Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Kennedy and Sanders, to introduce the Time for Innovation Matters in Education, or TIME Act, of 2008. This bill would improve and expand students' instructional time, while ensuring rigorous standards, as a means to help close the academic achievement gap that exists for so many of our disadvantaged students. The fundamental principle underlying this bill is that the amount of instructional time provided by the vast majority of school calendars is simply inadequate for today's students and teachers. Teachers need more time to plan and deliver instruction, and students need more time for 21st century learning. The demands on 21st century learners reflect the rapid increase in technological advances that we have all experienced in the last 30 or 40 years. Twenty first century learning demands an increase in the rigor of mathematics and science education, and the acquisition of subject area knowledge in areas that simply did not exist years ago, such as computer literacy. These increased demands should not be met at the expense of ignoring other subjects such as social studies, art, and physical education. Yet, these other areas are often ignored to allow for time for some of the major academic subjects. That is the consequence of failing to match the gradual increase in educational demands with a corresponding increase in instructional time. Instead, here we are in the 21st century, continuing to adhere to a school calendar that was established over 100 years ago, and which was designed to accommodate a predominantly agricultural society. In nearly every State, the school calendar is based on approximately 180 or fewer instructional days, or on approximately 1000 instructional hours, per school year. This means that American students are spending fewer than 20 percent of their waking hours in school. In the recent National Research Council report entitled, How People Learn, the authors comment on the importance of being realistic about the amount of time it takes to learn complex subject matter. Simply put, they note that ``significant learning takes major investments of time.'' The TIME Act is an initial investment that will provide teachers and students with the expanded opportunities they need to achieve high quality instruction and learning. We know that time needs are significant if our students are to achieve a 21st century education. Although all students are likely to benefit from expanded learning time, we must prioritize these opportunities for students who are most at risk for poor academic achievement. International reports like the PISA study demonstrate that although American students, as a group, have poor academic achievement relative to students in other industrialized nations, this disparity is most pronounced for students that are overrepresented among our Nation's poor. In fact, the 2006 PISA report shows that achievement scores for White, non-Hispanic students meet or exceed average scores reported across participating nations, whereas the average scores for Black or Hispanic students are well below that average. Likewise, although research has demonstrated that all students are at risk for losing educational gains during the extended summer breaks that are currently the norm for most schools, children from low income households experience significantly greater achievement losses during summer breaks because they lack opportunities to attend the quality summer programs available to their less disadvantaged peers. Each year, this disparity contributes to the growing achievement gap. Researchers have shown us that these out-of-school experiences account for most of the achievement difference observed by 9th grade, which in turn influences when and whether students will graduate from high school and attend postsecondary school. Investing in more time during the school year can help to diminish these achievement gaps, improve graduation rates, and make a lasting difference in these students' lives. But effective expanded learning opportunities require more than just more time. The time must be well spent. Students must be appropriately engaged in their learning, and teachers must have the training and support to use the longer school time effectively. Researchers have identified that expanded learning time benefits teachers, by providing more opportunities for cooperative planning and more time to individualize instruction. Involved students and teachers are critical to successful expanded learning time programs, and both benefit from effective programming. States have begun to explore expanded learning programs, and have demonstrated their effectiveness. In Massachusetts, 10 schools converted their calendars to expand the mandatory number of school days and the number of hours within a school day. Outcomes include not only increased student achievement, but greater school satisfaction among parents, teachers, and students. In my own State of New Mexico, expanded learning initiatives have been pursued, in the form of longer school days or additional school days throughout the year. Early reports demonstrate increased achievement in math and reading, beyond grade-level expectations. Unfortunately, the funds available for these initiatives are limited to voluntary participation. We must make these programs become a regular part of the school day for all students and teachers, particularly those who are greatest risk for academic failure. Most districts and State educational agencies do not have the capacity or infrastructure to guide, support, and fund expanded learning day programs, but good models for turning around low- performing schools do exist. Federal support can be used to build States' and schools' capacity based on evidence from such models. Towards this goal, the TIME Act will: provide incentives for States and local educational agencies to develop plans for research-based, sustainable, and replicable expanded learning programs, for high- priority schools, with a focus on increasing rigorous and varied instructional opportunities for students and teachers; allow local educational agencies to determine appropriate objectives of their extended learning programs, such as increasing math and science scores for all students, enhance art or physical education, or increase academic English proficiency for English language learners; encourage States to take a leadership role and deliver technical assistance to schools that implement such programs; encourage schools to form partnerships with organizations that have successful track records in supporting or delivering effective expanded learning programs; and promote research on expanded learning program implementation, through local, State, and national data collection efforts. The results of these evaluations can inform best practices for future delivery of expanded learning models to additional schools. I would like to thank Chairman Kennedy for his leadership on this legislation, and for his ongoing commitment to enhancing educational opportunities for all Americans; particularly our most disadvantaged youths. Moreover, Senator Kennedy's State of Massachusetts is a leader in school-wide expanded learning initiatives. Massachusetts has demonstrated that expanded learning enhances students' success, and it has done so in formerly struggling schools in some of the State's poorest school districts. The TIME Act expands upon these models of success by promoting similar initiatives across the country. I hope that this legislation will be incorporated into reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Like my colleagues Senator Kennedy and Sanders, I believe that all students deserve the time needed for a quality education. I also believe that all schools should expand well beyond their current limited calendar, especially if America is to maintain and increase its competitive edge in the global economy. We must invest in a systematic approach to improving schools so that every child graduates prepared for success. The TIME Act is an initial investment toward this goal.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the devastating loss that Bob Simon and the Simon family suffered today with the loss of their beloved son and brother Gregory. Bob has been the staff director of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for nearly 10 years, and worked with me in other capacities for a number of years before that. During that period, Bob has gone through harrowing times both personally and professionally. He has always handled these times with grace, strength, and his own personal brand of dry humor. Bob, his wife Karen, and their three other children--Stephen, Cathryn, and Anne-Marie--have spent countless hours at Gregory's bedside since Gregory fell ill on July 10, exactly 3 weeks ago, and throughout that time, they have shown extraordinary courage. Their devotion to Gregory reflects their devotion to one another as a family. Greg was a really inquisitive, artistic, creative individual. He always drew cartoons and comics. He didn't like math. He looked exactly like Bob except with blond hair. He had Bob's temperament--he was such a positive young man. Gregory was always small for his age, but he refused to let his stature get in the way of anything he wanted to do. He was a fighter, and he fought valiantly for the last 3 weeks. In the end, though, the odds were too great to overcome, and Gregory died at the age of 16. Mr. President, there are no words that can properly capture the pain the Simons must feel now, and no words we can say that can truly provide comfort. The best we can do is be sure that those who are bereaved know that they have our love and our prayers, and so we send both in great measure to the Simon family. Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly about the legislation that is before the Senate. I urge my colleagues to adopt the conference report on this Higher Education Opportunity Act. The title to the legislation indicates that the bill is about providing greater opportunities for families to send their children to college and greater opportunities for students to succeed in and graduate from college. I particularly thank Chairman Kennedy and Senator Enzi for their untiring commitment and dedication to the college students of this country. Of course, I thank Senator Mikulski as well for her leadership in getting this legislation to the Senate floor for a vote this evening. Only 1 year after passing the largest student aid package in more than 50 years, this body is poised to pass legislation that will take the next step to make college more affordable and accessible to students and their families. There are many important provisions in the bill, but I will highlight just one provision in particular. Native American enrollment in postsecondary education more than doubled between 1976 and 2002, with almost 166,000 Native American students enrolled in higher education. Student enrollment in tribally controlled colleges and universities has increased in recent years to almost 16,000 students in 2002. It is important to note the critical role tribally controlled colleges play in educating Native American students and the unique educational opportunity these schools offer Native American students. We need to continue to do all we can to strengthen and support those schools. But that means that approximately 150,000 Native American students are enrolled in higher education in non-tribally controlled colleges. We know, unfortunately, that Native American students are still much less likely to enroll in college than their peers. Only 18 percent of Native American students have enrolled in college, as compared to 42 percent of other students. We also know, however, that Native American students are less likely to persist once in college. And 77 percent of Native Americans did not have a postsecondary certificate or degree, as compared with 37 percent of others. The Higher Education Opportunity Act, the bill before us today, addresses the reality that the overwhelming majority of Native American students are being educated in non-tribally controlled colleges and universities and that we need to do a better job to support these students within these schools. This legislation authorizes the Native American-Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program to enable such colleges to improve and expand their capacity to serve these Native American and low-income individuals. Right now, there are 43 colleges and universities that serve large Native American student populations. In my State, we have three such schools that serve large Native American student populations. In fact, the student population at the University of New Mexico at Gallup, NM, is close to 80 percent Native American. Native American students in New Mexico would not be the only students to benefit from this provision. Colleges and universities around the country would also qualify in other States, including schools in Alaska, Wyoming, Colorado, North Carolina, and Utah. Out of the 43 schools that could be eligible to benefit from the provisions in this legislation, 24 of the schools are located in the State of Oklahoma. I am very pleased this provision has garnered strong bipartisan support. It is a part of this very important legislation. I am also pleased that the bill includes funding for a long overdue graduate program for Hispanic-serving institutions. I thank the chairman and Senator Enzi for their strong support of these provisions. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this month marks the 63rd year since scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory tested the world's first nuclear weapon at the Trinity Test Site in southern New Mexico. While much has been written about this test, which has changed the course of the world as we know it today, little has been written about the famous color photograph of this test the only color photograph that survived the test. Jack W. Aeby, then 23, was assigned to Emilio Segre in the Gamma Radiation group as a technician and was permitted to bring his own 35 mm camera to take color pictures of the radiation measuring equipment. When the detonation occurred, Mr. Aeby took 3 pictures of the detonation before running out of film. Of those three pictures, one turned out to be good. Today that picture is used around the world and is found on the cover of such famous publications as Time magazine and Richard Rhodes' ``The Making of the Atomic Bomb.'' In some cases he is given credit for this photo but never consistently due to the complications associated with our copyright law. Mr. Aeby still lives in Espanola, NM. As he turns 85 next month, I would like to honor him and the contribution he has made to society in taking this photo to remind us of the way this test has changed the course of modern history.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today Senator Domenici and I are introducing a bill that I am pleased to say, will help end contentious disputes over water rights claims in two long-standing general stream adjudications in northern New Mexico. The bill accomplishes this by authorizing two Indian water rights settlements. The first is a settlement involving the water rights claims of the Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque Pueblos in the Rio Pojoaque stream system, north of Santa Fe. The second settlement resolves Taos Pueblo's water rights claims in the Rio Pueblo de Taos stream system. The Rio Pojoaque stream adjudication is known as the Aamodt case, and it's my understanding that it's the longest active case in the Federal court system nationwide. The case began in 1966, and since that time has been actively litigated before the district court in New Mexico and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Forty years of litigation resolved very little, certainly not what the parties accomplished by engaging directly with each other in an attempt to resolve their differences. The Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act represents an agreement by the parties that will 1. secure water to meet the present and future needs of the four Pueblos involved in the litigation; 2. protect the interests and rights of long-standing water users, including century- old irrigation practices; and 3. ensure that water is available for municipal and domestic needs for all residents in the Pojoaque basin. Negotiation of this agreement was a lengthy process and the parties had to renegotiate several issues to address local, State, and Federal policy concerns. In the end, however, their commitment to solving the water supply issues in the basin prevailed. The Rio Pueblo de Taos adjudication is a dispute that is almost 40 years old. Similar to the Aamodt case, little has been resolved by the pending litigation. The parties have been in settlement discussions for well over a decade but it was not until the last 5 years that the discussions took on the sense of urgency needed to resolve the issues at hand. The settlement will fulfill the rights of the Pueblo consistent with the Federal trust responsibility, while continuing the practice of sharing the water necessary to protect the sustainability of traditional agricultural communities. The town of Taos and other local entities are also secure in their ability to access the water necessary to meet municipal and domestic needs. The Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act represents a commonsense set of solutions that all parties to the adjudication have a stake in implementing. Both settlements are widely supported in their respective communities. Moreover, the State of New Mexico, under Governor Richardson's leadership, deserves special recognition for actively pursuing a settlement in both of these matters and committing significant resources so that the Federal Government does not have to bear the entire cost of these settlements. To the extent that going concerns may exist by some remaining water users, I am committed to continuing the dialog about the value of these settlements. This bill is critical for New Mexico's future. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to see that it gets enacted into law. The U.S. Supreme Court once characterized the Federal Government's responsibilities to Indian tribes as ``moral obligation of the highest responsibility and trust.'' This bill is an attempt to ensure that the Government lives up to that standard, and does so in a manner that also addresses the needs of the Pueblos' neighbors.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today Senator Domenici and I are introducing a bill that I am pleased to say, will help end contentious disputes over water rights claims in two long-standing general stream adjudications in northern New Mexico. The bill accomplishes this by authorizing two Indian water rights settlements. The first is a settlement involving the water rights claims of the Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque Pueblos in the Rio Pojoaque stream system, north of Santa Fe. The second settlement resolves Taos Pueblo's water rights claims in the Rio Pueblo de Taos stream system. The Rio Pojoaque stream adjudication is known as the Aamodt case, and it's my understanding that it's the longest active case in the Federal court system nationwide. The case began in 1966, and since that time has been actively litigated before the district court in New Mexico and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Forty years of litigation resolved very little, certainly not what the parties accomplished by engaging directly with each other in an attempt to resolve their differences. The Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act represents an agreement by the parties that will 1. secure water to meet the present and future needs of the four Pueblos involved in the litigation; 2. protect the interests and rights of long-standing water users, including century- old irrigation practices; and 3. ensure that water is available for municipal and domestic needs for all residents in the Pojoaque basin. Negotiation of this agreement was a lengthy process and the parties had to renegotiate several issues to address local, State, and Federal policy concerns. In the end, however, their commitment to solving the water supply issues in the basin prevailed. The Rio Pueblo de Taos adjudication is a dispute that is almost 40 years old. Similar to the Aamodt case, little has been resolved by the pending litigation. The parties have been in settlement discussions for well over a decade but it was not until the last 5 years that the discussions took on the sense of urgency needed to resolve the issues at hand. The settlement will fulfill the rights of the Pueblo consistent with the Federal trust responsibility, while continuing the practice of sharing the water necessary to protect the sustainability of traditional agricultural communities. The town of Taos and other local entities are also secure in their ability to access the water necessary to meet municipal and domestic needs. The Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act represents a commonsense set of solutions that all parties to the adjudication have a stake in implementing. Both settlements are widely supported in their respective communities. Moreover, the State of New Mexico, under Governor Richardson's leadership, deserves special recognition for actively pursuing a settlement in both of these matters and committing significant resources so that the Federal Government does not have to bear the entire cost of these settlements. To the extent that going concerns may exist by some remaining water users, I am committed to continuing the dialog about the value of these settlements. This bill is critical for New Mexico's future. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to see that it gets enacted into law. The U.S. Supreme Court once characterized the Federal Government's responsibilities to Indian tribes as ``moral obligation of the highest responsibility and trust.'' This bill is an attempt to ensure that the Government lives up to that standard, and does so in a manner that also addresses the needs of the Pueblos' neighbors.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes here on a Wednesday afternoon. We are not toward the end of the week yet, but as most people know who observe the Congress and Senate in session, once you get to Wednesday afternoon, you sort of have a feel for how much you are going to be able to accomplish during the week. I think it is fair to say we have not been able to accomplish much so far this week. This is sort of a last-ditch effort to encourage us to try to do something constructive before we leave town, before the August recess. Let me try to put this debate in the general terms that I understand it. There are two packages of legislation that relate to our energy challenges which we have been talking about--two notional packages of legislation. One--and this is the one most of the speeches are probably about--relates to the general problem of high gas prices, which is a serious problem for all Americans. This set of speeches is not about a particular bill because we don't have a bill that has come out of any committee in the Senate dealing with this problem of high gas prices. There are bills the Republican leader has introduced on the subject, and there is the bill to deal with the part of the problem relating to speculation, which the Democratic leader has introduced, the majority leader. We have not been able to move ahead on that. There have been repeated efforts, and we have been blocked at every turn. The other package is the one I wish to talk about. I spoke about it briefly yesterday. I wish to talk about it again because I think it is extremely important. It is, in my opinion, the most important legislation we could pass and take action on this week. This relates to the extension of various tax provisions that are currently in the law or that have been in the law but expired this last year. I will briefly talk about that. Some of those tax provisions relate to energy. Many of them do not. Many relate to other items, other matters that are extremely important as well. Let me talk about how important this legislation is to our economy, to American jobs, and to our energy challenge as well. First, I will talk about the provisions in the tax law that expired at the end of last year. These are provisions we need to extend in order that Americans will not face substantially higher taxes when they go to pay their taxes next spring. I am talking about things such as the alternative minimum tax. Most Americans don't have to worry about the alternative minimum tax. Unfortunately, the way it is written today, unless we pass legislation such as what I will argue for here, we are going to have millions of Americans have to calculate their taxes pursuant to the AMT and actually pay increased taxes because of the alternative minimum tax this next year if we don't pass that legislation. We have a provision for a child tax credit. You would think there would be strong support for maintaining the child tax credit that Americans believe is part of the Tax Code. Unfortunately, it expired at the end of last year. If we don't pass legislation such as what I am talking about, such as what we tried to pass earlier today, the child tax credit is not part of the law. The qualified tuition deduction for higher education expenses, again, this is something that is very important to many families in this country who have children or where one spouse or the other is going to school and they need that tuition deduction for higher education expenses. Also, there are the provisions for retirees to be able to make tax- free IRA rollovers to qualified charitable organizations. These are examples of provisions that Americans think are in the Tax Code--and they are, except they expired at the end of last year. We need to go ahead and legislate to reestablish those so people can take advantage of them when they file their tax returns next year. All of that is contained in this legislation that failed earlier today on the Senate floor--failed in our efforts even to proceed to consider the legislation, in order to be specific about it. Let me talk about the energy provision. There are also, in the tax law today, several important provisions to encourage production of energy from alternative sources--production of energy from wind farms, wind turbines, from solar concentrating facilities, and production of energy from photovoltaic cells that people put on their homes. This is legislation that was enacted--most of it--in 2005. I was honored to be present in 2005 in my home State of New Mexico, in Albuquerque, when President Bush traveled there and stood with Senator Domenici and myself and others at the time to announce that he was signing the 2005 Energy bill. There are some who criticize that bill, but I think there were many good provisions in it, and some of those provisions are these I am talking about right now--the production tax credit for wind energy, the investment tax credit for solar energy. Those provisions, unfortunately, were only enacted through the end of 2008, and that is about, as we can all tell by looking at the calendar, 5 months down the road. So companies that are thinking of investing in projects--under the law, the way we wrote those provisions, the project has to be actually completed and in operation prior to the expiring of the tax credit in order for them to get the tax benefit. Obviously, companies are now looking at this expiration date of December 31 coming up and they are saying: Wait a minute, hold off, we are not going to build that wind farm, we are not going to construct that concentrating solar power facility, we are not going to put those photovoltaic solar cells in place because we don't know if Congress is going to extend this provision or not extend this provision. The vote we had earlier today is not encouraging at all in that regard because it is a signal to the business community that, in fact, Congress is not going to be able to generate the votes necessary to extend that provision. As I understand it, all Democrats who were present voted for proceeding to the bill so we could bring it up, debate it, pass it--at least I hope pass it. I believe five of our Republican colleagues joined us in that effort. But we need more. We cannot get to the 60- vote threshold that is needed without more support from our Republican colleagues. The arguments used against going ahead are numerous, and they are changing all the time. Let me briefly go through these arguments. A main argument is they like the provisions, they support the provisions, they just don't like the so-called offsets. They don't like the idea that we are generating revenue somewhere else to offset the lost revenue from extending these provisions. That is the argument. There are variations on that. One variation is, these are temporary tax provisions, and we are making changes in the Tax Code of a permanent nature in order to offset the loss of revenue. At any rate, we tried to fix that, and I think we have fixed that in the bill Senator Baucus offered earlier today. Another argument is these are in current law. We don't want to offset anything in current law. We want to extend current law from now on even though we were not able to do it under the original budget we are operating under. So that argument is being made. The other argument that is being made, unfortunately, at this point is that somehow or other there is a procedural advantage to refusing to allow us to deal with this legislation. There is some advantage that is being argued accrues to the Republican side in their larger debate about drilling offshore; somehow it helps their position that we ought to drill offshore if they deny us the right to extend these alternative energy tax provisions, the research and development tax provision, the child tax credit, and a variety of other provisions. I have trouble understanding that argument, but it is being made, and somehow it seems to be persuasive to an awful lot of our colleagues. Let me briefly review the bidding here. As far as I understand, the procedure we have gone through this week is on Monday, the majority leader offered debate and votes on domestic production and other matters. I believe the Republican leader at that time indicated he would respond later. On Tuesday, I believe Senator Vitter from Louisiana announced that he had seven amendments on energy that he would like to have considered. Tuesday afternoon, the Republican leader rejected Senator Reid's offer of four amendments on each side. Tuesday afternoon, Senator Reid stated that we would not go forward with amendments on the general subject of energy if we could not go ahead and deal with this extender package. That had to be done first, I think because of his great concern and my great concern that this is an urgent matter. This has languished too long. We need to act on it. In the last 24 hours, we have had filibusters on this effort to move ahead with the tax extender package a couple of times. We also, of course, had a filibuster on the effort to move ahead with the Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer Act, which is the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, trying to increase the level of direct assistance to low-income families in anticipation of the very high costs they are going to face this winter. I don't know if there is a way to get the Senate to move ahead. I compliment the majority leader for the heroic effort he has been making in trying to do that. Obviously, he has not prevailed as yet. The timeline for trying to get action on this tax extender package, or some version of it, is as follows: In June of 2007, we had a bipartisan energy tax package that we brought to the Senate floor, and it got 57 votes. That was not enough to allow us to go ahead. On December 13, 2007, we had a bipartisan package that got actually 59 votes. But, again, 59 votes is not enough to let us proceed in the Senate. On April 18, we did pass a package of provisions of this type with no offset contained. That was a useful thing to do. We have been told in clear and unequivocal terms that we cannot get support to pass such a bill through the House. So we are back trying to get some agreement on how we can pass this package of tax extenders, how we can pass this package of tax provisions related to alternative energy production and related to energy conservation before we leave for the August recess. This is a high priority. Projects are being canceled and delayed as we speak because of our inaction on this matter. I felt it important to come to the Senate floor and try to urge action once again before the week ends. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to talk about the two different energy packages we are debating in the Senate this week because there are two. There is not just the one that the Senator from Tennessee, the Senator from Texas, and the Senator from Arizona were talking about earlier. There are two, and I think we need to focus on both. First, with regard to the effort to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling, let me make one correction on the record. It is being repeatedly said by our Republican friends that 85 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf is off-limits to drilling or off-limits to any kind of leasing. That is not true. The reality is very different. The reality is what this chart demonstrates; that is, that 67 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf today is available for leasing. The reason they say it is only 15 percent is because they do not count Alaska, but Alaska is part of the United States. The area around Alaska has an Outer Continental Shelf, just like the rest of the country has an Outer Continental Shelf. It is clear when we look at it that there is a lot of potential in the Outer Continent Shelf around Alaska. In fact, the Department of the Interior has two lease sales scheduled for next year in the Outer Continental Shelf in Alaska. The Department of the Interior has 16 lease sales scheduled in the next 4 years in the Outer Continental Shelf. This month, in August, they have a lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico. There is a whole series of lease sales coming up, both in Alaska and in the Gulf of Mexico, in areas that are available for leasing. So the constant refrain that we hear that 85 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf is not available for leasing is just not true, and I wanted to correct the record in that regard. If anybody wants to dispute that, I urge them to come to the floor and tell me I am wrong. But I am not wrong. These are figures from the Minerals Management Service. They are the ones in charge of the leasing, and they confirmed these figures. Now let me talk about the other energy-related package which is before us today. Tomorrow the majority leader has announced that we are going to vote on a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to what is called the enhanced tax extenders package. I think the better title for this would be the energy production and conservation tax package. But let me describe what is in this legislation. This is a very important piece of legislation, and I strongly believe we need to proceed to it, then pass it, and send it back to the House. With regard to energy, the package includes tax incentives that are essential to this country if we are going to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. It promotes renewable alternatives to foreign oil. Among these provisions is the production tax credit. The production tax credit is available for people who put in wind farms. We have all seen T. Boone Pickens' advertisements on television. He is talking about the production tax credit. He was before our Energy Committee 3 weeks ago, and he has testified that he favors extending the production tax credit. That is what is in this legislation. It also contains a key 8-year extension of the solar energy and fuel cell investment tax credit. This gives companies the certainty they need to make additional capital investments in U.S. solar facilities while enabling businesses to adopt technologies that can significantly benefit our environment. It includes a long-term extension of the residential energy efficient property credit through 2016. It allows the cap for that to go from $2,000 up to $4,000. It authorizes $2 billion in new clean renewable energy bonds to finance facilities that generate electricity from renewable sources. In the more immediate term, it establishes a new credit for plug-in electric-drive vehicles. I have heard a lot of discussion by our Republican colleagues about how much they favor electric plug-in hybrid vehicles. This legislation actually will do something to promote the development of those vehicles. It is a new credit starting at $3,000 and increasing for each kilowatt hour of additional battery capacity. It incentivizes commercial vehicle owners, particularly trucks, to invest in idling-reduction units, such as auxiliary-power units and advanced insulation so as to reduce their demand for more fuel. It extends credits for energy-efficient improvements in existing homes and in commercial buildings. In addition to all these energy-related tax provisions, which I think are extremely important for us to enact--and let me say, essentially all of the existing provisions I am talking about that we are trying to extend are scheduled to expire at the end of this year, at the end of December. We need to extend them so people can make investments this fall knowing there is still going to be that tax provision in law come next year. But in addition to these energy production and conservation provisions, American businesses generally have a great deal at stake in this legislation. The legislation extends the research and development tax credit. This is extremely important to high-technology firms in our country. It accelerates appreciation for qualified leasehold restaurant and retail improvements. This is small business. Small businesses around this country need this provision extended. It extends an important international tax provision for businesses that engage in active financing. Individual families have a tremendous amount at stake in this legislation. First of all, this legislation contains the so-called patch for the alternative minimum tax. What that means is that there are literally millions of Americans who will be able to avoid having to calculate and pay taxes under the alternative minimum tax if we enact this legislation. If we do not, then they have to go ahead and do that. So this is very important. It extends the child tax credit. I have heard candidates for President talk about how much they favor the child tax credit. Well, this extends the child tax credit and provides a tax credit of up to $1,000 per child to help working poor families. It extends the qualified tuition deduction for higher education expenses--people who have children in university or college who want to have those tuition expenses deducted. It enables retirees to continue making tax-free IRA rollovers to qualified charitable organizations. Mr. President, there is another provision that has been inserted by the chairman of the Finance Committee that I think is very important, and that is the provision we call the Secure Rural Schools and Payments in Lieu of Taxes legislation. Three-quarters of the Senate voted for this legislation when it came up before. We have schools around this country in rural areas that are laying off teachers today because we have not been able to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools Program. This package will provide $3.8 billion to some 2,000 county governments in 49 States to increase support for schools and roads and other critical needs. There is a lot in this legislation that is extremely important, so the obvious question is, Well, why can't we just pass it? Who is objecting? Well, when you try to analyze that question, you get to the issue of offsets. Everyone says they favor the provisions I just described, but they say--particularly on the Republican side--well, we don't agree with the offsets. Let me take a few minutes to describe the different--the variety and flavor of the objections we have heard with regard to offsets. First of all, let me say that this is not a new piece of legislation before the Senate. This legislation came up in June of 2007. We were not able to pass it. It came up in December of 2007. We were not able to pass it. It came up again in 2008 and passed with a large margin because, frankly, there were no offsets in that legislation, which was the Republican preference. It came up with offsets again in June, on June 10 of this year, and again June 17 of this year, and both times it failed. So let me talk about this offset issue. I think that is the core of the problem. The rhetoric on the Republican side has been varied. Some Senators have said it is wrong to offset temporary extensions of current law with permanent tax increases. Now, obviously, the fact that all of this is adding to the deficit--if we don't offset, it all adds to the deficit--doesn't seem to concern people. But somehow or other, there is something about permanent and temporary that is out of sync and objectionable to some people. As I understand it, the bill that Senator Baucus has now filed and that we are going to vote on tomorrow addresses this concern. It sunsets the extender offsets at the end of the budget window and thereby makes sure they are not permanent offsets. A second argument on offsets we have heard from some Republican Members is that they will not accept paying for new tax provisions with offsets, but they will not agree to pay for extensions of current law with offsets. To me, this is something of a peculiar argument. Offsets of existing tax law would be acceptable provided that the offsets were in the nature of a nondefense discretionary spending cut. But if you are trying to offset with additional revenue, it is not acceptable. I know this is getting obtuse, but frankly it is getting difficult to sort through all the rationale that has been put forward for opposing the legislation. A third argument is that some Members say they are opposed to any and all offsets. To include offsets, they say, is tantamount to raising taxes on someone in exchange for cutting taxes on someone else, so that nothing should be offset. I would hope Members paid attention to the news from yesterday. The news from yesterday was that we are, in fiscal year 2009, going to have a budget deficit, estimated by this administration--this is not a Democratic estimate, this is the Bush administration saying that the new administration will come into office with a deficit of $482 billion, the highest on record. Our debt will climb by over $800 billion this 1 year to more than $10 trillion when this President leaves office. I would think that information would concentrate people's minds on whether we ought to offset some of these tax provisions, and clearly, it seems to me, we should. I think the truth is that the concern on the Republican side about offsets is really driven by a different factor, and let me just describe that because I don't think we have had enough discussion of it here on the floor as yet. There are many on the Republican side who are concerned that if they agree to offsets for this package we are voting on tomorrow, this would set a dangerous precedent when the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, the so- called Bush tax cuts, are scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. So they say: If we agree to offsets here, then someone is going to say we ought to have offsets there, and clearly that is not going to be a good position to be in. I would just say that offsetting the current package will cost up to $55 billion. In contrast, the Congressional Budget Office says that extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts--the Bush tax cuts--and adding an AMT patch is going to cost a little over $4 trillion. So we need to focus on the challenges before us, not think hypothetically about how a future tax cut may be handled. Some of our Republican colleagues have pointed to other provisions in the legislation that they find objectionable. I know some of them have said there was a provision in here that allowed trial lawyers to deduct certain expenses. That has been stripped out. Some have said there is a provision to require the Davis-Bacon Act. But the last extenders bill, as well as the one before us today, includes no such provision. I also wish to reiterate my sincere disappointment with the administration. President Bush has previously committed to the energy tax incentives in this bill, which were enacted by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. When he visited my home State of New Mexico to sign the act, the President praised that bill for recognizing ``that America is the world's leader in technology and that we've got to use technology to be the world's leader in energy conservation.'' But while some of us in Congress have been working to ensure that America maintains this leadership role, the administration has been absent. I must question the sincerity of the President's commitment to energy security when he sits by idly and allows these provisions to lapse. It is time for Republicans to stop moving the goal posts. It is time to address America's pressing challenges and it is time to acknowledge the dire fiscal budgetary situation in which we find ourselves, and not to dig the hole even deeper. It is time to pass the extenders package before we leave this week.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me conclude by saying that I believe it is extremely important for us to go ahead and proceed to and pass this tax extender package, and I hope colleagues will support that.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that the general public use provision in that bill, as passed, clarifies that housing does not fail to meet the general public use requirement solely because occupancy restrictions or preferences that favor tenants with (1) special needs; (2) who are members of a specified group under a Federal program or a State program or policy that supports housing for such a specified group, or (3) who are involved in artistic or literary activities. Is that understanding correct?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I believe I have 10 minutes reserved to speak in relation to energy legislation. The first point I want to make is that the legislation the majority leader, Senator Reid, brought to the Senate floor addresses one of the three aspects of the problem we face with high gas prices. I think all of us recognize there are three main factors that are resulting in high gas prices. One is the problem with the functioning of our oil and gas markets, and specifically the problem of speculation and excessive investment in these commodities. That is something Senator Reid has proposed to deal with in the legislation he brought to the floor, and we are going to have a cloture vote on that legislation, I believe, tomorrow. I hope Senators will vote for cloture. I also hope we can add to it some amendments. There is one amendment I am filing today at noon, along with Senator Reid and other Democratic Senators, that tries to address the other two factors that we know and all recognize impact the price of gas; that is, the supply: the supply of oil and, of course, a reduction in demand; how do we reduce the need to buy so much gasoline? This amendment talks about supply and demand, primarily. Let me briefly summarize what this amendment will try to do. First, it promotes diligent development of existing leases. As we have had many debates here on the Senate floor, I think most people are aware there is a lot of the Federal land that is currently leased. The question is, how do we get more of it in a producing state? How do we encourage the companies that have those leases to move ahead more quickly? What we do is we authorize the Secretary to take several steps to encourage more diligent development. We authorize the Secretary to shorten lease terms where appropriate to increase rental fees in later years where appropriate, and generally to do a better job than we fear has been done in connection with encouraging rapid development of these leases. Second, we are suggesting that areas that have not been leased but that could be leased should be looked at and, where possible, leasing should occur. Let me put up a chart in the Chamber that makes the point. I know there has been a lot of talk about how the current moratoria on drilling in this country is locking up 80-some-odd percent of all of our opportunity for drilling. Those are not the facts, as I understand them. As I understand it, there is 33 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf that is subject to a moratorium that therefore, by law, is not available for leasing. There is 67 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf that is available for leasing. What we are saying is, in that area where we have not yet leased--we have leased some of that, but there are other parts of it, substantial parts that have not been leased--let's do several things to try to do more leasing. First, we suggest that the Secretary go ahead and reoffer portions of this 181 lease sale area. The first lease sale in the 181 area occurred in March. There were about 300,000 acres that were not bid on by companies. We think those should be offered again sometime in the near future. That is one of the provisions in this legislation. We call for a doubling of the number of lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico. Two-thirds of the Gulf of Mexico is not subject to moratoria, and we think in the areas that are not subject to moratoria we ought to have more frequent lease sales. Third, in areas offshore Alaska, we think, again, that the Secretary ought to look and see if additional leasing can occur. Let me put up another chart in the Chamber. The current schedule for leasing carries us through 2012. This is the schedule of the Department of the Interior. They have 16 additional lease sales scheduled from now until the end of 2012, some of those offshore Alaska, some of those in the Gulf of Mexico. What we are saying is, let's look and see if there are other lease sales that we could have in the Outer Continental Shelf between now and 2012 to accelerate this. We also propose there be an annual lease sale in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. That is not in the Outer Continental Shelf. That is onshore. But there is a very substantial area there, and a very substantial resource, as best we can determine. On the Roan Plateau leasing in Colorado, again we are proposing that 55,000 acres in that area be leased. This is estimated to contain 9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. We are also proposing that Renewable Energy Pilot Project Offices be established to help facilitate use of public lands for renewable energy resources. I am talking about wind farms, I am talking about solar, concentrating solar powerplants that are beginning to be built in the Southwest. Then, on the demand reduction side, we also have a series of proposals in this amendment that I think are meritorious. One is a provision that has been passed through the Senate several times calling for an interagency task force in the administration to develop an action plan to save 2.5 million barrels of oil by 2016, to save 7 million barrels of oil by 2026, and 10 million barrels of oil by 2030--per day in each case. We are proposing to expand the effort at the Federal, State, and local levels to promote telework and telecommuting. We are proposing to increase support for public transit--transport systems. Many of those systems, because of the high price of fuel, have cut back rather than being able to expand their capacity. We are proposing a fuel economy indicator device be required on all vehicles that are sold in the country beginning in 2012. We believe that would help to focus people's minds on the fact they are using substantial amounts of fuel and encourage smart driving habits to reduce fuel consumption. We have a proposal for an Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program. This would provide help to the automobile manufacturing companies, but also to component companies, including those that are making batteries so they can get on with the construction of the plants needed and the modernization of the plants needed in that regard. As far as advanced batteries are concerned, we believe we should have an interagency task force that develops a roadmap for advanced battery development. We have a proposal with regard to tire efficiency labeling, since we are told by experts that tire efficiency labeling is one of the areas that would improve vehicle fuel efficiency. We have a proposal to require more energy efficient building codes throughout the country. Again, we believe that would be a step in the right direction. And, of course, we also have some provisions that the administration has asked for with regard to the management of our own royalty on Federal leases. They have recommended that we repeal the mandatory Deep Water and Deep Gas Royalty Relief Act for Outer Continental Shelf leases in the Gulf of Mexico. We are suggesting that should be done as part of this amendment, and various other royalty management reforms that have also been recommended by the administration. To sum up, what we are trying to do in the amendment is, we are trying to add to the bill responsible provisions that would help us address the other two factors, in addition to speculation and in addition to problems with additional investment in commodity markets that we think are impacting the price of gas. Taken together--the proposal Senator Reid has made that is going to be voted on tomorrow and these provisions related to supply and related to demand reduction--taken together, we believe we would be taking a positive step on behalf of the American people to begin to moderate the price of gas at the pump. I hope the amendment receives strong support. I hope we have the opportunity to offer it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a summary of the amendment I have been talking about printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 24, 2008, at 10 a.m.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 24, at 9:30 a.m. in room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 24, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 24, 2008, at 2 p.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 24, 2008, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 24, 2008, in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. BINGAMAN. 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 a hearing entitled, ``Crimes Associated with Polygamy: The Need for a Coordinated State and Federal Response'' on Thursday, July 24, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 24, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Improving Federal Program Management Using Performance Information.''

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Zachary Manning, Byron Hurlbut, and Madeleine Ward, who are interns with my office and with the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, be granted floor privileges today.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, later this morning, we are scheduled to vote on the motion to proceed to the legislation that the majority leader was referring to. This legislation is entitled the Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act of 2008. This is legislation that is designed to shed additional light on trading activities in global oil markets. I hope very much the Senate will vote to invoke cloture this morning and that we can proceed, and do so in a bipartisan fashion, to debate the legislation. The topic of speculative investment in our energy markets has been the subject of many hearings throughout many committees of the Senate. In our own committee, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that I chair, along with a handful of other committees, we have had something approaching 30 or 40 hearings during the 110th Congress on this subject. We have heard testimony from industry analysts, traditional producers and consumers of petroleum products, that the recent runup in crude prices can be attributed, at least in part--and there is debate about whether it is 20 percent or more or less, but this runup in prices can be attributed, at least in part, to what are referred to by some of the experts as the ``new fundamentals'' in our energy markets. We had Dan Yergin, from Cambridge Energy Associates, who testified at a workshop we had in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last week, and he talked about the new fundamentals, as he has now for some time. These new fundamental forces include nontraditional investment flows into energy commodity markets, as asset managers seek to hedge against inflationary risks and hedge against the decline in the value of the dollar. This flight of investments into commodities is a symptom of our ailing economy in general. But it also poses a number of serious questions from an energy market perspective. Among those are whether and how the influx of billions of dollars in relatively passive investment is impacting the fundamental price-discovery functions these financial markets are intended to perform; that is to say, to some pension fund managers and index investors taking positions in the oil markets, the price of a barrel of oil on any given day may not be very important. Whether the price is $5 or $500 per barrel, their oil market positions are designed to balance the risk they have in other parts of their portfolio, and they have made a policy judgment to put 10 percent of their portfolio in commodity markets, the oil market being prime among those. So the question for policymakers is whether this investment--this new fundamental: the demand for paper barrels, as it was referred to at our workshop last week--has begun to swamp the price signals that are generated by the more traditional hedgers, the large producers, and consumers of petroleum products in tune to the real-time dynamics of supply and demand. Supply and demand is still a significant factor in the price of oil. There is no question about that. But these new fundamentals are also a significant factor in the view of many experts who have testified to our committee. During the course of the multiple hearings we have held in the Energy Committee, through a series of related correspondence we have had with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and in the ensuing debate in the Senate, I believe that a compelling case has been made that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission requires more authority, needs more authority, needs more resources, needs more explicit direction from Congress to examine these issues in detail. That is what Senator Reid's legislation tries to accomplish. Senator Reid's legislation would provide the CFTC, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, with the tools to do that. It does several things. Let me mention a few. It codifies recent CFTC initiatives related to the conditions under which the United States will allow traders access to foreign boards of trade on which energy commodity contracts are listed. That is an important signal to the market that the United States will take a stronger stand on efforts to circumvent domestic trading rules. The second thing it does is it provides much greater transparency in over-the-counter markets. This is another key building block to putting in place forward-leaning regulatory policies adapted to the increasingly global and electronic environment in which energy is bought and sold. The third thing this legislation does is it includes a number of provisions designed to shine additional light on the nexus, or connection, between the physical commodity and the financial energy markets, and to ask some of the same questions about natural gas markets that we have been asking about petroleum over the last few months. I believe this is an important effort. Particularly it is an important effort in light of what may prove to be a very difficult winter heating season. There are clearly ways in which this underlying legislation can be improved if we have the bipartisan will to do so. In addition, I know some on the other side of the aisle would like to expand the debate on the energy speculation bill to address, in addition, supply and demand- related issues. I believe Senator Reid has indicated an openness to having that done as well, if we can come together on a plan for consideration of amendments. It is clear to me there is indeed more we can do on the topic of curtailing demand and expediting the availability of domestic supply in the United States. I hope we can offer proposals along these lines in the days ahead. Hopefully, we can find some areas of commonality on those measures as well. The first step toward getting to this serious debate--which I think we all believe should occur--the first step to achieving consensus in the Senate is to invoke cloture this morning on the motion to proceed to the energy speculation bill that Senator Reid has brought forward. I urge my colleagues to do so. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Winoka Begay, Max von Bargen, Zach Manning, Erin Griffin, Matt Padilla, Meaghan Stern, Byron Hurlbut, and Jessica Jaramillo, who are interns in my office and in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, be permitted the privileges of the floor today.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public the hearing previously scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Thursday, July 24, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building has been canceled. The purpose of the hearing was to discuss current policy related to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. For further information, please contact Tara Billingsley at (202) 224-4756 or Rosemarie Calabro at (202) 224-5039.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing an important measure that will provide local, State, and Tribal law enforcement agencies along our Nation's borders with critical assistance in addressing border-related criminal activity. I am pleased that Senators Hutchison and Domenici are joining me in introducing this bipartisan legislation. By virtue of their proximity to an international border, law enforcement agencies operating along the border face a variety of unique challenges. Criminal enterprises are able take advantage of weaknesses in security to traffic drugs and other illicit contraband into the country, as well as smuggle weapons and stolen vehicles out of the country. This creates a nexus of criminal activity that requires substantial resources to address. While Congress has dramatically increased funding to hire additional Border Patrol agents and to build tactical infrastructure--such as surveillance cameras and barriers--we haven't done enough in terms of helping local law enforcement. The reality is that although we are making some progress in securing the borders, local law enforcement agencies still have to pick up much of the burden in tackling the criminal activity throughout the region. Many of these police departments are ill-suited to cover these costs without financial assistance. Many are responsible for large, rural areas of land and lack the personnel and equipment to adequately patrol these areas. If we are going to be successful in bringing real security to the border region, we need to have Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies doing their respective parts to fight criminal activity. But to do this, we also need to ensure that local law enforcement have the resources necessary to play a constructive role, and to recognize the substantial costs they are incurring. The Border Law Enforcement Relief Act of 2008 would do just that. Specifically, the legislation would: establish a new competitive grant program within the Department of Justice to assist local law enforcement operating within 100 miles of the U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada; authorize the Attorney General to designate areas outside of the 100-mile limit as ``High Impact Areas'' to permit additional police departments impacted by border-related criminal activity, such as drug smuggling, to access grant funding; and authorize $100 million each year for the next 5 years to implement this program. Let me also be clear about what this legislation would not do. It does not confer local law enforcement with authority to enforce Federal immigration law. The purpose of this bill is to help these agencies cover some of the costs they incur in addressing border-related criminal activity, not to shift another burden to them. The U.S.-Mexico border region is a vibrant area, economically and culturally. International trade with our southern neighbor continues to increase and communities on both sides of the border maintain strong ties. Unfortunately, over the last year and a half we have seen a dramatic increase in the level of violence in Mexico as the government steps up efforts to tackle drug cartels--over 4,000 people have been killed. This violence has had a negative impact on both sides of the border, and Congress recently provided $400 million in assistance for Mexican law enforcement to address this problem. But we also need to be aware of the fact that local law enforcement within the United States also need additional resources to prevent this violence from spreading and to fight these drug gangs in a comprehensive manner. I strongly believe this legislation will provide this essential assistance and I hope my colleagues will support this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing an important measure that will provide local, State, and Tribal law enforcement agencies along our Nation's borders with critical assistance in addressing border-related criminal activity. I am pleased that Senators Hutchison and Domenici are joining me in introducing this bipartisan legislation. By virtue of their proximity to an international border, law enforcement agencies operating along the border face a variety of unique challenges. Criminal enterprises are able take advantage of weaknesses in security to traffic drugs and other illicit contraband into the country, as well as smuggle weapons and stolen vehicles out of the country. This creates a nexus of criminal activity that requires substantial resources to address. While Congress has dramatically increased funding to hire additional Border Patrol agents and to build tactical infrastructure--such as surveillance cameras and barriers--we haven't done enough in terms of helping local law enforcement. The reality is that although we are making some progress in securing the borders, local law enforcement agencies still have to pick up much of the burden in tackling the criminal activity throughout the region. Many of these police departments are ill-suited to cover these costs without financial assistance. Many are responsible for large, rural areas of land and lack the personnel and equipment to adequately patrol these areas. If we are going to be successful in bringing real security to the border region, we need to have Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies doing their respective parts to fight criminal activity. But to do this, we also need to ensure that local law enforcement have the resources necessary to play a constructive role, and to recognize the substantial costs they are incurring. The Border Law Enforcement Relief Act of 2008 would do just that. Specifically, the legislation would: establish a new competitive grant program within the Department of Justice to assist local law enforcement operating within 100 miles of the U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada; authorize the Attorney General to designate areas outside of the 100-mile limit as ``High Impact Areas'' to permit additional police departments impacted by border-related criminal activity, such as drug smuggling, to access grant funding; and authorize $100 million each year for the next 5 years to implement this program. Let me also be clear about what this legislation would not do. It does not confer local law enforcement with authority to enforce Federal immigration law. The purpose of this bill is to help these agencies cover some of the costs they incur in addressing border-related criminal activity, not to shift another burden to them. The U.S.-Mexico border region is a vibrant area, economically and culturally. International trade with our southern neighbor continues to increase and communities on both sides of the border maintain strong ties. Unfortunately, over the last year and a half we have seen a dramatic increase in the level of violence in Mexico as the government steps up efforts to tackle drug cartels--over 4,000 people have been killed. This violence has had a negative impact on both sides of the border, and Congress recently provided $400 million in assistance for Mexican law enforcement to address this problem. But we also need to be aware of the fact that local law enforcement within the United States also need additional resources to prevent this violence from spreading and to fight these drug gangs in a comprehensive manner. I strongly believe this legislation will provide this essential assistance and I hope my colleagues will support this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, July 31, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to conduct oversight on the state of the Nation's transmission grid, as well as the implementation of the 2005 Energy Policy Act transmission provisions, including reliability, siting and infrastructure investment. 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, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Gina Weinstock@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Leon Lowery at (202) 224-2209 or Gina Weinstock at (202) 224-5684.