is the longest it has been in the history of the Social Security Administration. The average processing time for a hearing is projected to increase next year, based on the numbers we have in the appropriations bill before us. This is a problem for individuals with disabilities in my State of New Mexico.

Currently the average processing time per case in the Albuquerque hearing office is 528 days. Keep in mind, this is only the time it takes to get a hearing. This does not include the time it takes for an initial determination or for a final determination. This past May the Finance Committee, on which I am privileged to serve, received testimony indicating there are thousands of individuals with disabilities who currently have cases pending with the Social Security Administration and have had those cases pending for 3 years or more. The Finance Committee received testimony regarding the extreme hardships individuals with severe disabilities must endure while awaiting a final decision on their disability claims. We heard instance after instance where individuals with severe disabilities were unable to work and were forced to declare bankruptcy. They lost their homes, suffered deterioration in their medical conditions, and some even died while their claims lingered in Social Security Administration offices.

According to the Social Security Administration, staffing levels are at their lowest since 1972. Thirty years ago, the Social Security Administration had more than 82,000 employees. In 2005 the Social Security Administration had 66,000 employees. In a few months, the expected employment at the Social Security Administration will drop below 60,000.

Thousands of employees are leaving the Social Security Administration's field and hearing offices without being replaced. As many of us know, the field offices around the country are reducing their hours.

In Carlsbad, NM--which I visited 2 weeks ago--due to a reduction in hours of service, seniors and people with disabilities are forced to line up around

the building, often waiting hours to get served. Even worse, some field offices are shutting their doors permanently.

Meanwhile, since 1990, the number of disabled workers drawing disability benefits has more than doubled. That number has gone from 3 million in 1990 to 6.8 million today. Field offices are averaging over 850,000 visitors a week during this current year.

As we know from the press, the first baby boomer officially filed for Social Security last week. So the demands on Social Security are only going to increase. In addition, Congress has significantly increased the Social Security Administration's responsibilities as part of the Medicare Part D legislation.

So the Social Security Administration finds itself in a very dire circumstance. The Social Security Administration has over 1,400 field and hearing offices in cities and towns across the country. Mandatory costs, such as program integrity, rent, guards, postage, employees' salaries, and benefits are continuing to rise. Unfortunately, Congress appropriated on average each year for the last 7 years about $150 million less than the administration requested. The current budget situation has simply been compounded by years of sustained underfunding by the Congress.

According to the Social Security Administration, the present cost of processing the hearing backlog would be $794 million. The difference between the amount of funding requested for administrative expenses and the amount appropriated for fiscal years 2001 through 2007 is $962 million--more than enough to address the backlog. So if we had actually appropriated what the administration asked for during fiscal years 2001 through 2007, we would largely have this backlog problem solved. Unfortunately, we did not do that.

I thank the chairman and the ranking member of this subcommittee on the Appropriations Committee for their significant efforts to address the backlog. As you know, the chairman of the subcommittee has been a tireless leader on issues affecting individuals with disabilities. For decades, he has led the way in the Senate on reducing barriers for individuals with disabilities and ensuring full community participation.

Fortunately, the chairman and the ranking member recognized the current challenges individuals with disabilities are facing in accessing disability benefits, and they have worked hard to increase administrative funds for the Social Security Administration by $125 million over the amount that was requested by the President. I believe we all recognize how important that infusion of funds will be.

In the committee report accompanying the bill that we are considering, the chairman requested the Commissioner of Social Security to set forth a plan to reduce the backlog. As submitted, the Commissioner's plan would include: accelerating review of cases that are likely or certain to be approved; improving hearing procedures; increasing adjudicatory capacity; and increasing efficiency through automation and improved business processes.

Unfortunately, the amount of funding in the bill does not go far enough, in my view, to substantially reduce the backlog. According to the Commissioner, this amount of funding will merely ``stem the tide.'' It will not address the backlog in a significant way.

The fiscal year 2008 budget resolution--which we all considered on the floor, and many of us voted for--recommends an increase of $430 million above the President's request for the Social Security Administration's administrative budget in order to reduce this backlog. The amendment I am intending to offer later today would get us to half that amount by increasing the Social Security Administration's administrative budget by an additional $160 million. The amendment would give the Social Security Administration the resources it needs to reduce the backlog to help get rid of these long lines.

The amendment is paid for. The amendment would shift excess Medicare funds to pay for this critical increase in funding to the Social Security Administration in this 1 year. These offsetting funds have been identified in close collaboration with Finance Committee staff and, of course, Senator Baucus is a cosponsor of the amendment.

Importantly, these funds would be immediately replaced at the beginning of fiscal year 2009 with generally available funding that was passed as part of the Transitional Medical Assistance extenders package.

Finally, the amendment would also permit the U.S. Treasury Department to invest its excess operating capital. So this represents responsible oversight by the Treasury Department. This policy has been recommended by the Government Accountability Office and others. It is estimated this policy will generate tens of millions of dollars for the Federal Government over the next 10 years.

The bottom line is millions of American workers and their families-- people whom we represent--rely on Social Security to protect them against poverty in the event they are no longer able to work. This incredible insurance program is breaking down because of our failure to fund the administration of the program.

So I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. It is being offered on behalf of myself, Senator Snowe from Maine, and Senator Baucus from Montana.

Mr. President, I do not believe we have yet gotten to a point procedurally where I am able to offer the amendment, so I yield the floor.

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

I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Domenici.

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

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

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

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

I thank both managers of this bill for their willingness to work with me on this important issue.

I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

I thank the chairman and ranking member for their support of this critical program.

workforce investment act