Jeff Bingaman

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 Tuesday, May 13, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to examine the impacts of climate change on the reliability, security, economics and design of critical energy infrastructure in coastal regions. 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 Rosemarie Calabro@energy.senate.gov For further information, please contact Alicia Jackson at (202) 224- 3607 or Rosemarie Calabro at (202) 224-5039.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Fair Pay Restoration Act, which is currently before the Senate. On May 29, 2007, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc. After her retirement from Goodyear in 1998, Lilly Ledbetter filed a sex discrimination case against her employer. Ms. Ledbetter claimed that she had been paid significantly less than her male counterparts during her work as one of the few female supervisors at Goodyear. Unfortunately, due to a company policy that prohibited employees from discussing their pay, Ms. Ledbetter couldn't confirm the discrimination until she received an anonymous note that detailed the salaries of three of the male managers. This note confirmed that Ms. Ledbetter had been paid 20 +percent to 40 percent less than the male managers throughout her employment with Goodyear. A jury found that this pay discrepancy was based, at least in part, on sex discrimination. Ms. Ledbetter is an example of an employee who has done all that is expected of her. By all reports, she performed her job admirably, the same work being performed by her male counterparts. She raised concerns about her pay level and eventually brought suit against her employer. Through this process came the Supreme Court decision which limits an employee's right to collect backpay to 180 days after the issuance of a discriminatory paycheck. This is true even if the employee was unaware of the discrimination or, as in the case of Ms. Ledbetter, was unable to discover proof of such discrimination through the deliberate efforts of her employer. The Fair Pay Restoration Act is a return to the rational, reasonable approach that had been applied by Federal circuit courts in most States, including my home State of New Mexico, prior to the Ledbetter decision. Under the previous rule, an employee could bring a claim within 180 days of the last discriminatory paycheck. This bill would also implement a limitation on backpay claims to 2 years, providing businesses a protection against claims that are allowed to accumulate over years and encouraging employees to act with all due diligence in pursuing discrimination claims. The Congressional Budget Office has determined that the Fair Pay Act is unlikely to increase the number of claims brought in discrimination cases. We must work to ensure that the courts remain a source of redress for employees many of whom are fighting much larger and better financed employers. Employees should not face unreasonable obstacles in their efforts to pursue a discrimination claim and to seek appropriate remedies. By placing an undue burden on employees to quickly prove discrimination, the Ledbetter decision has negatively altered the use of the courts as a remedy for discriminatory conduct by employers. Employers who are more successful at hampering their employees' efforts to prove discrimination and delay are now afforded more protection than those employers who treat their employees justly under the law. The Fair Pay Restoration Act seeks to restore this equity and to ensure that employees and employers have full and equal access to the courts.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I join the citizens of New Mexico and the United States in celebrating the 100th anniversary of the United States Army Reserve. In 1916 Congress passed the National Defense Act, creating the Officers' Reserve Corps, later named the Organized Reserve Corps, all of which are forerunners of the current Army Reserve. The Army Reserve has been an integral part of numerous conflicts. In both World Wars, Army Reserve soldiers answered the call of duty. In World War I, 89,500 reserve officers were mobilized and during World War II, 200,000 members of the Organized Reserve Corps served, with reserve officers providing 29 percent of the Army's officers. More than 70 Army Reserve units were deployed to the Korean Peninsula providing combat support and combat service. Army Reserve members have also participated in Operation Desert Shield/Storm, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Army Reserve mission has changed over time. Today, the Army Reserve has partnered with FEMA, State, and local agencies in defending the American homeland against terrorist attacks, providing resources and training to ``first responder'' organizations across the Nation. New Mexico started deploying Army Reserve soldiers after September 11, 2001; in fact, as early as December 2001, in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, OEF. New Mexico Army Reserve soldiers are currently deployed in Operation Iraqi Freedom, OIF. Over 50 percent of New Mexico's Army Reserve force have deployed in support of both campaigns. Once again I would like to congratulate the Army Reserve on their centennial. I wish them continued success as they help protect our Nation.

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 Wednesday, April 30, 2008, at 3:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nominations of Kameran L. Onley, of Washington, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior and Jeffrey F. Kupfer, of Maryland, to be Deputy Secretary of Energy. 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 Amanda_kelly@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836.

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, May 1, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to examine the adequacy of State and Federal regulatory structures for governing electric utility holding companies in light of the repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, with particular attention to the report issued by the Government Accountability Office-GAO-08-289, Utility Oversight: Recent Changes in Law Call for Improved Vigilance by FERC. 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, DC 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.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, today I commemorate the life and work of Aldo Leopold, who is remembered as a pivotal figure in the conservation movement of the early 20th century. Today marks the 60th anniversary of Leopold's death, and it offers us an opportunity to reflect on the lasting contributions that he made to our country. Born in Burlington, IA, in 1887, Aldo Leopold was raised near the Mississippi River surrounded by a vibrant ecosystem that sustained abundant waterfowl and other wildlife. Early on, Leopold developed a keen interest in the natural world, devoting much of his spare time to cataloguing his observations. Graduating from Yale in 1909 with a master of forestry degree, he soon joined the nascent U.S. Forest Service with his first field assignments in the American Southwest. His career with the Forest Service brought him to my home State of New Mexico, spending time working in the Gila National Forest in the southwest part of the State before subsequently moving north to the Carson National Forest, where he reached the post of forest supervisor on the Carson. Leopold felt that preservation had been neglected on the national forests. He foresaw the importance of preserving the biological diversity and natural systems giving way to development. He argued against the proposed expansion of a road system into the back country of the Gila National Forest. And in Albuquerque in 1922, he proposed instead that a large area be left roadless and preserved for wilderness recreation. He defined this new concept as ``a continuous stretch of country preserved in its natural state, open to lawful hunting and fishing, big enough to absorb a 2 week's pack trip, and kept devoid of roads, artificial trails, cottages, or other works of man.'' On June 3, 1924, the Forest Service gave its final approval and designated 755,000 acres of national forest land as the Gila Wilderness. This unprecedented act took place 40 years prior to passage of the Wilderness Act and was the first such designation in the world. Leopold once wrote that ``a thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community.'' Today the Gila Wilderness is inhabited by bear, wolf, deer, elk, beaver, bobcat, mountain lion, antelope, and wild turkey. It is a favorite destination for hikers, backpackers, hunters and anglers who enjoy its miles of fishing streams. The Gila Wilderness contains the cliff dwellings of the ancient Mogollon civilization as well as the campsites and battlegrounds of the Apache and the U.S. Cavalry. In fact, John Murray wrote in his book, ``The Gila Wilderness: A Hiking Guide,'' that ``no other wilderness area in the Southwest so much embodies and reflects this national history and natural philosophy as does the Gila.'' Aldo Leopold's concept of wilderness evolved over time and heavily influenced policy makers and the growing conservation community. He wrote, ``Wilderness is the raw material out of which man has hammered the artifact called civilization. . . . To the laborer in the sweat of his labor, the raw stuff on his anvil is an adversary to be conquered. So was wilderness an adversary to the pioneer. But to the laborer in repose, able for the moment to cast a philosophical eye on his world, that same raw stuff is something to be loved and cherished, because it gives definition and meaning to his life.'' One person who shared that definition and meaning with Aldo Leopold was former New Mexico Senator Clinton P. Anderson. In fact, due in large part to the conversations he had with Leopold 40 years earlier, Senator Anderson led the effort in Congress to pass the Wilderness Act of 1964. On April 21, 1948, at the age of 61, Aldo Leopold died of a heart attack while helping his neighbors fight a brush fire near his farm. Just 1 week earlier, Leopold had received word that his book of essays had finally found a publisher. Published over a year after his death, ``A Sand County Almanac'' remains one of Aldo Leopold's greatest legacies to the conservation movement. Leopold laments in ``A Sand County Almanac'' that progress in conservation is slow--a fact that hasn't changed much in modern times. ``Despite nearly a century of propaganda,'' he wrote, ``conservation still proceeds at a snail's pace; progress still consists largely of letterhead pieties and convention oratory. On the back forty we still slip two steps backward for each forward stride.'' On this anniversary of Aldo Leopold death, I am pleased that the Senate is once again making progress on protecting wilderness, through bills such as the Wild Sky Wilderness Act that passed last week, and upcoming bills that are making their way through the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. These bills are effective steps to preserve our heritage for future generations, consistent with the values for which Leopold advocated so eloquently during his life, and I am pleased that so many Senators, on both sides of the aisle, have supported them.

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 Tuesday, May 20, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose is to formally receive the Territorial Energy Assessment as updated pursuant to EPACT 05. 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 Rosemarie_Calabro @energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Allen Stayman or Rosemarie Calabro. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is to advise you that a time change for the hearing scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, for Thursday, May 1, 2008, will begin at 2:15 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the military build-up on Guam: impact on the civilian community, planning, and response. For further information, please contact Allen Stayman or Rosemarie Calabro.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Southwest Border Violence Reduction Act. This legislation is aimed at addressing the drug-related violence that has plagued parts of Mexico and ensuring that we dedicate the resources necessary to stop the flow of weapons that help fuel this violence. In the Mexican state of Chihuahua, which shares a border with New Mexico, there have been over 200 killings since the beginning of 2008, an increase of about 100 percent over the previous year. This violence, which is mostly perpetrated by international drug trafficking organizations, impacts the well-being and safety of communities on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border. Recently it was reported that the entire police force in Palomas, a Mexican town just across the border from Columbus, New Mexico, resigned after repeated threats from drug traffickers. The Chief of Police fled to the United States to seek asylum. On another recent occasion, the Columbus Port of Entry was shut down after there were several killings nearby. As a result, American school children who commute back and forth over the border had to receive a police escort. And just yesterday, the Department of State renewed a travel advisory warning of the ongoing violence. I have met with Mexico's Ambassador, Foreign Minister, and Attorney General to raise serious concerns about the level of violence in the region and to discuss ways to address this problem. I am pleased that the Government of Mexico understands the gravity of this situation and I appreciate Mexico's response in sending 2,000 troops to Chihuahua to bring it under control. However, both Mexican and U.S. law enforcement officials have stressed the need to more aggressively target the criminal enterprises that are supplying weapons to drug cartels. According to ATF, about 90 percent of the firearms recovered in Mexico are trafficked from the United States because high-powered weapons are much easier to purchase in the U.S. than in Mexico. The drug cartels operating along the border smuggle illegal narcotics into the United States and use revenue derived from the drug trade to purchase the firearms they need to maintain control over drug trafficking routes. According to ATF, about 90 percent of the firearms recovered in Mexico originate from sources within the United States because high-powered weapons, such as M-50s, are much easier to purchase in the United States than in Mexico. The ability to fight drug traffickers is significantly hampered by the fact that these violent groups use smuggled weapons to assassinate military and police officials, murder rival members of drug organizations, and kill innocent civilians. In order to reduce violence in the region and disrupt the drug trade, it is essential that we aggressively work to prevent drug trafficking organizations operating in Mexico from obtaining these weapons. This effort requires that additional resources be allocated to target weapons trafficking networks supplying these arms and enhanced international cooperation in tracing the sources of weapons seized in Mexico. To this end, the legislation I am introducing today would authorize additional resources to expand a successful ATF initiative, Project Gunrunner, which is aimed at combating arms smuggling. The bill would also increase the training and support of Mexican law enforcement in investigating firearms trafficking cases. Specifically, the legislation would enable ATF to hire, train, and deploy an additional 80 special agents to establish and support seven more Project Gunrunner Teams that are solely devoted to disrupting firearm trafficking organizations smuggling weapons into Mexico. The bill also would make it possible for ATF to place at least 12 additional special agents in Mexico to support Mexican law enforcement in tracing seized firearms. Two Special Agents could be assigned to U.S. Consulates throughout the border region, Guadalajara, Chihuahua, Matamoros, Hermosillo, Tijuana, and Mazatlan, in conjunction with existing DEA offices. Funds would cover salaries, protective and investigative equipment, and other costs associated with maintaining a foreign presence. And lastly, the legislation would significantly increase ATF efforts to assist and train Mexican law enforcement officers with weapons trafficking investigations. The bill authorizes $24.5 million for each fiscal year 2009 and 2010 to implement this Act. I strongly believe that it is essential that the U.S. enhance its efforts to stop the flow of weapons being trafficked into Mexico, and I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Southwest Border Violence Reduction Act. This legislation is aimed at addressing the drug-related violence that has plagued parts of Mexico and ensuring that we dedicate the resources necessary to stop the flow of weapons that help fuel this violence. In the Mexican state of Chihuahua, which shares a border with New Mexico, there have been over 200 killings since the beginning of 2008, an increase of about 100 percent over the previous year. This violence, which is mostly perpetrated by international drug trafficking organizations, impacts the well-being and safety of communities on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border. Recently it was reported that the entire police force in Palomas, a Mexican town just across the border from Columbus, New Mexico, resigned after repeated threats from drug traffickers. The Chief of Police fled to the United States to seek asylum. On another recent occasion, the Columbus Port of Entry was shut down after there were several killings nearby. As a result, American school children who commute back and forth over the border had to receive a police escort. And just yesterday, the Department of State renewed a travel advisory warning of the ongoing violence. I have met with Mexico's Ambassador, Foreign Minister, and Attorney General to raise serious concerns about the level of violence in the region and to discuss ways to address this problem. I am pleased that the Government of Mexico understands the gravity of this situation and I appreciate Mexico's response in sending 2,000 troops to Chihuahua to bring it under control. However, both Mexican and U.S. law enforcement officials have stressed the need to more aggressively target the criminal enterprises that are supplying weapons to drug cartels. According to ATF, about 90 percent of the firearms recovered in Mexico are trafficked from the United States because high-powered weapons are much easier to purchase in the U.S. than in Mexico. The drug cartels operating along the border smuggle illegal narcotics into the United States and use revenue derived from the drug trade to purchase the firearms they need to maintain control over drug trafficking routes. According to ATF, about 90 percent of the firearms recovered in Mexico originate from sources within the United States because high-powered weapons, such as M-50s, are much easier to purchase in the United States than in Mexico. The ability to fight drug traffickers is significantly hampered by the fact that these violent groups use smuggled weapons to assassinate military and police officials, murder rival members of drug organizations, and kill innocent civilians. In order to reduce violence in the region and disrupt the drug trade, it is essential that we aggressively work to prevent drug trafficking organizations operating in Mexico from obtaining these weapons. This effort requires that additional resources be allocated to target weapons trafficking networks supplying these arms and enhanced international cooperation in tracing the sources of weapons seized in Mexico. To this end, the legislation I am introducing today would authorize additional resources to expand a successful ATF initiative, Project Gunrunner, which is aimed at combating arms smuggling. The bill would also increase the training and support of Mexican law enforcement in investigating firearms trafficking cases. Specifically, the legislation would enable ATF to hire, train, and deploy an additional 80 special agents to establish and support seven more Project Gunrunner Teams that are solely devoted to disrupting firearm trafficking organizations smuggling weapons into Mexico. The bill also would make it possible for ATF to place at least 12 additional special agents in Mexico to support Mexican law enforcement in tracing seized firearms. Two Special Agents could be assigned to U.S. Consulates throughout the border region, Guadalajara, Chihuahua, Matamoros, Hermosillo, Tijuana, and Mazatlan, in conjunction with existing DEA offices. Funds would cover salaries, protective and investigative equipment, and other costs associated with maintaining a foreign presence. And lastly, the legislation would significantly increase ATF efforts to assist and train Mexican law enforcement officers with weapons trafficking investigations. The bill authorizes $24.5 million for each fiscal year 2009 and 2010 to implement this Act. I strongly believe that it is essential that the U.S. enhance its efforts to stop the flow of weapons being trafficked into Mexico, and I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 23, 2008, at 3:00 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. 662, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to evaluate resources at the Harriet Beecher Stowe House in Brunswick, Maine, to determine the suitability and feasibility of establishing the site as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes; S. 827, to establish the Freedom's Way National Heritage Area in the States of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, and for other purposes; S. 923 and H.R. 1528, to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the New England National Scenic Trail, and for other purposes; S. 956, to establish the Land Between the Rivers National Heritage Area in the State of Illinois, and for other purposes; S. 2073, to amend the National Trails System Act relating to the statute of limitations that applies to certain claims; S. 2513, to modify the boundary of the Minute Man National Historical Park, and for other purposes; S. 2604, to establish the Baltimore National Heritage Area in the State of Maryland, and for other purposes; S. 2804, to adjust the boundary of the Everglades National Park, and for other purposes; H.R. 53, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a long-term lease with the Government of the United States Virgin Islands to provide land on the island of Saint John, Virgin Islands, for the establishment of a school, and for other purposes; and H.R. 1483 (Subtitles C, D, and F of title II, title III, section 4006 of title IV, and titles V and VI only), to amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to extend the authorization for certain national heritage areas, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to rachel_pasternack@energy.senate .gov. For further information, please contact David Brooks or Rachel Pasternack.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power. The hearing will be held on Thursday, April 24, 2007, at 2:15 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 2680, Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel Environmental Improvement Act of 2008; S. 2805, Rio Grande Pueblos Irrigation Infrastructure Improvement Act; S. 2814, Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System Authorization Act; H.R. 29, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct facilities to provide water for irrigation, municipal, domestic, military, and other uses from the Santa Margarita River, California, and for other purposes; H.R. 1803, San Diego Water Storage and Efficiency Act of 2007; H.R. 123, to authorize appropriations for the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund. 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 Gina_Weinstock@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Michael Connor or Gina Weinstock.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I know my colleague from New Mexico will be here in a few minutes and wishes to make a statement in support of the legislation that is before us now. I will start by making my own statement, a general statement about it. I know Senator Wyden also is here on the Senate floor and wishes to speak on this issue and on this legislation. I know, of course, Senator Coburn is also very nearby and wishes to make a statement as well. The Senate will consider at this time S. 2739. It is a collection of over 60 noncontroversial bills that have been reported from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee dealing with various public land, national park, water, and territorial issues. Let me start by thanking Senator Reid, our majority leader, for making it possible for us to proceed with this bill at this time. This has been a priority of his for several months now, to get this legislation before the Senate. He deserves great credit for doing that. All of the individual bills included in S. 2739 have been passed by the House of Representatives and virtually all of the bills--or their Senate companion measures--have also been favorably reported by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The committee votes on reporting these bills have been unanimous. Typically, these bills would be considered individually and passed under a unanimous consent agreement. Unfortunately, as most Senators are aware, it has become virtually impossible to get unanimous consent to pass anything this year. So despite the fact these bills generally deal with State-specific issues and have the strong support of the affected congressional delegation, and despite the fact that these bills are noncontroversial--having passed the House of Representatives and having been reported by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee with overwhelming bipartisan support--we have not been able to get them cleared. In an attempt to move these bills forward, last month I introduced S. 2739, which simply incorporates every bill our committee has reported that has also been passed by the House of Representatives. The package includes roughly an equal mix of Democratic-sponsored bills, Republican-sponsored bills, and bills with bipartisan sponsors. As I have already noted, since these bills have been reported out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee by unanimous votes, there really are not any outstanding issues in dispute. Many of the individual bills that are included in this package have been on the Senate calendar for several months; in fact several were reported by our committee and have been pending on the calendar since January of last year--not January of 2008 but January of 2007. A number of the bills have been approved by the Senate--by unanimous consent, I might add--in previous Congresses, in some cases in several previous Congresses. While the individual bills in this package may not be controversial, they are nonetheless very important to the individual sponsors, and the Senate has an obligation to try and pass these bills. I would like to take a few minutes to briefly identify some of the provisions included within S. 2739. The bills included within S. 2739 encompass lands and activities in over 30 States and the District of Columbia. The first provision in the package is Senator Murray's and Senator Cantwell's proposal to designate the 106,000-acre Wild Sky wilderness in Washington State, which the Senate has passed in each of the last three previous Congresses. The Wild Sky wilderness is an important addition to the National Wilderness Preservation, and has strong local and national support. Another provision in the bill includes language sponsored by Senators Wyden and Akaka to give the National Park Service important new authority to enter into cooperative agreements to protect threatened natural resources in national parks. S. 2739 also includes additions to the Minidoka National Monument in Idaho and Washington State, the Carl Sandburg National Historic Site in North Carolina, and the Lowell National Historical Park in Massachusetts, and the bill provides the National Park Service with important new authorities at Acadia National Park in Maine and Denali National Park in Alaska. It authorizes studies of potential new parks in Missouri, Texas, Arkansas, California, Arizona, and Massachusetts to assess whether any would be appropriate for addition to the National Park System, and it establishes commissions to commemorate significant anniversaries of the Hudson and Champlain expeditions in what are now the northeastern United States. S. 2739 would designate two new Outstanding Natural Areas to be managed by the Bureau of Land Management: the Piedras Blancas Historic Light Station in California, and the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse in Florida. It also allows for BLM land in Nevada to be transferred for use by the Nevada National Guard. The package includes a new addition to the Wild and Scenic River System in Connecticut, and a new addition to the National Trails System, the ``Star-Spangled Banner'' National Historic Trail in Virginia and Maryland. The bill includes authorizations related to new commemorative works in the District of Columbia, including one honoring President Eisenhower, and establishes a commission to study the potential creation of a National Museum of the American Latino, here in Washington. S. 2739 would establish three new National Heritage Areas: the Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area in Illinois; the Niagara Falls National Heritage Area in New York, and the multi-State Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area in Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania, and it authorizes studies of potential new heritage areas in Oregon and Kentucky. It would also increase the authorization ceiling for several existing heritage areas. This bill will help address the water resource challenges facing many regions of the country. There are 16 provisions in the bill affecting States west-wide, including sections that will promote partnerships between the Federal Government, States, and local entities in the area of water, including paying for security costs at Bureau of Reclamation facilities; ensure a better understanding of groundwater resources; facilitate a feasibility study of serious proposals to address water shortages and avoid litigation; transfer Federal property to local ownership and eliminate Federal restrictions impeding water conservation projects; promote water recycling activities; and authorize Federal participation in the Platte River Endangered Species Recovery Program, which is strongly supported in Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming. Given the critical nature of many of these items, it's important that these water-related authorities be enacted as soon as possible. S. 2379 also reauthorizes two energy programs at the Department of Energy. One clarifies the Secretary of Energy's authority to make grants to advanced energy efficiency technology transfer centers under the Energy Policy Act of2005, and the other reauthorizes the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988. The package contains two important measures related to the territories. The first involves the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands--CNMI--to respond to longstanding Federal concerns regarding immigration, labor, and law enforcement--concerns that are greatly heightened following the September 11 attacks. This bill culminates 11 years of congressional and executive branch efforts to extend the U.S. immigration laws to the CNMI including the establishment of Federal border control as anticipated by the 1976 covenant agreement between the CNMI and the United States. The bill also includes special provisions to meet the special needs of the islands' economy. The citizens of the CNMI have been U.S. citizens and members of the U.S. family for over 20 years, but they have been unable to participate in American democracy as have the other territories. S. 2793 rectifies this by authorizing the election of a Delegate from the CNMI to the House of Representatives, a necessary step if we are to keep faith with our Nation's founding principle of representative government. The final title of S. 2739 would make numerous amendments to the Compacts of Free Association between the United States and the Pacific island nations of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau. As lengthy as that summary of the provisions in S. 2739 was, it reflects only a portion of the bills that have been considered in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee this Congress. This package reflects only a first step of Energy Committee bills that need to be considered this year. As soon as S. 2739 is passed, I will assemble a second package, with a similar number of bills, containing legislation that has been approved by our committee, but which has not yet come over from the other body. Like this package, the second bill will be a wide-ranging collection of authorizing measures. But regardless of whether the individual items in that package are large or small, all these bills will have been reported by our committee after a full public process. I know many Senators who have bills that will be, in fact, in that second package rather than in this first package and are eager for us to move ahead. I would point out the New Mexico-specific bills I have sponsored will be in that second package; they are not in the legislation before us today. So I share in that desire to move expeditiously, and I look forward to working with Senator Domenici and the majority leader and, of course, the Republican Leader as well to try to get that second package ready for floor consideration as soon as possible. Senate rule XLIV requires the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction to certify that each Congressionally directed spending item in any bill coming before the Senate has been identified and disclosed on a publicly accessible Congressional Web site. The rule defines ``congressionally directed spending items'' as spending items ``included primarily at the request of a Senator.'' Although I included none of the House-passed bills in S. 2739, primarily at the request of a Senator, in the interests of full disclosure I have provided a list of all spending authorizations for specific amounts targeted to specific localities contained in S. 2739, along with the name of the sponsor of the Senate companion of the House-passed bill. This list has been made available on the Web site of the Committee of Energy and Natural Resources since March 11 and was previously printed in the Congressional Record on March 11, at page S. 1869. In addition, I ask unanimous consent that the list, along with my letter to the Majority Leader accompanying the list, be printed in the Record for the information of all Senators.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Oklahoma has three additional amendments he wants to present. I believe he has 30 minutes on his side and I have less than 15 on our side. I will defer to him to go ahead, and then I will have a few minutes to respond.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I gather that is in our total hour? I am glad to yield that to my colleague.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we have just now concluded the debate on these amendments. I would yield back the time unless the Senator from Oklahoma wishes to speak.

Mr. BINGAMAN. While I have previously tried to describe all the provisions in the package, I believe the individual sponsors can better describe the merits of some of their specific provisions. I am sure many of them will want to do so. Passage of S. 2739 will not only allow us to send this to the House and then to the President, it will also allow us to move forward and address the many legislative pending requests within our Energy and Natural Resources Committee that have been awaiting consideration behind this bill. I think it is important to remember all the individual provisions included in the package were previously approved by the House of Representatives. I know in a few minutes the Senate will also be considering four amendments that have not been approved either in the House or by our Energy and Natural Resources Committee. To ensure that we do not jeopardize the enactment of S. 2739, I will be opposing all those amendments, and I will urge my colleagues to do so as well, so we can finally pass this bill in a form the House can quickly pass and send to the President for his signature. As I indicated before, I know Senator Domenici wishes to make a statement. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me respond on this particular amendment that the Senator from Oklahoma has presented or called up for consideration. The amendment does require the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to post an annual report on the Internet that details quite a few different things. First, how much land is ``within the jurisdiction of the United States;'' second, how much of that land is owned by the Federal Government, both in total and on a State-by-State basis; third, a description of how much it costs to maintain all lands, buildings, and structures on an agency-by-agency basis; fourth, extensive information on the number of unused and vacant assets and the value of operating costs for each such vacant asset; fifth, the estimated maintenance backlog of each Federal agency, presumably on these various assets. The amendment does not just apply to national parks and national forests and reclamation projects and public domain lands which, of course, our committee would have jurisdiction of, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, but also the national wildlife refuges, Indian trust lands, GSA properties, post offices, military bases and facilities, veterans hospitals. And those, of course, are under the jurisdiction of other committees I do not serve on. To give a sense of the breadth of the amendment, the Office of Management and Budget would have to provide detailed information each year on approximately 1.2 billion real property assets worldwide and over 636 million acres of land. There is no provision in the amendment to exempt any sensitive information that the Department of Defense might wish to withhold or the Department of Energy or the CIA or any other agency that has a national security responsibility. While there is certainly room for improvement in Federal property management--and in that regard I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma-- I do not believe we are ready to act on this amendment at this time or adopt this amendment. I believe compliance with the amendment would be very burdensome, time consuming, and expensive, and, of course, it is a responsibility that would have to be updated each year. My own view is, this amendment, if proposed as a freestanding bill, would not be referred to our committee, not the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I believe it would be referred to the Homeland Security Committee because they have Government-wide responsibility. We have no idea how much cost would be involved to each agency in compiling this information for the Office of Management and Budget. I assume it would be a substantial cost, and it is not one that I think we should act upon with this bill without any idea of that cost. So my own preference, frankly, would be that if the Senator wishes to have a report such as this developed, the appropriate way to proceed would be to go to the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, ask for a hearing on this proposal, get that committee to look seriously at what can be done to develop this kind of report, what cost is involved in developing this kind of report, whether there are needs that national security would require for putting some exemptions into this report so that we would not be putting on the Internet information that some of our national-security- related agencies would not want posted on the Internet. That would be the approach I would urge on my colleague. So for all of those reasons, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose it when it comes to a vote.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me speak briefly in opposition to this amendment and explain my understanding of it. This amendment prohibits the three agencies, the Department of Interior, Department of Energy, and the Forest Service, from assuming control--that is the phrasing in the amendment--over any parcel of land except through a voluntary exchange, unless the citizens of the political subdivision in which the parcel is located approve the assumption of control by referendum. Even if the assumption of control by the agency is approved by a referendum, that approval terminates at the end of 10 years, unless there is another referendum that extends it beyond 10 years. It seems likely to me that the amendment would affect more than just the acquisition of fee title to land. It appears to include the interests in lands, such as rights of way, easements, possibly water rights, taking lands into trust for Indian tribes, and perhaps even friendly condemnations for public purposes. As I read the amendment, since the only exception is for voluntary exchanges of property, I would think the sale of property--if one of these agencies wants to buy the land and a private landowner wants to sell the land to the agency, it would have to be approved by referendum. The amendment would give counties and communities, political subdivisions, veto authority over any Federal land ownership by these three agencies. I think it would frustrate congressional efforts to purchase or protect lands to make it virtually impossible to provide for any long-term Federal management or protection, such as is attempted in our national parks and monuments, wildlife refuges, historic sites, and wilderness areas. The amendment would adversely impact much more than land designated for conservation purposes. It would also impact Bureau of Reclamation dams, reservoirs, energy pipelines, and DOE facilities. I think the concept of having to do another referendum every 10 years--I don't know how that would work, frankly. I don't know what would happen if you lose. Suppose the Federal Government goes ahead and acquires land through whatever means for a reservoir. At the end of the 10 years, there has to be another referendum on whether the Federal Government should maintain that land for that reservoir. If the referendum fails, I don't know what we would do with that reservoir at that point. There is not much of a private market for reservoirs. I don't know what action the Government would be expected to take at that point. For a variety of reasons, I do not think this is a workable amendment, and it is one I urge my colleagues to oppose.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me speak in opposition to this amendment as well. This amendment would establish new restrictions for the three national heritage areas that are designated in this bill. It would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from approving a management plan for a heritage area unless the local coordinating entity, which is usually a nonprofit group that is promoting tourism in this heritage area and developing the management plan, has provided written notification to each individual residing or owning property there. The amendment also prohibits employees of the National Park Service or the local coordinating entity, usually the nonprofit group, from entering any private property within the heritage area without the written consent of the property owner. The amendment, in my view, fails to understand what the designation of a heritage area means. Let me read some boilerplate language we put in every one of these national heritage area bills. It says in the bill, and we have this three times in this legislation because there are three heritage areas: Nothing in the subtitle abridges the rights of any property owner, including the right to refrain from participating in any plan, project, program or activity conducted within the heritage area. Nothing in the subtitle requires any property owner to permit public access to the land. Nothing in the title alters any duly adopted land use regulation. Nothing in the title authorizes or implies the reservation or appropriation of any water or water rights. Nothing in the title creates any liability, affects any liability under any other law of any private property owner with respect to any person injured on private property. There is substantial confusion, I believe, about the idea that there is some great decrement of private property rights by the designation of these heritage areas. The prohibition against employees of the National Park Service or coordinating entity from being able to enter private property without written permission of the landowner does not make sense, in my opinion. Heritage areas do not involve acquisition of Federal land. The amendment applies to any private land within large areas of the State. We have one in northern New Mexico which I was urged to try to establish--and we were able to establish it--by people who wanted to promote tourism in northern New Mexico. Under this language, a member of the Park Service or the coordinating entity would not be able to go to a mall or a restaurant or go to any other private property in northern New Mexico in a three-county area without written consent of the landowner. In my view, the amendment should be defeated, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it when the time comes.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, 2 minutes is remaining?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, before we leave this amendment, I wish to make one more point. I read the language that is in the bill in each of these heritage area provisions that says there is nothing that prohibits or restricts the right of the landowner to deny access to his or her private property. That is the case under State property law in every State in the Union. If I own a piece of property, if I am a private landowner and I don't want people coming on the land, I have the right to deny them access on my land. That includes Federal officials, surveyors, anybody I want to deny the right to come on my land. There is nothing in our legislation that in any way changes that.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me speak briefly on this amendment and in opposition to this amendment as well. The amendment provides 1 percent of all amounts made available to the Secretary of the Interior to carry out the various provisions of the legislation--that is to the 60-some odd bills that are included here-- beginning in 2008 and each fiscal year thereafter, be made available to the Director of the Park Service to dispose of assets described in the candidate asset disposition list. This is a list of structures the Park Service intends to demolish or to dispose of. I think the description the Senator from Oklahoma made contemplated the sale of property. The truth is this is a list the Park Service keeps of buildings they no longer want to maintain. They wish to dispose of these, in the sense of destroying them, or tearing them down. The amendment is essentially a tax on future appropriations for all of the programs in this package to pay for a specific asset disposal program of one agency within the Department of the Interior. Many of the programs authorized in this legislation have nothing to do with the National Park Service. It makes no sense, in my view, to reduce amounts appropriated for various unrelated programs and to other agencies, especially when the Park Service has never identified funding of its asset disposal program as a problem. Each year we get a budget from the Department of Interior. They have never requested specific funds for this purpose. Instead, they use their regular construction funding to destroy property, to destroy these buildings when they determine that is a priority for them. The amendment, of course, in my view also impinges upon the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee. I am not on the committee, my colleague Senator Domenici is, but we are essentially saying here that all future appropriations that relate to bills that are part of this legislation shall be taxed by 1 percent for this other purpose. That seems to me an unusual way for the Congress to begin undermining, through an authorizing bill, the appropriations that otherwise should be made by the Congress. I urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Karl Cordova, who is a Bevinetto Fellow working with our staff on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the debate on S. 2739.