Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on the two sides?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me speak for a few minutes to give my view of the legislation. First, let me just say energy issues are very much on the minds of the American people. Rightly so. We have oil trading at above $75 a barrel. We have the price of gas at the pump above $3 in most parts of this country today. Clearly there are a lot of explanations for that, but that is part of the reason we should be focusing on this set of issues. We have high and growing demand for energy in the world. We have high prices because not only do we have high demand, we have constrained supply, and we have great uncertainty in the world. All of that affects the price of oil and the price of natural gas as well. Whether the uncertainty is in the Middle East, whether it is in the Nigerian Delta, whether it is threats of curtailed imports from Venezuela--there are all kinds of reasons the price of oil is high. We need to focus on how do we begin to pursue a strategy that helps solve these problems. The truth is, our country is on the wrong track when it comes to oil and gas. According to the Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook, our projected future demand for oil and natural gas is going to far outstrip our domestic production capabilities, and that circumstance is getting worse, not better. All of the projections are that after the passage of this bill, it will continue to get worse, not better. We have the opportunity, the Members of the Senate and Members of Congress, to try to make some decisions to get the supply/demand equation better into balance. How can we use oil and gas more efficiently and thereby need less than the projections would indicate we might wind up needing? How do we substitute the alternative fuels in our energy mix on a faster basis, on an accelerated basis? How do we produce more and how do we find ways to be more efficient? A year ago this coming Saturday, we had final passage of the comprehensive Energy bill we passed last year, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. On balance, I believe--I still believe and believed at that time--that was a good piece of legislation. Mr. President, 74 Senators voted for it. We had a majority of Republicans voting for it. We had a majority of Democrats voting for it. The bill was put together on a bipartisan basis in the Senate Energy Committee under the leadership of its chairman, Senator Domenici, from my home State of New Mexico. When the bill came to the floor, of course, Senators on all sides of the many issues in that bill were given an opportunity to bring their amendments to the floor, to debate those amendments, to have them voted on, and despite the broad sweep of that legislation, we completed that process in 2 weeks. After passage of the bill, we went ahead and had a very fair and open and inclusive conference with the House of Representatives that resulted in a conference report that enjoyed broad, bipartisan support. The Energy Policy Act addressed energy production. It addressed energy conservation. It addressed energy technology and renewable energy, and it addressed oil and gas and coastal impact assistance, including assistance to the States which are most interested in this legislation. It made significant strides in the right direction on a host of issues. I had hoped, frankly, that we could continue to move forward in the energy policy area this year by acting on a series of measures to address the remaining issues. There are clearly remaining issues that need attention. One of those is the lack of effective steps to increase efficiency in the use of oil and natural gas. We did not do what we should have done in last year's Energy bill to deal with that issue. The Senate version of the bill had some good ideas in it. Unfortunately, they were dropped in the conference. We were not able to persuade the House to agree to those. For that reason, this past May, I joined with a bipartisan group here in the Senate to introduce S. 2747, the Enhanced Energy Security Act. That bill addresses oil savings and alternative fuel infrastructure and provides for a renewable portfolio standard and various other efficiency and conservation measures. Another energy measure I hoped we could act on this year is S. 2253. That is the bill which would have required the Secretary of the Interior to offer for lease lands within this original lease sale 181 area we have been discussing as part of this legislation. Early this year, I joined with Senator Domenici to develop and introduce the bill on a bipartisan basis. The bill would have opened portions of the original lease sale 181 area that had been proposed for leasing in 1997 by the Clinton administration. That proposal by the Clinton administration was made after negotiations with then-Governor Lawton Chiles, our former colleague here in the Senate, Governor Lawton Chiles from Florida. Those areas had been taken off limits by a decision by the Bush administration. I think some may not realize that we would not even be here today talking about opening lease sale 181 for possible drilling if the Bush administration had followed through on the Clinton administration's schedule for leasing. They proposed to do that, and it was on their schedule when this administration came into office. The bill Senator Domenici and I introduced did nothing to affect areas under congressional moratoria or areas that had been withdrawn by Presidential decree or order. No part of the area to be leased was closer than 100 miles from any point in Florida. We have a map here that will give people an idea of what was involved with lease sale 181. This is the bill which was reported out of the Energy Committee with bipartisan support. You can see the line there, which is the 100-mile line, showing we are not getting within 100 miles of Florida and showing the additional area that would be open for leasing. I should point out that between the time Senator Domenici and I introduced S. 2253 and the date our committee had a hearing on that bill, the administration published its own draft proposed program for oil and gas leasing for the period 2007 through 2012. That 5-year plan called for a lease sale in the 181 area in the fall of 2007. The area the administration proposed for leasing contained about 3.07 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 620 million barrels of oil. The current state of play under current law is that even if this legislation does not become law, the administration plans to open that area for leasing beginning in the fall of 2007. It was good news when we learned the administration intended to proceed to lease this new area. It meant that a substantial new development of oil and gas would take place even if we didn't succeed with the bill Senator Domenici and I introduced. At the hearing we had on S. 2253, I asked the Director of the Minerals Management Service, which is the agency with responsibility for this leasing, Ms. Johnnie Burton, whether the administration's plans would wind up coinciding with what the bill envisioned if passage of the bill was delayed. She replied that that certainly would be the case. After the Energy Committee reported the bill in early March, we received additional evidence that the plans for leasing new areas in this draft 5-year plan were on fairly solid ground, and the new evidence was that the Congressional Budget Office booked the expected revenues from royalties and bonus bids in the budget baseline for this 10-year period, 2006 through 2016. Even though a good portion of the oil and gas contemplated in the original bill reported by the Energy Committee was incorporated into the developing plans of the Minerals Management Service, I thought it made sense that with the balance of the initial area opened by S. 2253, we go ahead with the bill and try to enact it. Unfortunately, at least from my perspective, events since the committee reported the bill to the full Senate have changed the bill in very substantial ways. In my view, this is not the bill that we worked on in committee. Several of our colleagues in the Senate took the position that S. 2253 should not move forward without certain modifications. My colleagues from Florida expressed a desire for a long-term moratorium off the coasts of their State. My colleagues from other Gulf Coast States indicated that they would object to S. 2253 being considered without those States receiving a fixed percentage of the revenues from the oil and gas produced in the Federal Outer Continental Shelf off their coasts. Both of these demands, which were satisfied in this bill, which has now come to the Senate floor, S. 3711, in my view, have undermined the goals of the original bill. Because S. 3711, which is the bill now pending in the Senate, locks up vast areas of the Outer Continental Shelf off Florida, and because the bill provides for the ceding to 4 of our 50 States billions of dollars of Federal revenues, I find myself in the position of having to oppose the bill. The chairman of the Energy Committee will point out that S. 3711 opens two new areas in the Gulf of Mexico. That is true. Beyond the area proposed for opening by the new 5-year plan that I talked about, Minerals Management Service, S. 3711 opens a triangular sliver in the area known as ``the bulge.'' You can see that sort of orange area on here. That is new under this legislation. The legislation also opens the so-called 181 south area, which is currently under a congressional moratorium that expires this September 30. There is also a Presidential withdrawal for that area which is 181 south. That is the lighter orange area down below the area that we have been talking about. In order to get these additional resources that are provided for in this bill, which amounts to 2.76 trillion cubic feet of gas, S. 2711 puts 21.83 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the eastern Gulf of Mexico off limits until 2022. I don't think it is a very good trade for the people of America for us to give up access to 21 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in order to gain access to 2.76 trillion cubic feet. Some of that 21 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that is being put under a 16-year moratorium in this bill is in areas that have never been controversial in Congress. These areas were part of the original lease sale 181 area that every annual congressional moratorium had exempted. We are talking about this entire yellow area. I think this chart is very similar to the chart that the Senator from Florida, Mr. Martinez, has been using. It shows a very much larger area that is being subjected to this 16-year moratorium than we have ever put under moratorium before. These yellow moratorium areas that are within the blue of the original lease sale 181 area shown on the chart, these three resource- rich areas are not now under moratorium. If Congress does not enact S. 3711, these areas could be leased under the next 5-year plan, if the administration decided to include them, instead of being locked up until 2022. Let me, also, for a moment show a chart that our colleague, Senator Craig, was using earlier this afternoon. He has a chart showing what is happening south of the area that we are locking up for the next 16 years. This is the thatched area down near Cuba. I think looking at his chart sort of brings home the unfortunate handicap we are putting ourselves under with this legislation. In fact, Senator Craig's bill, of which I am a cosponsor, would allow U.S. oil companies to participate in the development of this thatched area, the oil and gas resources in this thatched area down near Cuba, some of which is as close as 50 miles from the State of Florida. But at the same time in this legislation, we are saying we are going to prohibit drilling for the next 16 years in areas as far as 230 miles from the State of Florida. To my mind, that doesn't make good sense. It would be ironic if Cuba proceeded with drilling in its waters to extract at least 4 billion barrels of oil under its territory, while at same time we were passing legislation saying there would be no drilling in the waters we control through 2022. That is exactly what this legislation says. Referring again to Senator Craig's statement, he talked about the ``no zone''--the large ``no zone'' all around the country, where nobody wants to allow drilling. I will say we are adding to the ``no zone'' very substantially with this legislation by putting in this yellow area areas that had not been subject to moratorium and certainly have not been subject to anything such as a 16-year moratorium, as we are about to enact here. In addition to being bad energy supply policy for the long term, S. 3711 is also, in my view, bad fiscal and budgetary policy for the long term. The bill directs, as I think many have mentioned, 37.5 percent of revenues from new leases to the four States, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Starting in 2017, a second royalty diversion using the same percentage would be applied to new leases in existing areas of the Gulf of Mexico open to production. We have a chart which makes the case as to what we are talking about. We are saying, in the western Gulf of Mexico and the middle Gulf of Mexico, that we are, in fact, going to cede 37.5 percent of the royalties from production on new wells in those areas to these four States as well; that those are funds which otherwise would go into the Federal Treasury. In order to avoid a point of order under the Budget Act, S. 3711 purports to cap the revenue sharing, from 2016 to 2035, at $500 million per year. And then it has a very interesting provision. It says ``net of receipts.'' Rather than actually capping the revenue sharing, the bill allows receipts from the 181 and the 181 south area to be added to the $500 million cap. That makes the so-called cap, in my view, at least much higher. However, even with the cap, the amount flowing to the four Gulf States is estimated to be somewhere between $27.5 billion and $30.5 billion during this period. After 2056, the full entitlement comes into play with estimated losses to the Federal Treasury of between $12.5 billion per year and $15 billion in 2056 alone. This underscores the point which people need to understand--that this legislation calls for this sharing of revenue or ceding of revenue to these four States in perpetuity. This is not in any way sunset. There is no time limit. This is from now on. The legislation says these States will be entitled to the money. As many of my colleagues know, I have strongly opposed diverting revenues from the Outer Continental Shelf. It is clear to me, in reading the history of this country and the laws of this country, that this is a Federal asset and that ceding of these revenues to State and county treasuries of coastal States is bad policy. The resources of the Outer Continental Shelf belong to the entire Nation. Over the years, there have been several attempts by coastal States to assert some form of ownership rights over the Outer Continental Shelf. In the 1940s, coastal States tried to issue leases to oil companies in these Federal waters. That led to a landmark decision in our Supreme Court in 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in 1947 that offshore lands were, and always had been, owned by the United States as a feature of its national sovereignty. Having been stopped by the courts, the States turned to Congress to request that it turn these so-called submerged lands over to the States themselves. President Truman strongly objected to this. He vetoed the legislation that was sent to him. Let me read the quotation from his veto statement. He said that he could not: approve this joint resolution because it would turn over to certain States as a free gift very valuable lands and mineral resources of the United States as a whole; that is, all the people of the country. I do not believe such an action would be in the national interest. I do not see how any President could fail to oppose it. That was the basis for his very veto. President Truman left office and Eisenhower took a different view. He signed the Submerged Lands Act of 1954 that granted the coastal States title to submerged lands within 3 miles of their coasts. Later that year, Congress also passed the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, asserting Federal control over the subsoil and the seabed of the Outer Continental Shelf. The legislative history of these acts is clear. They were intended as a final settlement of the issue of who owned what on the Federal Outer Continental Shelf. In recent years, as the resources of State waters which were granted under the 1953 act have been depleted, and as the great resource potential of the Federal waters has come into full review, a new drumbeat has arisen. The claim is that coastal States should have a preferential share of the resources of the Outer Continental Shelf over and above other States that, under current law, are equally entitled to these receipts, and under the Supreme Court's view are entitled to these receipts. We are not talking about trivial sums of money. Oil and gas receipts from the Outer Continental Shelf are the third largest source of income to the United States after taxes and Customs duties. Over the next several decades, it is estimated that oil and gas royalties from the Outer Continental Shelf will exceed $1.2 trillion. As we look to the future, a future in which we will have large bills coming due at the Federal level, with the retirement of the baby boomer generation, it is unwise, in my opinion, to consider permanently diverting these revenues away from the Federal Treasury to these four coastal States. I have often heard the argument that we ought to give a percentage of Federal royalties to the Outer Continental Shelf, to the nearby States because Western States, such as my own, New Mexico, receive a portion of the royalties from the Federal lands within their borders. Let me address what I believe is a false comparison head on. The first obvious point is that the Mineral Leasing Act which has been adopted made provisions for my State to receive 50 percent of the royalties for production on Federal lands. This Mineral Leasing Act does not discriminate against Louisiana, Mississippi, or any other coastal State. To the extent that the Federal Government reduces oil and gas and collects royalties on Federal land within their borders, the Federal Government pays 50 percent of those revenues to the States just as they do in my State, just as they do in Wyoming, just as they do in every other State in the Union. Indeed, according to the Minerals Management Service, between 1982 and 2003 the Federal Government distributed $14.8 million to Louisiana from onshore Federal leases under the Mineral Leasing Act. The reason Louisiana did not get more was because there is very little Federal land in Louisiana that produces oil and gas. Most onshore oil and gas development in Louisiana takes place on State or private land and not on Federal land. Louisiana, like any other State, receives 50 percent of the royalties collected by the Federal Government from Federal oil and gas leases. Western States, such as New Mexico, and eastern States have very different histories when it comes to patterns of life ownership. A long time ago, in the 19th century, a large part of States such as Louisiana consisted of public land. But the laws at that time allowed that Federal land to be patented and bought into private ownership or given to the State where it now forms the tax base for those States. That explains why there is relatively little Federal land in a State such as Louisiana. The State enjoys the ability to levee taxes, including severance taxes on all the oil and gas that is produced within the State, which is considerable. The development of the western States took a very different turn in 1920 when it became clear that there was a significant amount of Federal land that had oil and gas potential. Instead of allowing that land to be patented and brought into private ownership under the mining laws, as had happened in earlier years in States further east, Congress passed a new law--and that is the Mineral Leasing Act I was just referring to. This act forges a very different bargain. In return for keeping the lands with rich oil and gas resources under Federal ownership, therefore, out of the State's tax base, the Federal Government agreed to give the States a share of the Federal royalties as compensation for the lost tax revenue involved. This compromise represented no injustice to any State that had previously had all of its Federal lands converted into private land through land patents. These eastern States already had what the western States were giving up; that is, the ability to tax all of the economic activity within their borders. If you read the legislative history of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, it is clear that the split of revenues between the Federal Government and the State governments was in compensation for removing lands from the tax base of the States. So when you recognize the reason for the 50-50 split of royalties on Federal lands within the boundaries of States under the Mineral Leasing Act, it is clear to me that transposing this system to the Outer Continental Shelf makes absolutely no sense. Federal ownership of the Outer Continental Shelf takes nothing away from the tax base of any coastal State. To the contrary, Federal development of national assets on the Outer Continental Shelf actually results in enhanced economic activity, increased tax revenues in adjacent coastal States. One report that illustrates this fact is published in 2002 by Louisiana Midcontinent Oil and Gas Association. It is entitled ``The Energy Sector Still A Giant Economic Engine for the Louisiana Economy.'' That title is a pretty good thumbnail description of the true impact Outer Continental Shelf activity has on the Gulf Coast States. That activity is a giant engine for their economies. Here are some of the facts in that report. The report says the energy sector has a $93 billion impact in Louisiana and employs 62,000 people. The energy sector in Louisiana supports $12.5 billion in household earnings. It pays $1.14 billion in State taxes. Workers employed by the offshore oil and gas industry can expect to earn salaries between $75,000 and $100,000 a year. That was in 2002 when the report was issued. Oil exploration and production value-added income already exceeds $17 billion and refined value-added income is nearly $5 billion. The same facts can be told for each of the coastal States that border the Gulf of Mexico. They derive substantial economic benefit from their strategic location next to these oil and gas deposits that are still owned by the United States. For these reasons, I cannot support the current proposal to set in motion a permanent and a very large diversion of Federal royalties from the Outer Continental Shelf to these four States. I am sympathetic to the environmental damage that has been caused over the years to coastal wetlands. Much of that damage in the past was from causes other than oil and gas activities. An important source of the future threat is from factors such as global warming. Last year, in the Energy Policy Act, we enacted a Coastal Impact Assistance Program that directed $1 billion be paid as mandatory spending over 4 years to the Gulf Coast States. I strongly supported that measure. I have strongly supported funding for reconstruction of the gulf coast in the tragic aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita last summer. The policy rationale for the permanent revenue diversion proposed in this bill, in my opinion, is highly flawed, just as the energy policy rationale for the bill is also flawed. If you want to have a strong and fiscally solvent Federal Government, you need to be very careful about new spending entitlements and claims on Federal revenues being created by the Congress. The provisions of this bill do not reflect that kind of concern. If we are to cope with the rising demand for energy, and particularly for natural gas, we must also approach that matter. Strictly giving up, for the long term, access to 21 trillion cubic feet of natural gas just to obtain just over 2 trillion cubic feet is shortsighted, in my view. Undertaking to solve our long-term problems with natural gas supply and demand by focusing just on the supply side I also see as shortsighted. Let me talk a little bit about the precedent of what we are doing. I see that as another and somewhat separate reason for opposing this legislation. S. 3711 sets bad precedent both in the energy policy area and in the fiscal policy area. There is no reason I can think of why coastal States up and down our seaboards will not demand the same kinds of treatment being demanded by the States that are insistent upon the provisions in this legislation. Let me put up the chart that shows what we are talking about. The Outer Continental Shelf is the blue area surrounding the country. Of course, this bill just deals with the gulf. We all understand that. But let's just think about the precedent we are setting that will come back to haunt us when we have this issue revisited in the future. My sincere concern is that if we take the steps that we are proposing to take in this legislation that lock up Florida until 2022, or the areas off the coast of Florida going out at least 125 miles until 2022, we are well on our way to making these other resources unavailable also until 2022. We are also setting a bad precedent in the fiscal arena, as well. Where production is allowed, other States are likely to demand the treatment that we are here affording to Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Take Alaska, for example. If you do a little reading on where our undeveloped natural gas and oil resources are, much of it is off the coast of Alaska. The Federal Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of Alaska covers a vast area, some 600 million acres. The Outer Continental Shelf off Alaska's coast is more than twice the size of Alaska itself. To give an idea of the immensity of this OCS area, the onshore lands of the State of Alaska comprise some 366 million acres. The Federal Outer Continental Shelf off Alaska contains vast resources, an estimated 26.6 billion barrels of oil, and 132 trillion cubic feet of gas. If we start down this road, as this bill does, in my opinion, with respect to the Gulf Coast States, we will certainly be asked to give 37.5 percent of the revenues of producing these Federal resources off Alaska's coast to the State of Alaska. In fact, such a proposal has already been developed. Other States are likely to follow. This is a precedent that I think we will all come to regret. I know there are strong feelings on the other side of this issue. I understand the sentiments that some have, but I am persuaded this is bad energy policy for the country, that this is bad fiscal policy for the country, and I hope that we are able to make some changes in this legislation before we finally dispose of it so we can correct these problems. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, could I just indicate for my colleague, I appreciate his comments. We do have a couple of Senators who are in opposition who are coming to the floor and will wish to speak, too, at some stage. I do not want to line up so many proponents that they are not able to make their statements within a reasonable period of time. So if we can fit them in at some stage in the proceedings, that would be great, as soon as they arrive.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent Lauren Guidice and Marcus Williams, interns with the Energy and Natural Resources Committee staff, be granted floor privileges during the remainder of the debate.

Mr. BINGAMAN. On behalf of Senator Baucus, I ask unanimous consent that John Schiltz and Tara Rose, interns with the Committee on Finance, be granted floor privileges for the consideration of this Energy bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to support the conference report accompanying S. 250, the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006. More than ever, this country needs rigorous, relevant career and technical education programs to help students prepare for postsecondary education and to address the shortage of highly skilled workers necessary to meet the demands of the contemporary workforce. A skilled and flexible workforce is essential to building a strong and dynamic economy and to maintaining our country's ability to compete in a global economy. According to a recent report issued by the National Academy of Sciences, the scientific and technical building blocks of this Nation's economic strength are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength. As much as 85 percent of this country's per capita growth in income since World War II has come from science and technology. The National Academies projected that while the U.S. economy is doing well today, current trends indicate that the U.S. may not fare as well in the future, particularly in the areas of science and technology, where innovation is spurred and high-wage jobs follow. We must produce students who are prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century workforce. I believe this bill provides real opportunities to meet those challenges. In order to meet those challenges, however, career and technical education--CTE--must be academically rigorous and enhance students' critical thinking and applied skills. I believe this bill makes a number of significant improvements to ensure that CTE students participate in a rigorous and challenging curriculum, and realize positive educational and employment outcomes. For example, the bill integrates challenging academic and technical standards, aligned with No Child Left Behind and nationally-recognized industry standards, into CTE instruction. In addition, the bill strengthens educational and career pathways for students beyond high school and makes significant strides in building alliances among high schools, 2- and 4-year colleges, business and industry, and community organizations. Further, the bill expands career guidance and academic counseling services so that students have a career plan and career objectives. Well-prepared CTE teachers and good professional development are essential components of an effective, rigorous CTE curriculum. CTE teachers must possess the knowledge and skills to teach effectively. Hence, this bill dedicates resources to promoting the leadership, initial preparation, and professional development of career and technical education teachers to foster effective practices. This bill is designed to improve student educational and employment outcomes, including their technical and workplace knowledge and skills. But, we must be able to measure how well CTE programs are meeting the needs of its students. Accordingly, the legislation will require states to identify core indicators of performance that include measures of student achievement on technical assessments and attainment of career and technical skill proficiencies. Thus, it is essential to develop valid and reliable assessments of technical and career competencies that are aligned with national industry standards and integrate industry certification assessments, if available and appropriate. To address this need for high-quality technical assessments, this bill permits State leadership funds to be used to develop valid and reliable assessments of technical skills that are integrated with industry certification assessments where available. In addition, the bill includes several new provisions for data collection, utilization, and analysis, including provisions which allow the State allocation to be used to support and develop State data systems, and State leadership funds to be used to develop and enhance data systems to collect and analyze data on postsecondary and employment outcomes. I am also pleased that this bill makes significant improvements to help Crownpoint Institute of Technology. Crownpoint plays a critical role in ensuring Native American students have the education, skills, and training necessary to compete in the global economy, and this bill helps Crownpoint get the funding they need to serve their students. Yet, increasing academic and technical rigor alone is not enough to prepare students to enter into and compete in the 21st century workforce. The learning environment students experience also heavily impacts academic performance and student outcomes. When smaller learning communities are in place, students benefit greatly: they experience a greater sense of belonging to their schools and they have fewer discipline, crime, violence, and substance abuse problems. I would like to highlight two high schools in my home State of New Mexico which demonstrate some of the best practices of rigorous and innovative career and technical education. Rio Rancho High School has served as a model example of how academic rigor, hands-on-learning, strong professional development, defined career pathways, and robust alliances are elements of a successful, quality CTE program. Rio Rancho has created academies of study for all students, which allow students to: pursue career pathways to postsecondary education and beyond; take core courses geared toward interests, skills, and competitive careers; form partnerships with instructors; and become part of a smaller learning community within the larger high school. These academies allow students to explore personal strengths and interests in relationship to career planning and job markets. Rio Rancho has been designated as a Microsoft Center of Innovation and Time Magazine has called Rio Rancho one of the ten most innovative career and technical schools in the Nation. Another great example of innovative career and technical education can be found at Albuquerque High School. In just a couple of years, the career academies at Albuquerque High School have demonstrated very positive student outcomes. The first students in Albuquerque's Academy of Advanced Technology have lower dropout rates and improved academic achievement. Accordingly, this legislation recognizes that smaller learning communities and career academies are critical educational investments. As Rio Rancho and Albuquerque High Schools demonstrate, rigorous career and technical education and smaller learning environments enhance students' achievement and motivation to learn. Unfortunately, the formula as drafted in this bill will have a very negative impact on career and technical education programs in many of our States. While I support the improvements sought in this bill, I am very disappointed that states like New Mexico, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Kansas, Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, Connecticut, Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, and Idaho, just to name a few, will face significant cuts in funding next year alone. In fact, these cuts hit the poorest States in this country the hardest. Assuming this program receives level funding in appropriations in fiscal year 2007, 24 States lose money. If there are any cuts to the program at all, more than 30 States could lose under this formula. These losses are very real to the students participating in career and technical education at our high schools and community colleges. A junior in high school pursuing a career in medical technology might not be able to finish her program in her senior year if funding is yanked. Our students depend on programs like Perkins to provide them with essential job skills and training. It is not only unfair to pull funding from our students, but unwise to cut funding from so many States. Strong career and technical education programs are critical to this Nation if we are to ensure a skilled and educated workforce. This formula is simply a step in the wrong direction. Many of us talk about ensuring America's students are prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century workforce. We talk about protecting America's competitive edge in the global economy. I firmly believe, however, that taking career and technical education programs away from some of our most needy students does not enhance our economic security. Simply, a loss of funding means a loss of services to students. Nevertheless, I firmly believe there are many positive aspects of this legislation, and despite the funding formula, I support the overall bill. Effective career and technical education programs are necessary to build a strong and dynamic economy and to maintain a competitive American workforce, and therefore, I support the passage of this legislation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask permission to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I have come to the Senate floor today to discuss what I believe are some necessities, steps to bring an end to the current crisis in Israel and Lebanon and to set us back on a course toward stability in the Middle East. I condemn the killing and the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers by Hamas and Hezbollah. I believe that was a deliberate act of provocation. It was intended to further rupture efforts at creating stability in the region, and it was carried out by groups who seek no less than the destruction of the nation of Israel. And I, I am sure along with my colleagues, support Israel's right to defend itself. However, I also believe the Israeli response has been excessive and the current crisis of escalating violence on both sides must be brought to an end so we can resume efforts at creating a lasting peace. My first point is I believe United States interests and Israeli interests will be furthered if we support the efforts of the Secretary General of the United Nations to bring about a cease-fire at the earliest possible date. Secretary General Kofi Annan has called for an immediate end to fighting between Israel and Hezbollah. He has pointed out the obvious, which is that as long as fighting continues, the number of civilian deaths both in Israel and Lebanon will increase. I also believe this may be the best way to ensure the safe return of kidnapped soldiers. Of course, the further destruction of civilian infrastructure in Lebanon is putting the future economic and political viability of that nation at serious risk. I think it is obvious to all that what is occurring in Israel and Lebanon is a disaster for many innocent civilians. Our own administration has chosen not to support Secretary General Annan's call for an end to hostilities. As I understand Ambassador Bolton's position, it is that allowing a continuation of hostilities will provide Israel the opportunity to eliminate Hezbollah's ability to attack Israel and that this degrading of Hezbollah's military capability will provide a better possibility for long-term peace. I support the goal of long-term peace, but I disagree with his view that continued combat is the best way to achieve it. Whatever additional military advantage might be achieved by delaying a cease-fire comes at a very high cost. First, there is the cost in the loss of additional civilian lives. Second, there is the additional support for Hezbollah in the Arab world which the continued attacks on Lebanon will almost certainly generate. Third, there is the increase in anti-Israeli and anti-American sentiment throughout the Middle East and more broadly which will result if the military conflict continues. While I understand the goal of these continued attacks is to bring an end to terror in the Middle East, and I strongly support that goal, I believe the result will be the opposite. The administration's unwillingness to join other nations in calling for a cessation of hostilities reinforces the belief in Arab countries that our Middle East policy is based on a double standard. The perception is we have one level of concern when innocent Israeli civilians are being killed and injured and much less concern when the injured or killed civilians live in Arab countries. Support by the U.S. for an immediate cease-fire would save lives on both sides and would help to counter that perception. There was an article in the Washington Post last week by Michael Abramowitz entitled ``In Mideast Strife, Bush Sees a Step to Peace.'' In the article, he states: In the administration's view, the new conflict is not just a crisis to be managed. It is also an opportunity to seriously degrade a big threat in the region, just as Bush believes he is doing in Iraq. If this administration thinks it can succeed here in Lebanon with the same strategy that has brought us success in Iraq, then our foreign policy in Washington is even more out of touch with reality than I had thought. My second point is as part of our effort to bring about this cease- fire, we need to talk directly with Syrians and others with whom we have disagreed. Robert Malley, who was President Clinton's special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs, has written an article in the July 24 issue of Time magazine making that case persuasively. His article is entitled ``Time to Start Talking.'' The thrust of his argument is this administration's policy of not talking to those with whom we disagree has not served us well. The same argument is made by John McLaughlin, the former Deputy Director of the CIA, in yesterday's Washington Post. In my view, both of these former officials are giving good advice and I urge the President and the Secretary of State to heed that advice. My final point is this current crisis should be a wake-up call to this administration that the United States needs to reengage diplomatically in the region. For the past several decades, United States administrations have seen our role in the Middle East as supporting the security of Israel but also as helping to resolve conflicts between Israel and its neighbors and supporting moderate governments in the region. There are many chapters in that history. Among the most remembered are Secretary of State Kissinger's efforts at shuttle diplomacy, President Carter's efforts at Camp David, President Clinton's efforts both in bringing Rabin and Arafat to the White House for a handshake, and his later efforts trying to broker a peace agreement at Camp David. This current administration has chosen a different course. It has chosen to disengage from that conflict resolution role. As evidence of this, Secretary Powell did not appoint a special Middle East envoy as his predecessor had. Secretary Rice also has not appointed a special envoy. Her statement was: Not every effort has to be an American effort. It is extremely important that the parties themselves are taking responsibility. My strong view is this policy of disengagement has not served the interests of the United States, the interests of Israel, or the interests of other countries in the region. We are by far the biggest provider of aid to the countries in the Middle East and if any outside nation is to play an effective and a constructive role, it needs to be the United States. I am glad the Secretary of State is in Beirut today, but progress on the diplomatic front cannot be postponed awaiting fly-ins by the Secretary of State. Secretary Rice should appoint a special envoy to work full time at resolving disputes and tensions in the region. Again, John McLaughlin states the point well: The chances of detecting and heading off imminent disaster are enhanced when there is intense, unrelenting and daily attention by a senior and respected U.S. figure who wakes up every morning worrying about nothing else--the role Dennis Ross played so effectively in the 1990s. Continuing with his quotation. Without constant tending to the concerns of all the regional parties, rapid flagging of issues for decision in Washington and continuity of focus by one individual with access we will lurch from crisis to crisis. It is ironic that the President and Secretary of State acknowledge the need for an Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy. This was the job Karen Hughes was given, to burnish the U.S. image abroad, particularly in the Muslim world. Yet at the same time they refuse to appoint a special envoy to the Middle East which, in my view, would do far more with regard to perceptions in that part of the world. I urge the administration to reassert the historic role of the United States as a force for resolution of conflict in the Middle East. I believe that must begin by engaging in direct talks with the parties in the region. And I urge the President and our Secretary of State to help bring about an immediate cessation of hostilities. I ask unanimous consent that the two articles I have referred to, one by Robert Malley and the other by John McLaughlin, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Senator from Virginia as an original cosponsor of legislation to study and promote the use of energy efficient computer servers in the United States. The growth of the Internet and online applications and the strong demand for electronic transactions are creating a growing need for data centers. Most data center equipment is composed of servers, which are computers that share resources with other computers on a network. The average annual power and cooling bill for 100 servers is about $40,000--from Computer World, February 6, 2006. The U.S. server market is expected to grow from 2.8 billion servers in 2005 to 4.9 billion in 2009. Without improved efficiency, data center power costs could easily overtake hardware costs in the next few years--A. Fanara, EPA, technical workshop on server benchmarking, March 27, 2006. Our bill would require the Administrator of EPA to study and analyze the growth and energy consumption of computer data centers. A critical goal of the study is to develop a standard way to measure server efficiency. Energy efficient servers and data center designs are currently available. This analysis would help promote the use of efficient server technology through the Energy Star Program or the Department of Energy's buildings standards program and allow consumers to compare products on the basis of efficiency. This legislation has broad support from the information technology sector and energy efficiency advocates, including the Alliance to Save Energy, the American Electronics Association, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, the Electronic Industries Alliance, the Information Technology Industry Council, the Semiconductor Association, and leading companies such as Intel, AMD, Sun, and HP. Mr. President, under the bipartisan leadership of Representative Eshoo, and Representative Rogers, the House approved identical legislation last week. I hope that the Senate will also pass this needed legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Senator from Virginia as an original cosponsor of legislation to study and promote the use of energy efficient computer servers in the United States. The growth of the Internet and online applications and the strong demand for electronic transactions are creating a growing need for data centers. Most data center equipment is composed of servers, which are computers that share resources with other computers on a network. The average annual power and cooling bill for 100 servers is about $40,000--from Computer World, February 6, 2006. The U.S. server market is expected to grow from 2.8 billion servers in 2005 to 4.9 billion in 2009. Without improved efficiency, data center power costs could easily overtake hardware costs in the next few years--A. Fanara, EPA, technical workshop on server benchmarking, March 27, 2006. Our bill would require the Administrator of EPA to study and analyze the growth and energy consumption of computer data centers. A critical goal of the study is to develop a standard way to measure server efficiency. Energy efficient servers and data center designs are currently available. This analysis would help promote the use of efficient server technology through the Energy Star Program or the Department of Energy's buildings standards program and allow consumers to compare products on the basis of efficiency. This legislation has broad support from the information technology sector and energy efficiency advocates, including the Alliance to Save Energy, the American Electronics Association, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, the Electronic Industries Alliance, the Information Technology Industry Council, the Semiconductor Association, and leading companies such as Intel, AMD, Sun, and HP. Mr. President, under the bipartisan leadership of Representative Eshoo, and Representative Rogers, the House approved identical legislation last week. I hope that the Senate will also pass this needed legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Independent Living Act of 2006 with Senators Santorum, Murray, Collins, Akaka, Jeffords, Kerry, Harkin, Kennedy, and Lieberman. This legislation would eliminate Medicare's ``in the home'' restriction for the coverage of mobility devices, including wheelchairs and scooters, for those with disabilities and expected long-term needs. This includes people with multiple sclerosis, paraglegia, osteoarthritis, and cerebrovascular disease that includes acute stroke and conditions like aneurysms. As currently interpreted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, the ``in the home'' restriction prevents beneficiaries from obtaining wheelchairs that are necessary for use outside the home. This precludes beneficiaries who need a wheelchair to access work, the community at-large, his or her place of worship, school, physician's offices, or pharmacies. On July 13, 2005, 34 senators wrote Secretary Leavitt asking the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, to modify the ``in the home'' requirement so as to ``improve community access for Medicare beneficiaries with mobility impairments.'' Unfortunately, CMS continues to impose the ``in the home'' restriction on Medicare beneficiaries in need of mobility devices. The result is that people who may not need a wheelchair to get around their house but do need one to get around their communities, such as to a job, church, or the grocery store, can't get Medicare to pay for one. As the Medicare Rights Center in a report entitled ``Forced Isolation: Medicare's `In The home' Coverage Standards for Wheelchairs'' in March 2004 notes, ``This effectively disqualifies you from leaving your home without the assistance of others.'' Furthermore, in a Kansas City Star article dated July 3, 2005, Mike Oxford with the National Council on Independent Living noted, ``You look at mobility assistance as a way to liberate yourself.'' He added that the restriction ``is just backward.'' In fact, policies such as these are not only backward but directly contradict numerous initiatives aimed at increasing community integration of people with disabilities, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Ticket-to-Work Program, the New Freedom Initiative, and the Olmstead Supreme Court decision. According to the Medicare Rights Center update dated March 23, 2006, ``This results in arbitrary denials. People with apartments too small for a power wheelchair are denied a device that could also get them down the street. Those in more spacious quarters get coverage, allowing them to scoot from room to room and to the grocery store. People who summon all their willpower and strength to hobble around a small apartment get no help for talks that are beyond them and their front door.'' In New Mexico, I have heard this complaint about the law repeatedly from our State's most vulnerable disabled and senior citizens. People argue the provision is being misinterpreted by the administration and results in Medicare beneficiaries being trapped in their home. The ITEM Coalition adds in a letter to CMS on this issue in November 25, 2005, ``There continues to be no clinical basis for the `in the home' restriction and by asking treating practioners to document medical need only within the home setting, CMS is severely restricting patients from receiving the most appropriate devices to meet their mobility needs.'' Therefore, our bipartisan legislation would clarify that this restriction does not apply to mobility devices, including wheelchairs, for people with disabilities in the Medicare Program. The language change is fairly simple and simply clarifies that the ``in the home'' restriction for durable medical equipment does not apply in the case of mobility devices needed by Medicare beneficiaries with expected long- term needs for use ``in customary settings such as normal domestic, vocational, and community activities.'' This legislation is certainly not intended to discourage CMS from dedicating its resources to reducing waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare system, as those efforts are critical to ensuring that Medicare remains financially viable and strong in the future. However, it should be noted that neither Medicaid nor the Department of Veterans Affairs impose such ``in the home'' restrictions on mobility devices. As Senator Brownback said to the Kansas City Star, it is important to lift the restriction ``to reflect our goal of ensuring that Americans with disabilities are able to live independent, healthy, and productive lives.'' I thank Senators Santorum, Murray, Collins, Akaka, Jeffords, Kerry, Harkin, Kennedy, and Lieberman for cosponsoring this important legislation, and attached is a fact sheet that I request to be printed in the Record. I would also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record copies of the letter to the administration and the response that was received by Capitol Hill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Independent Living Act of 2006 with Senators Santorum, Murray, Collins, Akaka, Jeffords, Kerry, Harkin, Kennedy, and Lieberman. This legislation would eliminate Medicare's ``in the home'' restriction for the coverage of mobility devices, including wheelchairs and scooters, for those with disabilities and expected long-term needs. This includes people with multiple sclerosis, paraglegia, osteoarthritis, and cerebrovascular disease that includes acute stroke and conditions like aneurysms. As currently interpreted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, the ``in the home'' restriction prevents beneficiaries from obtaining wheelchairs that are necessary for use outside the home. This precludes beneficiaries who need a wheelchair to access work, the community at-large, his or her place of worship, school, physician's offices, or pharmacies. On July 13, 2005, 34 senators wrote Secretary Leavitt asking the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, to modify the ``in the home'' requirement so as to ``improve community access for Medicare beneficiaries with mobility impairments.'' Unfortunately, CMS continues to impose the ``in the home'' restriction on Medicare beneficiaries in need of mobility devices. The result is that people who may not need a wheelchair to get around their house but do need one to get around their communities, such as to a job, church, or the grocery store, can't get Medicare to pay for one. As the Medicare Rights Center in a report entitled ``Forced Isolation: Medicare's `In The home' Coverage Standards for Wheelchairs'' in March 2004 notes, ``This effectively disqualifies you from leaving your home without the assistance of others.'' Furthermore, in a Kansas City Star article dated July 3, 2005, Mike Oxford with the National Council on Independent Living noted, ``You look at mobility assistance as a way to liberate yourself.'' He added that the restriction ``is just backward.'' In fact, policies such as these are not only backward but directly contradict numerous initiatives aimed at increasing community integration of people with disabilities, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Ticket-to-Work Program, the New Freedom Initiative, and the Olmstead Supreme Court decision. According to the Medicare Rights Center update dated March 23, 2006, ``This results in arbitrary denials. People with apartments too small for a power wheelchair are denied a device that could also get them down the street. Those in more spacious quarters get coverage, allowing them to scoot from room to room and to the grocery store. People who summon all their willpower and strength to hobble around a small apartment get no help for talks that are beyond them and their front door.'' In New Mexico, I have heard this complaint about the law repeatedly from our State's most vulnerable disabled and senior citizens. People argue the provision is being misinterpreted by the administration and results in Medicare beneficiaries being trapped in their home. The ITEM Coalition adds in a letter to CMS on this issue in November 25, 2005, ``There continues to be no clinical basis for the `in the home' restriction and by asking treating practioners to document medical need only within the home setting, CMS is severely restricting patients from receiving the most appropriate devices to meet their mobility needs.'' Therefore, our bipartisan legislation would clarify that this restriction does not apply to mobility devices, including wheelchairs, for people with disabilities in the Medicare Program. The language change is fairly simple and simply clarifies that the ``in the home'' restriction for durable medical equipment does not apply in the case of mobility devices needed by Medicare beneficiaries with expected long- term needs for use ``in customary settings such as normal domestic, vocational, and community activities.'' This legislation is certainly not intended to discourage CMS from dedicating its resources to reducing waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare system, as those efforts are critical to ensuring that Medicare remains financially viable and strong in the future. However, it should be noted that neither Medicaid nor the Department of Veterans Affairs impose such ``in the home'' restrictions on mobility devices. As Senator Brownback said to the Kansas City Star, it is important to lift the restriction ``to reflect our goal of ensuring that Americans with disabilities are able to live independent, healthy, and productive lives.'' I thank Senators Santorum, Murray, Collins, Akaka, Jeffords, Kerry, Harkin, Kennedy, and Lieberman for cosponsoring this important legislation, and attached is a fact sheet that I request to be printed in the Record. I would also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record copies of the letter to the administration and the response that was received by Capitol Hill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their courtesy. I call up amendment No. 4591 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is the Border Law Enforcement Relief Act which I have introduced before, along with Senators Domenici, Cornyn, and Hutchison. I offer this amendment on behalf of all of us again. It provides local law enforcement agencies in border communities with much-needed assistance in combatting border- related criminal activity. During the debate on the immigration bill, this same legislation was proposed and agreed to by the Senate with a vote of 84 in favor and 6 against. For far too long, law enforcement agencies that operate along the border have had to incur significant costs due to the inability of the Federal Government to secure our Nation's borders. It is time the Federal Government recognize that border communities should not have to bear that burden alone. Specifically, the amendment establishes a competitive grant program within the Department of Homeland Security to help local law enforcement agencies that are situated along the borders cover some of the costs they incur as a result of dealing with illegal immigration, drug trafficking, stolen vehicles, and other border-related crimes. The amendment authorizes $50 million a year and enables law enforcement within 100 miles of the border to hire additional personnel, to obtain necessary equipment, and to cover the cost of overtime and transportation costs. Law enforcement outside of this geographic limit, this 100-mile limit, would be eligible if the Secretary of Homeland Security certified they were located in what we designate as a ``high impact area.'' The United States shares 5,525 miles of border with Canada and 1,989 miles of border with Mexico. Many of the local law enforcement agencies that are located along the border are small. They are rural departments charged with patrolling large areas of land with few officers and with very limited resources. According to a 2001 study of the U.S.-Mexico Border Counties Coalition, criminal justice costs associated with illegal immigration exceed $89 million every year. Counties along the southwest border are some of the poorest in the country and are not in a good position to cover these additional costs. The States of Arizona and New Mexico have declared states of emergency in order to provide local law enforcement with immediate assistance in addressing criminal activity along the border. It is time, in my view, that the Federal Government step up and share some of that burden. So I urge my colleagues to support this important measure and to give law enforcement the resources they need to meet these challenges. Mr. President, I met last week with sheriffs and local police chiefs in communities along the southern New Mexico border with Mexico and talked to them about the challenges they face and the need for additional personnel, the need for modern equipment. Clearly, they are faced with a very significant challenge because of the increased illegal activity going on along our U.S.-Mexico border. The assistance provided in this amendment is assistance that would be very important to them in carrying out their responsibilities to the citizens of those communities. So I urge my colleagues again to support this amendment. I am informed this is an amendment the chairman has indicated might be acceptable. I am hoping we can have a vote, but I will at this point yield the floor until my colleague who is managing the bill can respond to the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I object for just a minute. My understanding is we were going to dispose of my amendment before we--

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I'm pleased today to join my colleague Senator Domenici in sponsoring the Pueblo of Isleta Settlement and Natural Resources Restoration Act. This bill would settle a longstanding dispute over federal mismanagement of lands that resulted in lands within the Pueblo being rendered unusable due to water intrusion. The money provided under the settlement would be designated towards remedying these losses. Like any settlement, I imagine neither side is completely happy with the result but it is a significant step and will begin the process of restoring inundated lands and acquiring substitute lands. I am happy both sides were able to work out their differences and come up with a solution we can support in Congress. I hope that, in addition to the financial commitment in the bill, the Department of Interior will continue to be a partner with the Pueblo in achieving the restoration of their lands. I hope my colleagues will join us to quickly move this legislation along so we can begin to restore these lands for the people of the Pueblo of Isleta.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senators Lautenberg, Menendez, Dorgan, Kennedy, Stabenow, Dayton, Johnson, Clinton, and Akaka entitled the ``Helping to Fill the Medicare Rx Gap Act of 2006.'' This legislation and companion legislation to be introduced by Congressman Dingell fixes an important problem for Medicare beneficiaries and safety net providers by allowing costs incurred by AIDS Drug Assistance Programs, ADAPs, the Indian Health Service, IHS, federally qualified health centers, certain safety net hospitals, and pharmaceutical manufacturer-sponsored Patient Assistance Programs, PAPs--entities that provide prescription drugs or drug assistance for populations under their care--to count toward a beneficiary's annual out-of-pocket threshold as established under the Medicare Modernization Act, MMA. With the Medicare drug benefit now in effect for more than six months, approximately 3.4 million seniors are reaching the point at which coverage is eliminated until they reach the catastrophic limit. Under the MMA, Medicare pays 75 percent of drug costs until a beneficiary's expenses reach $2,250 in a year. Then it stops paying until costs exceed $5,100, leaving a so-called ``doughnut hole'' of $2,850 that seniors are expected to manage on their own. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, about 6.9 million Medicare beneficiaries will have to deal with a gap in their drug coverage at some point this year. An important part of the MMA's prescription drug benefit requires the tracking of beneficiaries' ``true out-of-pocket'' costs, TrOOP, to determine the point at which a beneficiary becomes eligible for catastrophic coverage. In an additional effort to constrain the cost of the prescription drug benefit, the MMA limited the types of expenditures that could count toward a beneficiary's TrOOP, including only: Cost-sharing related to the annual deductible; costs borne by the Part D enrollee (or contributions by friends or family members on the beneficiary's behalf); contributions from qualifying State Pharmacy Assistance Programs, SPAPs; contributions from eligible charitable organizations; and waivers or reductions by commercial pharmacies of cost-sharing requirements of Medicare prescription drug plans. Under current law, costs incurred by AIDS Drug Assistance Programs, Indian Health Service, IHS, pharmacies, community health centers, and certain safety net hospital pharmacies on behalf of Part D enrollees during their coverage gap--i.e. while the enrollee is in the so-called ``doughnut hole''--are not permitted to count for TrOOP purposes. In turn, many individuals with HIV/AIDS, Native Americans, and other low- income individuals receiving assistance through community health centers or other qualified safety net hospital pharmacies are never able to reach the catastrophic limit--the point at which Medicare would pay 95 percent of the beneficiary's drug costs. As a result, these beneficiaries are forced to pay premiums to their Medicare drug plan and to absorb the monthly drug costs for a benefit they are not able to access. A study that was recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that prescription drug plans that include doughnut hole- like coverage gaps may lower beneficiary drug costs but any savings are offset by increases in the costs of hospitalizations and emergency room use. Specifically, the study found that patients with such capped benefits had higher rates of nonelective hospitalizations, visits to the emergency department, and even death. It certainly is not surprising that the coverage gap will result in many Americans going without needed medications but it is important to note that overall medical costs are not reduced and that providers will be disproportionately affected when the doughnut hole is reached. And just when charity pharmaceutical assistance programs are needed most, the current policy is making it difficult for pharmaceutical companies to continue to provide free pharmaceuticals to our nation's poor elderly. The HHS OIG has issued guidance that prohibits costs incurred on behalf of Part D beneficiaries by pharmaceutical manufacturer-sponsored Pharmaceutical Assistance Programs, PAPs-- programs run by the pharmaceutical industry that provide free or low- cost drugs to eligible poor and low-income individuals to count toward a patient's TrOOP due to concerns that providing drugs through these programs might violate the federal anti-kickback statute. The anti- kickback statute prohibits offering or receiving payment to increase the use of products or services--in this case, to steer prescription drug use--at the cost of Federal health care programs. In turn, several pharmaceutical manufacturers are considering terminating their PAPs to avoid running afoul of the law. According to a January article in the Washington Post, 37 pharmaceutical companies donated 22 million prescriptions worth $4.1 billion through PAPs. Across the Nation seniors who benefit from these programs are fearful that they will be forced to go off needed medications or to go into bankruptcy if these programs are not available to help them. While HHS is working with the pharmaceutical industry to develop guidelines that would allow PAPs to continue to operate in compliance with current law, the HHS OIG maintains that PAP costs will not be permitted to count toward a patient's TrOOP in any circumstance. As a result, similar to the ADAPs, IHS pharmacies, community health centers and safety net hospital pharmacies, PAPs that provide prescription drugs for patients during the coverage gap are forced to become the ``payer of last resort'' because the costs they incur are not permitted to count toward TrOOP expenses and thus, the patient is unable to reach the catastrophic limit. Pharmacy Assistance Programs, AIDS Drug Assistance Programs, community health centers, and safety net hospital pharmacies will maintain their commitment to provide assistance to low-income senior citizens and people with disabilities in the coverage gap but the current policy imposes a significant financial burden on our nation's health care safety net. While we all recognize the importance of controlling costs, this policy stands to harm vulnerable beneficiaries and safety net providers by permitting the Medicare program to shift the cost burden on to a variety of other federal programs, including discretionary safety net programs, and PAPs. It does not make sense that the Federal Government pays private drug plans a capitated rate to provide services and beneficiaries pay monthly premiums to Medicare while ADAPs, IHS pharmacies, community health centers and certain safety net hospital pharmacies and pharmaceutical manufacturer PAPs are left to shoulder the cost of providing prescription medications to their population of enrollees who will never reach the catastrophic limit. Just as current policy allows SPAP spending to count toward the catastrophic limit so should the costs incurred by these entities. In addition, this legislation would correct the inequity in the current policy which unfairly discriminates between beneficiaries who receive their prescription drugs from commercial pharmacies and those who receive their medications through PAPs or from safety net pharmacies run by the IHS, community health centers, and certain public hospitals. Currently, only commercial pharmacies' waivers or reductions in Medicare Part D cost-sharing requirements are allowed to count towards TrOOP. This legislation would prevent lower-income Medicare beneficiaries from getting trapped in the doughnut hole by leveling the playing field so that beneficiaries who get their drugs through PAPs or pharmacies run by the IHS, community health centers, or public hospitals pharmacies can move just as quickly toward the catastrophic coverage benefit. Mr. President, I urge your support for this important legislation to allow Part D-related costs incurred by ADAPs, IHS, federally qualified health centers, and certain safety net hospitals as well as pharmaceutical manufacturer PAPs to count toward a beneficiary's TrOOP expenses. This bill would ensure that all Part D enrollees are permitted appropriate access to the catastrophic coverage that was promised under the MMA. Mr. President, I commend to my colleagues the New England Journal of Medicine study entitled ``Unintended Consequences of Caps on Medicare Drug Benefits,'' and I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post article and the text of the bill to be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I'm pleased today to join my colleague Senator Domenici in sponsoring the Pueblo of Isleta Settlement and Natural Resources Restoration Act. This bill would settle a longstanding dispute over federal mismanagement of lands that resulted in lands within the Pueblo being rendered unusable due to water intrusion. The money provided under the settlement would be designated towards remedying these losses. Like any settlement, I imagine neither side is completely happy with the result but it is a significant step and will begin the process of restoring inundated lands and acquiring substitute lands. I am happy both sides were able to work out their differences and come up with a solution we can support in Congress. I hope that, in addition to the financial commitment in the bill, the Department of Interior will continue to be a partner with the Pueblo in achieving the restoration of their lands. I hope my colleagues will join us to quickly move this legislation along so we can begin to restore these lands for the people of the Pueblo of Isleta.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senators Lautenberg, Menendez, Dorgan, Kennedy, Stabenow, Dayton, Johnson, Clinton, and Akaka entitled the ``Helping to Fill the Medicare Rx Gap Act of 2006.'' This legislation and companion legislation to be introduced by Congressman Dingell fixes an important problem for Medicare beneficiaries and safety net providers by allowing costs incurred by AIDS Drug Assistance Programs, ADAPs, the Indian Health Service, IHS, federally qualified health centers, certain safety net hospitals, and pharmaceutical manufacturer-sponsored Patient Assistance Programs, PAPs--entities that provide prescription drugs or drug assistance for populations under their care--to count toward a beneficiary's annual out-of-pocket threshold as established under the Medicare Modernization Act, MMA. With the Medicare drug benefit now in effect for more than six months, approximately 3.4 million seniors are reaching the point at which coverage is eliminated until they reach the catastrophic limit. Under the MMA, Medicare pays 75 percent of drug costs until a beneficiary's expenses reach $2,250 in a year. Then it stops paying until costs exceed $5,100, leaving a so-called ``doughnut hole'' of $2,850 that seniors are expected to manage on their own. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, about 6.9 million Medicare beneficiaries will have to deal with a gap in their drug coverage at some point this year. An important part of the MMA's prescription drug benefit requires the tracking of beneficiaries' ``true out-of-pocket'' costs, TrOOP, to determine the point at which a beneficiary becomes eligible for catastrophic coverage. In an additional effort to constrain the cost of the prescription drug benefit, the MMA limited the types of expenditures that could count toward a beneficiary's TrOOP, including only: Cost-sharing related to the annual deductible; costs borne by the Part D enrollee (or contributions by friends or family members on the beneficiary's behalf); contributions from qualifying State Pharmacy Assistance Programs, SPAPs; contributions from eligible charitable organizations; and waivers or reductions by commercial pharmacies of cost-sharing requirements of Medicare prescription drug plans. Under current law, costs incurred by AIDS Drug Assistance Programs, Indian Health Service, IHS, pharmacies, community health centers, and certain safety net hospital pharmacies on behalf of Part D enrollees during their coverage gap--i.e. while the enrollee is in the so-called ``doughnut hole''--are not permitted to count for TrOOP purposes. In turn, many individuals with HIV/AIDS, Native Americans, and other low- income individuals receiving assistance through community health centers or other qualified safety net hospital pharmacies are never able to reach the catastrophic limit--the point at which Medicare would pay 95 percent of the beneficiary's drug costs. As a result, these beneficiaries are forced to pay premiums to their Medicare drug plan and to absorb the monthly drug costs for a benefit they are not able to access. A study that was recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that prescription drug plans that include doughnut hole- like coverage gaps may lower beneficiary drug costs but any savings are offset by increases in the costs of hospitalizations and emergency room use. Specifically, the study found that patients with such capped benefits had higher rates of nonelective hospitalizations, visits to the emergency department, and even death. It certainly is not surprising that the coverage gap will result in many Americans going without needed medications but it is important to note that overall medical costs are not reduced and that providers will be disproportionately affected when the doughnut hole is reached. And just when charity pharmaceutical assistance programs are needed most, the current policy is making it difficult for pharmaceutical companies to continue to provide free pharmaceuticals to our nation's poor elderly. The HHS OIG has issued guidance that prohibits costs incurred on behalf of Part D beneficiaries by pharmaceutical manufacturer-sponsored Pharmaceutical Assistance Programs, PAPs-- programs run by the pharmaceutical industry that provide free or low- cost drugs to eligible poor and low-income individuals to count toward a patient's TrOOP due to concerns that providing drugs through these programs might violate the federal anti-kickback statute. The anti- kickback statute prohibits offering or receiving payment to increase the use of products or services--in this case, to steer prescription drug use--at the cost of Federal health care programs. In turn, several pharmaceutical manufacturers are considering terminating their PAPs to avoid running afoul of the law. According to a January article in the Washington Post, 37 pharmaceutical companies donated 22 million prescriptions worth $4.1 billion through PAPs. Across the Nation seniors who benefit from these programs are fearful that they will be forced to go off needed medications or to go into bankruptcy if these programs are not available to help them. While HHS is working with the pharmaceutical industry to develop guidelines that would allow PAPs to continue to operate in compliance with current law, the HHS OIG maintains that PAP costs will not be permitted to count toward a patient's TrOOP in any circumstance. As a result, similar to the ADAPs, IHS pharmacies, community health centers and safety net hospital pharmacies, PAPs that provide prescription drugs for patients during the coverage gap are forced to become the ``payer of last resort'' because the costs they incur are not permitted to count toward TrOOP expenses and thus, the patient is unable to reach the catastrophic limit. Pharmacy Assistance Programs, AIDS Drug Assistance Programs, community health centers, and safety net hospital pharmacies will maintain their commitment to provide assistance to low-income senior citizens and people with disabilities in the coverage gap but the current policy imposes a significant financial burden on our nation's health care safety net. While we all recognize the importance of controlling costs, this policy stands to harm vulnerable beneficiaries and safety net providers by permitting the Medicare program to shift the cost burden on to a variety of other federal programs, including discretionary safety net programs, and PAPs. It does not make sense that the Federal Government pays private drug plans a capitated rate to provide services and beneficiaries pay monthly premiums to Medicare while ADAPs, IHS pharmacies, community health centers and certain safety net hospital pharmacies and pharmaceutical manufacturer PAPs are left to shoulder the cost of providing prescription medications to their population of enrollees who will never reach the catastrophic limit. Just as current policy allows SPAP spending to count toward the catastrophic limit so should the costs incurred by these entities. In addition, this legislation would correct the inequity in the current policy which unfairly discriminates between beneficiaries who receive their prescription drugs from commercial pharmacies and those who receive their medications through PAPs or from safety net pharmacies run by the IHS, community health centers, and certain public hospitals. Currently, only commercial pharmacies' waivers or reductions in Medicare Part D cost-sharing requirements are allowed to count towards TrOOP. This legislation would prevent lower-income Medicare beneficiaries from getting trapped in the doughnut hole by leveling the playing field so that beneficiaries who get their drugs through PAPs or pharmacies run by the IHS, community health centers, or public hospitals pharmacies can move just as quickly toward the catastrophic coverage benefit. Mr. President, I urge your support for this important legislation to allow Part D-related costs incurred by ADAPs, IHS, federally qualified health centers, and certain safety net hospitals as well as pharmaceutical manufacturer PAPs to count toward a beneficiary's TrOOP expenses. This bill would ensure that all Part D enrollees are permitted appropriate access to the catastrophic coverage that was promised under the MMA. Mr. President, I commend to my colleagues the New England Journal of Medicine study entitled ``Unintended Consequences of Caps on Medicare Drug Benefits,'' and I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post article and the text of the bill to be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I speak on behalf of an amendment being offered by Senator Byrd which would enhance funding for border security infrastructure. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this important legislation, and I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his hard work on this important bill. The amendment would provide an additional $350 million for critical border security needs. The amendment would allocate $105 million for customs and border protection to purchase new Border Patrol replacement helicopters, fixed wing aircraft, and additional unmanned aerial vehicles. And $25 million is added to the bill to purchase approximately 540 additional replacement vehicles for the Border Patrol. The amendment would also provide an additional $90 million for tactical infrastructure. This funding can be used to construct vehicle barrier, fencing, and facility upgrades. This funding will be of great assistance to the state of New Mexico, where such upgrades are needed to secure our border. The underlying bill allocates about $57 million for tactical infrastructure in Arizona and about $30 million for San Diego. However, the El Paso Sector, which includes the entire State of New Mexico, is only provided about $7.5 million. The additional $90 million under this amendment will help ensure that New Mexico receives the resources that it needs. The amendment would also prove $30 million for ICE to purchase 800 vehicles, including buses and vans, used to transport undocumented immigrants. And USCIS is allocated $38 million to enhance fraud detection systems. These additional resources are greatly needed and I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I'm pleased today to join my colleague Senator Domenici in sponsoring the Albuquerque Indian School Act. This bill would direct the Secretary of Interior to take lands no longer being used by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Albuquerque and hold them in trust for the benefit of the 19 pueblos. The bill disallows gaming on the property. In addition to being a good thing for the pueblos, this transfer promises to be beneficial to the surrounding community, as several deteriorating structures will be renewed and new jobs brought in. Since the bill would not alter the standard public process for taking the lands into trust, I hope this will result in a consensus among all concerned on the best uses of the property. I am pleased we are taking the first step today on a process that should be beneficial to the pueblos, the Federal Government, and local residents.