Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I gather my amendment has been modified. I call up amendment No. 3210, as modified.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment, as I stated a few minutes ago, is an amendment to provide additional resources to local law enforcement agencies along our borders, both with Mexico and with Canada. The truth is, because of the increased activity there, because of the inability, the failure of the Federal Government to properly enforce our border and secure our borders, local law enforcement agencies, sheriffs, and city police agencies have a very substantial additional responsibility to deal with criminal activity. This amendment tries to help them with that by setting up a grant program. It is $50 million a year, which is probably not adequate, but it is a substantial improvement over what we currently have. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendments so that I may offer an amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I send an amendment to the desk to amendment No. 3192.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to assist border law enforcement agencies--that is, local law enforcement agencies--in addressing border-related criminal activity. Border law enforcement agencies incur significant expenses in dealing with crimes, such as human smuggling, vehicle thefts, drug trafficking, and the destruction of private property. These crimes occur and this enforcement is required because of their proximity to the international border and because of the failure of the Federal Government to adequately secure that international border. According to the study by the Border Counties Coalition, criminal justice expenses related to immigration alone exceed $89 million a year. Mr. President, it is time that the Federal Government help these border communities cover some of those costs. Specifically, this amendment that I have offered, which is based on the bill I earlier introduced entitled ``the Border Law Enforcement Relief Act of 2006,'' would establish a grant program within the Department of Homeland Security to help local law enforcement situated along the northern and southern borders to obtain the resources they need to secure our border communities. It would authorize $50 million a year to help law enforcement hire additional personnel, obtain necessary equipment, cover overtime expenses of their personnel, and cover transportation costs of their personnel. Eligible applicants would include agencies serving communities within 100 miles of the U.S. border--the border with Mexico or with Canada-- and any other department located outside of that jurisdictional limit if it is designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security as a high- impact area. The designation would be made because that area is greatly impacted by the flow of illegal immigration, drugs, and other such problems. Securing our Nation's borders is the responsibility of the Federal Government. However, as we all know, the Federal Government has failed to provide adequate security along our international borders. The result is that local communities are having to pay for a variety of costs, from health care to law enforcement. It is wrong to place this additional burden on these local communities. They do not have the resources to deal effectively with these increased burdens. It is time that Congress recognizes the tremendous burden with which local law enforcement agencies along our borders have been saddled. I hope my colleagues will support this important measure. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to join the citizens of southeastern New Mexico in celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Roswell Public Library. That this should happen on the cusp of National Library Week makes the distinction even more gratifying. I would like to take this opportunity to commend Library Director Betty Long and the Roswell Public Library staff, both former and present, for their hard work and dedication to the public library system. Their devotion and commitment to the citizens of Roswell and Chaves County are exemplary. On April 2, 1906, through the perseverance of the Roswell Woman's Club, the library opened at its original location on Richardson and Third Streets. The Roswell Public Library was established before New Mexico received statehood; it also preceded the historic Chaves County Courthouse. Throughout the decades, the Roswell Public Library has remained steadfast in providing Roswell the scholarly and leisure resources necessary to stimulate a vibrant and growing community. During my time in the Senate I have come to understand the importance of increased funding for and awareness of library services in the 21st century. Libraries do more than just loan books; they serve as meeting places, repositories of knowledge, and safe havens where ideas can be strengthened or challenged. They have played a vital role in the development of human culture throughout history. It is clear that the role of the Roswell Public Library in this most worthy pursuit will be even greater in the decades to come. Once again, I would like to congratulate the Roswell Public Library on their centennial. I wish them continued success as they move forward.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is one Senator Smith and I are offering to delete section 406 from the budget resolution. Section 406 does for direct spending legislation exactly what the Senate determined not to do with discretionary spending about an hour and a half ago on the Inhofe amendment. It says that for any bill that contains direct spending, a 60-vote point of order can be raised against it. That includes the Defense bill, the farm bill, a tremendous number of bills that we try to pass through the Senate every year. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and delete that section from the budget resolution. I yield the rest of my time to Senator Smith.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I do offer the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reid of Nevada be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin of Illinois be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I congratulate Senator Talent and Senator Cantwell for their leadership on this amendment related to methamphetamine use and the epidemic of that use in my State and in many parts of the country. I have had a series of meetings with law enforcement and local officials throughout New Mexico over the last year. During that time, one thing rings loudly and clearly: That is that the chief law enforcement problem facing many of our communities in New Mexico is methamphetamine use; not just the use itself but all of the resulting crime that occurs by virtue of people using this terrible drug. The addiction is very difficult to shake once you become addicted. We have done way too little to alert young people in our country, as well as adults, about the dangers involved. We see catastrophic, tragic results in many of our communities. This funding will help. It will allow the Federal Government to assist local law enforcement to some extent in coming to grips with this. I compliment the Senators on this amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendment I have sent to the desk on behalf of myself and many of my colleagues does three things. First, it fulfills the commitment to secure affordable and clean energy that we made in the Energy bill we passed through the Congress last year, which is a commitment that has been essentially not honored by the administration in the budget they have sent to us and not honored in this budget resolution. The second thing the amendment does is enable us to take the major step forward to clean and affordable electricity beyond what was contained in the Energy bill by extending for 4 years the renewable energy production tax credit. Third, the amendment accomplishes these goals in a budget-neutral fashion. In fact, the amendment overall reduces the deficit by $3.2 billion over 5 years because it raises more funds than it would spend by assuming the reinstatement of the superfund tax. Every Senator knows that America faces huge energy challenges. Energy prices and energy security are among the top concerns we hear about as we go around our State. Americans want their energy to be more secure, they want it to be more affordable, and they want it to be cleaner. Every one of us has devoted a lot of our time in the last three Congresses to developing legislation that delivers secure, affordable, and clean energy. Last year, we were successful in passing the first comprehensive energy bill in 13 years, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. We did so after repeated requests from the White House to send the President a comprehensive energy bill. It was a substantial bipartisan accomplishment. The President, of course, spoke very glowingly about this legislation when he signed the bill last August in my home State of New Mexico. If we finally have a new energy strategy for the 21st century, as the President said we do now, then where is the funding to implement that strategy when it comes to energy? Where is the beef in this budget resolution? If we look at the budget that was sent to the Congress in early February by the President and at this budget resolution, you would have a hard time finding that beef. Let's begin with the President's budget request. Instead of making a strong push forward on programs to deliver new forms of secure and affordable energy, the administration budget request basically treads water. The bottom line proposed for the Department of Energy in the new budget is almost exactly the same funding level as the current fiscal year. Some individual programs are up, other programs that are equally important to our energy security and to affordable energy are cut. When you look at this budget resolution, you also see an energy policy that is dead in the water. The budget resolution has a specific function that is devoted to energy. That is function 270. In the tables that have been distributed by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget describing the mark he has presented to the Senate, discretionary spending in the energy function, function 270, falls from $3.84 billion in the current fiscal year to $3.83 billion next year. In fact, the projected spending on energy in 4 out of the next 5 fiscal years in this budget resolution is less than we are spending this year on energy. I don't think it is acceptable to have an energy policy over the next 5 years that is basically a policy of less of the same. That is not what we voted for. That is not what we supported last year when we passed the Energy bill. Let me describe in detail the areas in which this Amendment will enable us to meet the challenges of energy security and affordability. The first area is the area of energy efficiency. Nothing lowers your energy bill more than saving energy. Nothing makes us less dependent on foreign oil than using less of it. Maximizing the usefulness of every barrel of oil we consume and every watt of electricity we generate enjoys broad bipartisan support because it is almost a no-brainer. For that it was very disappointing to see major cuts to energy efficiency being proposed by the administration and being carried forward in this budget resolution. The disconnect on saving energy dollars and being more secure through efficiency is even more striking, because energy efficiency is one of the areas of the energy bill that the President singled out for praise when he signed it. Here are his words: The bill makes an unprecedented commitment to energy conservation and efficiency--an unprecedented commitment. The bill sets higher efficiency standards for federal buildings and for household products. It directs the Department of Transportation to study the potential for sensible improvements in fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks and SUVs. It authorizes new funding for research into cutting-edge technologies that will help us do more with less energy. Yet in this first budget that we are getting after the enactment of the bill, those authorizations for cutting-edge energy efficiency technologies are being cut, as is funding for energy efficiency in many other programs. I think that this budget resolution needs to keep the commitment to energy efficiency in the Energy Policy Act that the President praised, and then his administration ignored. In the area of transportation vehicles, we have identified $629 million of funding, over what the President proposed, that would be required to meet the levels we all authorized when we voted for the Energy Policy Act of 2006, including: This amendment would allow full funding for the advanced vehicle deployment programs at the Department of Energy. It would accelerate new hybrid vehicle technologies into the market. It would encourage the development of engines that would run biodiesel. It would give a strong push to fuel cells in school buses and transit buses, and would make the Federal government a leading-edge customer for fuel cells. This amendment would bolster other technology programs for vehicle efficiency, and provide full funding for the hydrogen research and development programs contained in the Energy Policy Act. There was a lot of enthusiasm in the Senate last year for the long-term promise of hydrogen-fueled vehicles. But the current budget proposal short-changes these hydrogen programs, compared to what we authorized, by $268 million. If we want to see a technological revolution in the long term that takes us toward hydrogen-powered cars, then we need to step up the funding at the Department of Energy beyond what this budget resolution will allow. Another key area in keeping energy affordable relates to the efficiency with which we heat and cool buildings, and the energy we use when operating appliances in our homes and commercial equipment in the workplace. This winter, consumers have been paying unprecedented prices for heating oil and natural gas. And we have been lucky--the exceptionally mild winter prevented us from seeing sharp price spikes and spot shortages resulting from the loss of natural gas and oil production from the hurricanes of last year. But consumers are still paying too much for energy, and improved energy efficiency can make a real difference to families struggling to pay the bill from one month to the next. In this area, the administration's budget request makes some completely wrongheaded choices. For example, there has long been a Federal program to help States implement weatherization programs to reduce energy waste and save consumers money. By all accounts, it is an effective way to help cut monthly energy bills for working families. In the Energy Policy Act, we slated that program for a substantial increase. In the administration's budget request, though, that program is going to be cut by 32 percent. That makes no sense, so my amendment to this resolution provides for the full funding of weatherization programs, as well as other State energy programs to help consumers, at the levels we all agreed to in the Energy Policy Act last year. In the area of energy efficiency for affordability, then, this amendment would add $1.17 billion. That's the amount that we have authorized for these programs last year that the administration left out of its budget request. This funding would fully support key new programs to help keep energy costs down for consumers. It would fund rebate programs for energy-efficient appliances. It would help utilities with new programs to encourage their customers to save energy. It would help States improve their building codes for energy efficiency. It would accelerate Federal energy conservation standards. It would capitalize on opportunities to save energy in low-income communities, where some of the most energy-inefficient buildings and equipment can be found. Finally, this amendment provides full funding for the energy efficiency research and development authorized last year by the Energy Policy Act. The administration's budget request was $462 million short of what we agreed made sense for these programs in the Energy Policy Act and we provide this additional funding, that will make American industries--like our steel, aluminum, and forest industries--more competitive by lowering their energy requirements. This funding will also allow us to make a stronger push towards the next generation of lighting, in which the old incandescent bulb, which wastes most of the energy you put in it as heat, is replaced(, by semiconductor lighting that is incredibly long-lived and energy efficient. Saving energy through conservation is one way in which we can make energy more affordable. But conservation is just part of the answer. We also need to develop new supplies of clean energy to meet our future needs. All of us are concerned about the security implications of our dependence on foreign oil. Improved transportation efficiency is one key part of the solution, but so is greater reliance on domestic sources of energy for transportation. One area that captured a great deal of attention and support in the Energy Policy Act is making ethanol out of cellulosic plant materials. This would expand the resource base for ethanol beyond cornstarch, which is the current feedstock for making ethanol. It would allow ethanol to be made in a wider geographic area than the Midwest. This is important, because ethanol is difficult to transport in pipelines and needs to be trucked to fuel terminals in order to be mixed into gasoline. The energy bill authorized a half billion dollars in production incentives and conversion assistance for making ethanol from cellulosic biomass. The administration's budget request did not include any funding for this purpose. The budget amendment I have offered would allow for full funding for important initiatives in the production of ethanol from cellulose. This amendment also allows for full funding of the renewable energy research and development programs in the energy Policy Act. In the Budget request, the administration proposed to terminate research and development programs in geothermal energy and in hydropower. These are important resources that we can't ignore as part of the energy mix. If my amendment were adopted, they could be fully funded, instead of being terminated. Finally the area of renewable energy production, this amendment takes the first big step beyond the Energy Policy Act. The Energy Policy Act expanded the renewable production tax credit, and created a companion Clean Renewable Energy Bond program for public power. Both the tax credit and the bonds aimed at stimulating the construction of new capacity for generating electricity from solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and other renewable energy sources. These fiscal incentives, though, expire on December 31, 2007. To qualify, generating facilities have to be placed in service by that date, which is less than 2 years away. That means that these incentives are not going to be stimulating much activity over the next year, because unless your project is already well along, you will not be completed in time to benefit from the tax credit or the bond. My amendment allows for a 4-year extension of both the renewable energy production tax credit, and the comparable Clean Renewable Energy Bonds. We need to get these fiscal incentives on a time scale that actually matches the requirements of putting electric generation construction projects together. I believe that there is tremendous interest in building new renewable electricity capacity in this country. If we could give the market the certainty of knowing that this tax credit would remain in place until 2011, at this juncture, I believe that we would see an explosion of new construction. That would help us in two important ways. First, the new renewable generation would tend to back out power generated by natural gas, which would take pressure off of natural gas prices. All consumers would benefit from that. Second, the additional construction would provide employment both in States with renewable resources and States where renewable energy generation equipment is manufactured. Right now, the extension of these fiscal incentives for energy production is not in the budget resolution or in the plans of the Finance Committee for this year. If this amendment were to pass, though, we would have the resources to act on extending this tax credit in this Congress, when it can do the most good. This amendment also adds funding for a variety of other secure, affordable, and clean energy generation technologies that were left out of the administration's budget request. It fully funds the Clean Coal Technology program, which received almost no funding in the administration's proposals. This program is essential to helping coal find a place in the generation mix of the future, which will place a premium on controlling emissions and capturing carbon. This amendment also makes a major commitment on distributed electric generation technology, which is likely to have greater overall system efficiencies. This amendment also allows us to fix one of the most glaring errors in the administration's energy budget request--its recommendation that we terminate all domestic oil and gas research and development programs. For a country facing $60-per-barrel oil and high natural gas prices, the idea that we will cut off R&D spending for domestic production is a little bizarre. When you realize that most of the Department of Energy program being terminated is focused on helping independent oil and gas producers, and not the major oil companies, it is even harder to understand. There are a lot of small oil and gas producers in my State of New Mexico, and they certainly are benefiting from current high prices. But none of them are in the position to start up R&D departments. And oil and gas is a boom-and-bust business, while R&D is something that you need to have a long-term commitment to, in order to achieve results. The administration's proposed termination of domestic oil and gas research and development flies in the face of its own statements. For example, when the President signed the Energy Policy Act last August, he favorably singled out some of the oil and gas programs it authorized. Here are his words: The bill authorizes research into the prospects of unlocking vast amounts of now--energy now trapped in shale and tar sands. Last October, the Secretary of Energy announced funding for 13 R&D projects aimed at tapping unconventional sources of natural gas. That funding, like most of DOE's funding for oil and gas R&D, went to universities, National Laboratories, and independent oil and gas producers. In announcing these projects, he stated, ``The projects we are funding today are an investment in our Nation's energy security and economic security, and will help us obtain the maximum benefit of our domestic energy resources in an environmentally sensitive way.'' But 3 months later, the administration proposed to zero out those same programs in the Budget request, at a time when our need for new domestic sources of natural gas and oil are quite clear. Finally, just earlier this month, the Department of Energy made another announcement. It released a set of reports stating that state- of-the-art enhanced oil recovery techniques could significantly increase recoverable oil resources of the United States in the future. According to the Department's reports, 89 billion barrels or more of oil could eventually be added to the current U.S. proven reserves of 21.4 billion barrels. That would be a huge improvement to our energy security--an amount of oil that is 9 times greater than even the most optimistic projection of the resources of the Arctic Refuge. And this oil would mostly be produced from existing drilling sites in the United States, with little additional environmental impact. So here is the irony--both the program that produced the reports and the program conducting the research on enhanced oil recovery is the same program that the administration is terminating. Our need for new domestic sources of oil and gas is quite clear, as is the need to use advanced technology to find and produce those resources. There is no argument about the promise of such research-- even the administration agrees. I believe that the Senate should be more willing to match its rhetoric with funding than the administration has been. Therefore, my amendment restores the existing oil and gas research and development programs to the levels appropriated for the current fiscal year. In my view, that is the bare minimum that we should do. Our amendment would add $500 million to Function 600 to increase discretionary spending for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. The pending Budget Resolution assumes that appropriations for LIHEAP will be $1.8 billion in fiscal year 2007--the same as the President's budget request. We know from recent experience that this simply is not enough money. Due to very high oil, gas and electricity prices, the fiscal year 2006 funding of about $2 billion has been totally inadequate, despite a winter that was milder than normal many states. Applications for assistance this winter increased an average of 11.4 percent across the country. In New Mexico, the number of fiscal year 2006 applications is projected to be 20 percent higher than last year. New Hampshire--30 percent more applications. Texas--63 percent more. Wyoming--47 percent more. Several states have completely run out of funds. Because of this dire situation, the Senate recently passed Senator Snowe's bill adding an additional $1 billion for LIHEAP grants in fiscal year 2006 by a vote of 68 to 31. Experts predict that energy costs are going to remain high this year and next winter. Contracts for natural gas to be delivered in January 2007 are currently selling for over $10 per MMBtu. Our amendment provides for a needed increase in LIHEAP funds for next winter. Good energy policy is not something that happens by default. You need to set out with a clear, comprehensive vision and then--most importantly--stick with it when it comes to implementation. If we don't keep our focus on a comprehensive, balanced approach to both energy efficiency and energy supply, we will not achieve the goals of energy security and energy affordability that we want. I think that the administration's budget suffers from that loss of focus. Somewhere between the signing ceremony and the submission of the next budget, the energy security of our country was not given a high enough priority. I believe that this budget resolution before us now perpetuates that loss of focus. Under its terms, we will actually spend less on our energy security in four out of the five next fiscal years than we did before we passed comprehensive energy legislation. Something is wrong with that picture. I don't think it's appropriate to set up some zero-sum game on the DOE budget, where we have to rob Peter to pay Paul down in the Appropriations Committee this summer. The provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 are important enough to the country that we should be working together to increase the bottom line for all energy programs in the energy function of the budget. A lot of hard work went into crafting the Energy Policy Act of 2005 on the part of all of us in the Senate. Important priorities for Senators--both Republican and Democratic--in areas such as energy efficiency, oil, natural gas, clean coal, and others have not been requested at levels that will allow the Act to be properly implemented. I believe that we should use this Budget Resolution to get to better energy outcomes for the nation. At a minimum, we need to fund the programs we authorized to bring us better energy security and make energy more affordable in the future. It is not a mystery as to what those programs are. We extensively debated them at the Committee level, here on the Senate floor, and in conference during the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Seventy-four Senators voted to set up those programs when they voted for the Energy Policy Act of 2005. There may be those who say we should go beyond those authorizations and do even more for our energy future, and I would not disagree. But if the good work we have done to date on energy bill is not to be wasted, then we need to vote on this budget resolution to at least fund the programs that we established. That is what this amendment does, and I hope that I will have the support of a broad majority of my colleagues to pass it. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague, Senator Salazar of Colorado.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, last year 74 of us voted to pass the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The amendment I have offered is to provide the funds to implement that act. If Members want to be able to tell their constituents that they actually were serious about those provisions and wish to see them implemented before 2012, they need to support this amendment. The budget resolution before us through 2011 does not provide the funding that was called for in that legislation either for clean energy production or for energy conservation and energy efficiency. If my colleagues want to be able to say that we are taking serious action in Washington to provide secure and affordable and clean energy for this country in the future, support this amendment. This amendment provides the actual funds. This is the beef, if you are interested in where the beef is in this energy debate.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the PATRIOT Act conference report. As I have stated in the past, I strongly support giving law enforcement the tools they need to aggressively fight terrorism. But I also believe that we must ensure that we adequately protect constitutional rights and properly balance civil liberties with national security concerns. I support reauthorizing many of the expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act, but I believe we need to make some important changes to ensure that Americans' civil liberties are protected. When the Senate debated this issue last July, I supported the bipartisan compromise, which unanimously passed the Senate, to reauthorize the expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act. Unfortunately, many of the improvements that were made were later removed at the insistence of the White House and the House of Representatives. I cannot in good conscience support a reauthorization bill that is fundamentally flawed and lacks basic safeguards with regard to the rights of Americans. The final compromise that was worked out, including the conference report and the bill offered by Senator Sununu, falls short in several respects. First, it does not address the problems with section 215, which allows the Government to obtain sensitive personal records, such as library, medical, or business records, as long as the Government submits a statement indicating that the documents are relevant to a terrorism investigation. I, along with many other Senators, have pressed to modify this standard to require that the Government show that the documents sought are actually relevant to the activities of a terrorism suspect or the activities of a person in contact with the suspect. It is reasonable to require that if the Government is going to look at the private records of Americans that the Government demonstrate that the request for records has some actual connection to a terrorist and isn't just part of a fishing expedition. The final compromise does not include any significant improvements with regard to the standard for issuing section 215 orders. The conference report also falls short with respect to section 215 gag orders. Under the PATRIOT Act, when a section 215 order is issued,the receipt of an order, such as a library or doctor, is automatically prohibited from disclosing that the FBI is seeking the records. In addition, under current law there is no explicit right to petition a court to modify or quash a gag order. The conference report still provides for an automatic gag order and prohibits judicial review, but specifies that a recipient of a section 215 gag order may disclose its existence to an attorney to obtain legal advice. Although the Sununu bill the Senate passed earlier this week as part of the final compromise technically allows for judicial review of a nondisclosure order and permits a recipient to challenge the gag order before a FISA judge, this is merely an illusionary right and does not provide any meaningful review. A recipient must wait 1 year to challenge the gag order and the judge may overturn the order only if there is no reason to believe the disclosure will endanger national security. However, because the Attorney General may certify that the disclosure may endanger national security and a judge must treat this certification as conclusive unless the Government is found to be acting in bad faith, it would be almost impossible to ever successfully challenge a gag order. I also have significant concerns with respect to national security letters, or NSLs. National security letters are essentially formal requests made by Federal intelligence investigators to communication providers, financial institutions, and credit bureaus to provide certain consumer information relating to a national security investigation. The issuance of an NSL does not require any judicial oversight. The laws explicitly permitting NSLs were meant to prevent financial institutions from being held liable for disclosing private financial information in contravention of Federal privacy laws. NSLs do not require any court approval, and since 9/11 the Government has increasingly relied on them to obtain information as part of terrorism investigations. Like recipients of section 215 orders, NSL recipients are subject to an automatic gag order. At least two Federal district courts have found that NSL gag order restrictions and the lack of judicial review amount to constitutional violations under the fourth and first amendments. The conference report attempts to address constitutional problems regarding NSLs by authorizing judicial review of NSLs and providing the ability to challenge a nondisclosure order. However, while recipients are technically given the ability to go to court, the right is essentially meaningless. The conference report does allow an NSL recipient to challenge the validity of an NSL in a district court, but it also stipulates that all of the Government's submissions are secret and cannot be shared with the person challenging the order. In addition, although the gag order can be challenged in court after 1 year, like section 215 challenges, the only way to prevail is to demonstrate that the Government is acting in bad faith because the Government's certification that disclosure would harm national security is conclusive. The final compromise included in the Sununu bill does not address the significant problems with the NSL process, but rather makes some minor improvements with regard to NSLs. Under the compromise, it would remove the requirement that a person inform the FBI of the identity of an attorney providing advice to a NSL receipt. The compromise also clarifies that libraries are not subject to NSLs. Libraries, however, would remain subject to section 215. I believe the compromise fails to provide meaningful judicial review of NSL orders. Finally, I also believe we missed an important opportunity to address the so called sneak-and-peek provision, which allows the Government to search homes without notifying individuals of the search for an extended period of time after the search. Many of my colleagues have come to the Senate floor and stated that they share the same concerns that I do with regard to the shortcomings of this current compromise. Senator Sununu, who has been instrumental in negotiating this compromise with the White House, and Senator Specter, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have indicated their intention to push legislation aimed at modifying the PATRIOT Act in a manner consistent with the bipartisan bill that the Senate unanimously passed in July. Although I support these efforts, and I intend to support legislation that would make these modifications, I am under no illusion that the Senate will take up any of these bills in the near future. Having just finished debate on the PATRIOT Act, I do not believe that Congress would have much of an appetite to take up this issue again. We had our opportunity, and, unfortunately, we missed it. The changes that I would like to see made have the support of the majority of Senators--indeed, they were included in the bill that unanimously passed the Senate. However, because the majority leader knew that these sensible changes would garner wide support, he used procedural maneuvers to prevent any Senator from offering an amendment to fix the bill. Had these amendments been adopted, which I think it is fairly clear they would have, I would have voted for the conference report without hesitation. While I recognize that this bill will make some slight improvements with respect to the PATRIOT Act, we have missed a critical opportunity to address the primary issues that have concerned the American public. As I have discussed, the Government can still access the library records and medical records of Americans without having to show that the documents sought have some connection to a suspected terrorist or the activities of a terrorist. The conference report simply failed to address the core shortcomings of some of the provisions in the PATRIOT Act. I supported the improvements in the Sununu bill, but the analogy I would use is this: If you need to fix the broken windows on your house and the repairman comes along and paints your house instead--has your house been improved? I would say yes, but your windows are still broken. It is time for Congress to address the primary problems with the PATRIOT Act, and it is my hope that we can eventually enact commonsense reforms that enable the Government to fight terrorism in a manner consistent with our Nation's historic commitment to upholding basic civil liberties. I truly believe that the American people expect more of Congress with regard to the approach we have taken in ensuring our national security while at the same time protecting the liberties of Americans.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of CPL Jesse Zamora. I regret to inform my colleagues that Corporal Zamora was killed in Beiji, Iraq on February 3, 2006. Those close to Corporal Zamora recognized an indomitable love of country and a passionate desire to serve his Nation in the military at an early age. Friends and family recall that as a young man, Corporal Zamora would often drive into the desert near Las Cruces in his pickup to practice his marksmanship. This simple custom is indicative of his discipline and certainly contributed to his great skill as a soldier. In 2002, shortly after graduating from high school, Corporal Zamora enlisted in the Army, fully knowing that his country would soon be going to war abroad. This brave decision illustrates the selflessness that endeared Corporal Zamora in the hearts of his family members, his friends, and his brothers in arms. It also demonstrates his passionate, disciplined approach to service and the selfless demeanor that is at the core of what the American Army prides its servicemembers on honor, duty, humility, and loyalty. His mother Paola, stepfather Sergio, sister Christy, are all in our thoughts. His brother Tyrel is another brave member of the U.S. Army, and I hope that we can soon guarantee him a swift and safe journey home. Corporal Zamora was assigned as an infantryman to the 101st Airborne Division. We can never fully express our gratitude for our veterans' service; I ask that we stop now to thank Corporal Zamora and acknowledge the sacrifice of his family for their Nation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the bill offered by the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. This legislation would require the Secretary of the Interior to offer for oil and gas lease certain lands within the original Lease Sale 181 Area in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area. The lease sale is to be conducted within 1 year after the date of enactment of the legislation. The original Lease Sale 181 Area was proposed in 1997 by the Clinton administration after negotiations with the late Governor Lawton Chiles. The area to be leased under the bill includes only a portion of the original sale area, and does nothing to affect areas currently under congressional moratoria or Presidential withdrawal. No part of the area to be leased under the bill is closer than 100 miles from the Florida coastline. The so-called ``stovepipe'' portion of the original lease sale area is not included in the area to be leased under the bill. Leasing east of the Military Mission line under the bill can occur only with the prior written agreement of the Secretary of Defense that such area can be developed in a manner that will not interfere with military activities. The area to be leased under the bill is estimated to contain some 6.03Tcf of natural gas and 0.93 billion barrels of oil. In this time of record high oil and gas prices, these energy resources can make a significant contribution to our domestic energy supply. Much of the necessary energy infrastructure is already in place in this region, so production can come online and be marketed in the near term. The lease sale is to take place within a year after the date of enactment of the provision. This time frame is intended to allow full compliance with all applicable environmental laws. It is our expectation that expeditious, but complete, environmental compliance will be undertaken by the relevant agencies. I regret that large portions of this sale area were previously made off limits by the current administration. In 2001, Secretary Norton reduced the size of the area to be offered in Lease Sale 181 from 5.9 million acres to 1.5 million acres. This action took off the table over 61 percent of the gas resources, some 7 Tcf, and 5-percent of the oil resources, about a billion barrels, estimated to be in the original area. Directing the Secretary to offer for lease these additional portions of the Lease Sale 181 Area is one thing that the Congress can do to address our energy situation in the near term. It is past time to proceed with leasing the area that would be made available by the bill. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the bill offered by the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. This legislation would require the Secretary of the Interior to offer for oil and gas lease certain lands within the original Lease Sale 181 Area in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area. The lease sale is to be conducted within 1 year after the date of enactment of the legislation. The original Lease Sale 181 Area was proposed in 1997 by the Clinton administration after negotiations with the late Governor Lawton Chiles. The area to be leased under the bill includes only a portion of the original sale area, and does nothing to affect areas currently under congressional moratoria or Presidential withdrawal. No part of the area to be leased under the bill is closer than 100 miles from the Florida coastline. The so-called ``stovepipe'' portion of the original lease sale area is not included in the area to be leased under the bill. Leasing east of the Military Mission line under the bill can occur only with the prior written agreement of the Secretary of Defense that such area can be developed in a manner that will not interfere with military activities. The area to be leased under the bill is estimated to contain some 6.03Tcf of natural gas and 0.93 billion barrels of oil. In this time of record high oil and gas prices, these energy resources can make a significant contribution to our domestic energy supply. Much of the necessary energy infrastructure is already in place in this region, so production can come online and be marketed in the near term. The lease sale is to take place within a year after the date of enactment of the provision. This time frame is intended to allow full compliance with all applicable environmental laws. It is our expectation that expeditious, but complete, environmental compliance will be undertaken by the relevant agencies. I regret that large portions of this sale area were previously made off limits by the current administration. In 2001, Secretary Norton reduced the size of the area to be offered in Lease Sale 181 from 5.9 million acres to 1.5 million acres. This action took off the table over 61 percent of the gas resources, some 7 Tcf, and 5-percent of the oil resources, about a billion barrels, estimated to be in the original area. Directing the Secretary to offer for lease these additional portions of the Lease Sale 181 Area is one thing that the Congress can do to address our energy situation in the near term. It is past time to proceed with leasing the area that would be made available by the bill. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all quorum calls be counted equally against both sides.

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

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am informed that it is not appropriate at this point to offer an amendment or to call up my amendment and offer it, but I do wish to speak to one of the amendments, which is at the desk, that I have filed. It is an amendment that is cosponsored by Senators Rockefeller, Murray, Cantwell, Clinton, Kennedy, Kohl, Lieberman, Schumer, Menendez, Kerry, and Leahy. This amendment relates to the prescription drug problem which all of us hear about when we return to our home States. It is an immediate issue and an immediate concern for our constituents. I have an amendment that tries to address a substantial amount of that concern. On January 1, 2006, just a month ago, senior citizens and people with disabilities were promised and fully expected to begin enjoying savings on their prescription drugs through the Medicare program. For many, the drug bill has been a lifeline and is working. But for millions of Americans, the transition to this new prescription drug benefit has been nothing short of a disaster. The sad reality is that implementation problems with the Medicare drug benefit are widespread. What is especially troubling is that the problems are adversely affecting the most vulnerable--low-income beneficiaries who have lost comprehensive drug coverage they previously had under Medicaid and have found themselves without coverage for certain drugs they previously had or have fallen completely through the cracks and have no coverage for any kind of drugs. It is unacceptable that this benefit is costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 10 years and yet has left many of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens actually worse off. Consequently, I will offer at the appropriate time this critically important amendment to address the crisis. The amendment simply ensures that our Nation's seniors and pharmacists and States, many of which have come forward to fill the gap, are not left holding the bag for mistakes and problems caused by the Federal Government's failed implementation of the program. This legislation ensures that senior citizens and people with disabilities are getting the prescription drugs and services they need and that both States and pharmacists are being compensated for the costs they are absorbing whenever either Medicare or the drug plan has failed to cover those costs. While it is impossible to know the exact number of senior citizens and people with disabilities who are facing problems, we do know that at least 300,000 low-income seniors are paying far more in drug costs than they are supposed to be paying. We understand that up to 100,000 seniors showed up at their local pharmacy and were not in the new Medicare system at all. Further, we know that the Health and Human Services Inspector General's Office confirmed last week that millions of the dual-eligible individuals who were automatically enrolled in the new program were placed in drug plans that did not cover the drugs they used. For some senior citizens and for the disabled, it was a cruel lottery that has left them without the drugs they need. Fortunately, as Americans of good conscience always do, both the pharmacists and States all across the Nation have stepped up to fill the gaps. But their good deeds should not be punished. We should make sure they are fully compensated for their effort, and this amendment will, in fact, do that. I appreciate all that Secretary Leavitt has committed to do to address the multifaceted problems that have been identified. I do believe things are getting somewhat better. However, we are a long way off from having these problems resolved, and promises of better times ahead are not adequate. A pharmacist in Carlsbad, NM, reported to my office yesterday the problems, in his words, that are still prevalent. As he says: We call the processor; they say call Medicare. We call Medicare; they say call the drug plan. It is just a continuous circle of finger pointing with no resolution. Therefore, I rise today, at the first opportunity we have had in this Congress, to offer this critically important amendment to fix some of these immediate problems with the Medicare prescription drug bill. The language of the amendment comes largely from legislation introduced by my good friend, Senator Jay Rockefeller, in a bill which is entitled the ``REPAIR Act.'' Who are the people we are talking about? In a New York Times article entitled ``Medicare Woes Take High Toll on Mentally Ill,'' an article published on January 21, a little over a week ago, reporter Robert Pear profiles Mr. Stephen Starnes, who begged for medication he had been receiving for 10 years to combat paranoid schizophrenia. His pharmacy could not get approval for this medication from the new Medicare drug plan. The result was that he was hospitalized, and he was treated by a fee-for-service Medicare provider due to failure of the private drug plan. So in effect, Medicare pays private drug plans for coverage and then it pays again for their failure to provide that coverage in a much more costly way. Clearly, immediate action is needed. This is one of dozens and dozens of newspaper reports nationwide. I have a chart that makes the case fairly dramatically. We have taken some of these headlines from around the country: ``Medicare Woes Take High Toll'' is the one I mentioned before; ``Patience Only Remedy For Drug Plan Confusion''; Pharmacists Deal with Medicare Confusion''; Pitfalls No Surprise in Drug Benefit Launch''; ``Seniors Denied Prescription Drug Benefits.'' There are is a wealth of these stories throughout country. The problems are legion, and we all hear about them on a daily basis when we are in our home States. Mr. President, I know that some will likely speak in opposition to this amendment and point out that the underlying legislation on the floor is a tax reconciliation bill. They will raise the objection that the amendment is nongermane. However, this crisis dictates that we should not let Senate procedural motions prevent our Nation's senior citizens from getting the prescription drug benefit they were promised. I urge my colleagues not to take parliamentary steps to keep us from considering and dealing with this issue. Others might say that the administration has promised to fix the problems. Yet we know they have had the opportunity to fix the problems already, but they have not done so. Here are some examples: On November 3 of last year, a couple of months ago, our colleague, Senator Murray, traveled around her State and foresaw many of the problems we are witnessing today. Consequently, at that time in November, she offered an amendment that would have provided a 6-month transition during which dual eligibles--people both on Medicaid and eligible for Medicare--could continue to receive drug coverage through Medicaid. This would have given the administration more time to work through the many problems that confront these dual-eligible individuals. Unfortunately, the administration opposed that amendment and it was rejected. The CMS had a second opportunity when Medicare rights centers and a number of other senior and disability organizations filed suit to compel the Secretary to continue Medicaid drug benefits ``for any dual eligible who is not then enrolled in a Medicare prescription drug plan or otherwise receiving Medicare drug coverage.'' But again, the administration fought that suit by arguing that the ``remedy is unnecessary and it runs counter to the public interest because of the considerable obstacles and confusion it will generate in the few remaining days between January 1, 2006.'' They further argued that they would be in a position to quickly rectify any problems that might arise. I think we can all agree that it is unfortunate that both Congress and CMS failed to take advantage of clear opportunities to slow the transition of the 6 million dual-eligible individuals from the Medicaid system to Medicare and that CMS was clearly way off in its assessment of how smoothly that transition would occur. Unfortunately, we have missed both of those opportunities that I mentioned. But we have a third chance, and that chance is being presented by this amendment I am offering today to provide immediate help to seniors and people with disabilities who are being adversely impacted by problems that have arisen with the implementation of the drug benefit. We had a meeting in the Finance Committee this last week. Chairman Grassley asked a question of Secretary Leavitt, who was meeting with us there, and CMS Administrator McClellan. Chairman Grassley asked whether legislation was needed to fix some of these problems. Dr. McClellan simply responded ``no.'' The administration continues to take the position that Congress is not needed as part of the solution, that legislation is not needed, and that these problems will resolve themselves. Two weeks ago, CMS announced that States that had stepped into the breech to provide vulnerable citizens with the prescription drugs they needed would not be reimbursed by CMS because they didn't have the legal authority to help these States. Legislation was introduced immediately in the House and the Senate, and less than a week later CMS reversed itself and said it would be working to ensure that States would be fully reimbursed. Public opinion polls indicate that approval ratings for the Congress have sunk to the lowest levels in a decade. Part of that is due to the repeated failure of Congress to act when action is clearly called for. Hundreds of thousands of our citizens are calling out for help to address the many bureaucratic snafus that we are witnessing in the implementation of this Medicare prescription drug program. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, when it is offered later today, to ensure that senior citizens and pharmacists and States get the support they need to get through this immediate crisis. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.