Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, before describing the amendment, let me talk briefly in opposition to Senator Graham's amendment, the underlying amendment that was adopted by the Senate on Thursday, and address some of the mistaken claims that were made last week during the debate on that amendment. There were a lot of statements made last week. It is important to be clear about what the Graham amendment does. The amendment, as drafted, as voted on last week in the Senate, would overrule a Supreme Court case issued earlier this year that recognized the longstanding right to file a petition for habeas corpus. This right is absolutely fundamental. It is the right of an individual who is being detained by the executive branch of our Government to question the legality of that person's detention. Contrary to what Senator Graham has said, I do not believe we are giving prisoners new rights in the amendment that I just sent to the desk or in the underlying bill. I believe we need to keep in place the rights that have already existed, that currently exist, and that the Supreme Court has recognized. We need to prevent the courts from being stripped of the authority they have and have always had. Let me take a moment to address the notion that we should not care about these individuals because these individuals are terrorists. Frankly, I have no doubt that some of the individuals being detained at Guantanamo are a threat, and it is for this reason I have never advocated that we release these prisoners. But we need to recognize that not all of these prisoners are necessarily terrorists in the sense that we are debating that here. There is a January 2005 Wall Street Journal article stating: American commanders acknowledge that many of the prisoners shouldn't have been locked up here in the first place because they weren't dangerous and didn't know anything of value. The article also quoted BG Jay Hood, the commander at Guantanamo, saying: Sometimes, we just didn't get the right folks. The deputy commander, GEN Martin Lucenti, was also quoted as saying: Most of these guys weren't fighting. They were running. My point is simple. It is reasonable to insist that when the Government deprives a person of his or her liberty--and in this case for an indefinite period of time--the individual have a meaningful opportunity to challenge the legality of their detention and challenge whether they are being wrongfully detained. This is not a radical proposition I have enunciated. It is enshrined in our Constitution. It was recently reaffirmed by our own Supreme Court in the Rasul decision. That brings me to the second point. Last week, Senator Kyl compared challenges by Guantanamo prisoners to a frivolous prisoner lawsuit filed by an inmate in Arizona who was unhappy with the type of peanut butter he was being served at his meals. Let's be clear. We are not talking about depriving a person of their right to eat a certain type of peanut butter. We are talking about individuals challenging their indefinite imprisonment. If a claim is filed that is frivolous, a court can simply refuse to hear the claim. We are also not talking about suits against U.S. soldiers. There were statements made in last week's debate about ``we don't want these prisoners going and suing our soldiers.'' There is nothing in what I am proposing or what is currently in place that permits that. We are talking about suits challenging the legality of a person's imprisonment by our own Government. The right to challenge the legality of one's detention by the Government is one of the most fundamental human rights, the right to be free from being unlawfully detained by the Government. It was also argued, last week, that by refusing to overrule the Rasul decision, which was issued by our Nation's highest Court this last year, we are giving Guantanamo prisoners access to rights that even our own soldiers do not enjoy. Last week, Senator Graham asserted: Here is the one thing I can tell you for sure as a military lawyer. A POW or an enemy combatant facing law of armed conflict charges has not been given the right of habeas corpus for 200 years because our own people in our own military facing court-martials, who could be sentenced to death, do not have the right of habeas corpus. It is about military law. I am not changing anything. I am getting us back to what we have done for 200 years. Frankly, that statement is completely an incorrect representation of what the Graham amendment does. If a U.S. soldier is detained for committing a crime, then that soldier is charged, provided an attorney, and tried pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Military personnel can challenge a court-martial conviction by filing a writ of habeas corpus in a U.S. district court pursuant to 28 USC 2241. Cases such as Dodson v. Zeliz, which is a Tenth Circuit decision in 1990, demonstrate that they are provided such habeas corpus relief or the opportunity to file for habeas corpus. One could also look at CPT Dwight Sullivan's article, ``The Last Line of Defense: Federal Habeas Review of Military Death Penalty Cases,'' in the Military Law Review, from 1994, to see that U.S. servicemen are also allowed to seek habeas review in death penalty cases. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter sent to me by the chief defense counsel for the Office of Military Commissions, COL Dwight Sullivan, that flushes out these points, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN. With regard to these Guantanamo prisoners, the administration has refused to apply the laws of war, and only a handful of the 500 prisoners held at Guantanamo have been charged. None have been tried as yet, and it is unreasonable to say that these prisoners are being granted more rights than our military personnel. I would also like to take a moment to read to you the names of some of the many people who oppose the Graham amendment: John Hudson, a former Judge Advocate General of the Navy, has written to me indicating his strong opposition; John Gibbons, a former Nixon appointee who served on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals; Eugene Fidell, the president of the National Institute of Military Justice; Dwight Sullivan, the chief defense counsel for the Office of Military Commissions. And I have a long list of other distinguished former officials of our military. They have joined, and I will enter letters they have given to me as part of the Record in a moment. These leaders have dedicated their lives to fighting for and preserving our freedom, democracy, human rights, and respect for the rule of law. They oppose the Graham amendment because they see it as contrary to the values and rights that the men and women of our armed services have fought for. I have no doubt that some of my colleagues are concerned that if they vote against the Graham amendment, they would face 30-second attack ads accusing them of being soft on terrorism. But this is not about our resolve to defeat terrorists. This is about our resolve to maintain in place the legal protections on which our country was established. These are hard decisions. They are tough votes. This is the Senate. We have taken an obligation to uphold the Constitution of the United States, even in times of war. The amendment I offer would maintain the right to seek a meaningful judicial review. Specifically, the amendment would allow individuals-- any individual--to seek habeas review but would provide that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit would have exclusive jurisdiction to hear these claims. It would also limit the ability of a court to consider claims regarding one's living conditions, such as whether they were given peanut butter of a particular type or access to particular DVDs or whatever other frivolous claim might be envisioned. It would, however, allow a person to seek review regarding whether he or she is being unlawfully imprisoned. If a court determines that the detention is lawful, the court can simply deny the petitioner's application. There are good provisions in the Graham amendment, but there are also some extremely problematic sections. Both the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee argued on the Senate floor, last Thursday, that this is an issue that needs careful consideration before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Unfortunately, it appears this proposal may have the votes to move forward. The amendment I am offering will keep in place the necessary protections in our Constitution and in our common law, and it will also take the necessary steps to ensure there is a proper and expedited procedure for these proceedings. Mr. President, let me, briefly, before I yield the floor, call my colleagues' attention to some of these letters that I think are extremely important and make the case extremely well. I have previously alluded to the letter I received from COL Dwight Sullivan, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, Chief Defense Counsel for the Office of Military Commissions. This is the office that was established in the Department of Defense to defend people who are charged by military commissions. Colonel Sullivan goes step by step through the various statements that have been made in support of the Graham amendment and refutes those contentions at every step. I also have a letter from the National Institute of Military Justice, written by Eugene Fidell. Let me read it to my colleagues: On behalf of the National Institute of Military Justice (and as a retired Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Coast Guard Reserve), I am writing to express NIMJ's strong opposition to Senator Graham's amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill, withdrawing federal court authority to grant writs of habeas corpus on the petition of non-citizens in military custody as enemy combatants. The proposed amendment would sanction unreviewable Executive detention that cannot be harmonized with our Nation's longstanding adherence to the rule of law. Military detention without due process is antithetical to our fundamental values, values that our men and women in uniform put their lives on the line to protect. The practical effect of the amendment would be to validate actions by non-democratic countries around the world. Some of these countries may try to jail our citizens (including but not limited to GIs) on trumped-up grounds and then deny them access to judicial forums in which they might at least try to gain their freedom or fairer treatment. We should not take a step we would be unwilling to see others apply to our fellow citizens. We disable ourselves from objecting to flagrant lawlessness elsewhere when we shut the doors to our courts, which are the jewel in the crown of our democracy. I will only add that oftentimes when NIMJ considers taking a position on a matter of public policy our directors and advisors have a range of views. That is one of our strengths as an organization. On this one, we are emphatically of one mind. I also have letters from the Brennan Center for Justice in opposition to the Graham amendment, from the Franklin Pierce Law Center in opposition to the amendment, and a letter signed by nine former generals and admirals in the military indicating their opposition, also signed by Scott Silliman, former U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate, indicating their strong opposition to the Graham amendment unless it is changed as my amendment would change it. I ask unanimous consent to print those letters in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. How much time remains of the 15 minutes I am allotted?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I retain that minute and yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me use the remaining 1 minute I have and then I will ask permission to speak for another 4 minutes, if possible. Let me say that I think the Senator obviously hasn't read the amendment I have offered. The amendment I have offered makes it very clear that the Federal court is available only to hear claims regarding whether the determination of the combat status review tribunal is consistent with the procedures and standards specified by the Department of Defense, whether the status determination was supported by sufficient evidence, and to determine the lawfulness of the detention of the alien. They are not permitted under my amendment to consider whether the DVDs are the ones that the prisoner would like. They are not permitted to consider whether the peanut butter is the peanut butter the prisoner would like, or anything else. To try to trivialize this debate by suggesting that is what we are talking about I think does a disservice to the issue.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 4 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I appreciate my colleague's courtesy. Mr. President, first let me say we have a real difference of opinion here as to what has been the law of this land for the last couple hundred years. The Senator from South Carolina continues to say we have never recognized a right for people in conflict, armed conflict, to petition for habeas corpus. The truth is we have. The truth is the Supreme Court has--in the Ex parte Quirin case, the In re Yamashita case. There are a variety of cases where this has been the case. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that enemy combatants can pursue Federal habeas litigation to challenge that you are susceptible to trial by military commission. It is very clear that that right has been there. All I am trying to do is to be sure we do not strip the courts of the right to consider these types of petitions. If we strip the courts of the right to consider petitions in these cases, how many other areas can we find where we will deny people within the jurisdiction of our Federal court system the right to proceed with a petition for habeas corpus in the Federal judiciary? This is the most fundamental right any of us can conceive of. When you start talking about imprisoning a person and not allowing that person any opportunity to have a court review of the legality of that imprisonment, you are talking about the most fundamental of rights. Unfortunately, that is what the amendment by Senator Graham would do. It would deny that right. It would be an unfortunate act by this Congress. It would be an extraordinary act by this Congress to do that, and I believe would be very contrary to the traditions this country was built on. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the amendment I have offered which maintains the right to petition for habeas corpus on the part of everybody because there is nothing in our Constitution, there is nothing in the history and tradition of this country that says this is only available for citizens. It is available for all individuals who become imprisoned within the confines of the United States and within the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. Our Department of Defense tried to locate these prisoners outside the jurisdiction of Federal courts and put them in Guantanamo and it argued to the Federal court they are now outside your jurisdiction, and the Federal court said, no, they are not. The United States Government is the sovereign in Guantanamo. We have a 100-year lease on that property, we operate that facility, and we are responsible for the treatment of those individuals. So the Federal courts have authority to look at whether the detentions that occur there are legal or illegal. That is the law as it has always been in this country. That is the law today. We should not change that by allowing the Graham amendment to remain as it is. We need to adopt a refinement of that amendment, an improvement of that amendment, and that is the second-degree amendment I have offered at this point. Mr. President, I will yield the floor. I think my colleague wants to respond.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today we are voting on the conference report for the 2006 Energy and Water Development appropriations Act. On the whole, the conference report contains many items well worth supporting, including funding for a number of important water and energy projects in New Mexico. Regardless of my support for the report as a whole, I would like to take this opportunity to express my strong concern with a provision inserted into the legislation without any debate, and which I believe represents a setback to sound public policy. Section 121(b) of the bill is a very short provision addressing endangered species issues in the Middle Rio Grande in New Mexico. It amends an existing law enacted in Public Law 108-447 which holds that a March 2003 biological opinion addressing water operations in the Middle Rio Grande fully satisfies the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, ESA. I had supported the original provision because a thorough review of that biological opinion indicated that it was based on a credible interpretation of the best available science and contained re- openers that ensured the biological opinion would be amended if it failed to meet its objectives. Section 121(b) goes much farther and provides legal protection to any amendments to the 2003 biological opinion. The result of section 121(b) is that Congress will now take the unprecedented step of providing legal protection to the environmental analysis and decisions of a Federal agency before we know what the analysis looks like, or have a chance to assess the impacts of any decisions. The ESA requires that any analysis be based on, and reflect the use of, the best available scientific and commercial data. Section 121(b) undermines that requirement and gives the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service a blank check in issuing a modified opinion that can have far-reaching impacts to both the environment and the rights of water users in the Middle Rio Grande basin. There are a variety of scenarios that could develop over the next decade necessitating significant changes to the biological opinion. I am very uncomfortable with providing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or any Federal agency for that matter, unchecked power when it has the potential to significantly impact the rights and interests of so many people. Looking at the bigger picture, I am equally disturbed that Congress, by disallowing any opportunity to challenge a Federal agency, is now effectively casting aside the use of the best available science as the standard by which environmental analysis and subsequent decisions should be measured. I don't think this represents good public policy. Finally, over the last few years, there has been a commitment by a diverse group of interests in the Middle Rio Grande region to cooperate on creative approaches to address endangered species needs. The goal of this effort is to balance the need for environmental restoration with a recognition of the need to protect the interests of water users who are dependent on the limited supply provided by the Rio Grande. This group, which includes relevant Federal, State, and local entities, is capable of developing workable solutions to any future developments that may necessitate amendments to the 2003 biological opinion. I hope that section 121(b), by eliminating the ability to hold the Federal agencies to an objective standard, does not undermine the efforts of this group or its collaboration on these issues.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Michigan. I rise to speak in opposition to this amendment as currently drafted. After the Senate deals with this amendment, I will offer a second- degree amendment to remove the problematic language that I believe is included. First, I commend Senator Graham for taking on the issue of treatment of these prisoners in Guantanamo. He did work with Senator Levin, myself, and others, I am sure, to try to improve the procedures for processing prisoners at Guantanamo. We agreed upon some language. We included that language. He proposed it and it was included in the Defense appropriations bill. That was agreed to. Unfortunately, here he has taken that language and he has modified it. He has added to it. His additions are a terrible mistake. His amendment now also contains a provision that strips aliens at Guantanamo of any right to seek habeas corpus in our Federal courts. The right to file a petition challenging the legality of a prisoner's detention was specifically recognized by our Supreme Court in the Rasul case. Considering that many prisoners have been held there for over 3 years, that the administration has argued they can be held there indefinitely, it would be a major mistake for us to remove the very limited judicial review the Supreme Court has recognized that these prisoners still have. The writ of habeas corpus, which is what his amendment would eliminate, which is in essence a right to petition the court to review the legality of one's detention by the Government, is at the core of civil rights in this country. It came originally from the Magna Carta. Our Founding Fathers wrote this into our own Constitution. In the first article of the Constitution, in Section 9, it says: The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion and Invasion the public Safety may require it. Our Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that the Government could not simply imprison people at will and that there was judicial review that would be available as a check on that executive power. When the executive branch detains or imprisons a person within the jurisdiction of the United States--and that is all we are talking about here, detaining someone within the jurisdiction of the United States-- the Government, upon the issuance of a writ by a court, must show cause why that person is being detained. This right is enshrined in our own Constitution. It would be a terrible mistake for us to suspend that right as an amendment on a Thursday afternoon to the Defense authorization bill. This is an extremely serious issue. There have been no hearings on this issue in the Judiciary Committee. I see the chairman of the Judiciary Committee on the Senate floor this afternoon. If we are going to seriously consider suspending the privilege of habeas corpus, of filing a petition for habeas corpus, the Judiciary Committee should be the committee that considers that type of a proposal and has hearings on it. There have been no hearings in the Armed Services Committee. It would be a terrible mistake for us to do this sort of as a by-the-way kind of amendment on a Thursday afternoon as we are preparing to leave for the weekend. Through our history, Congress has suspended the ``great writ,'' as it has been called in Anglo jurisprudence for centuries now, only on very few occasions. Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ during the Civil War in order to imprison suspected southern supporters. During the Second World War, President Roosevelt unilaterally suspended the writ in order to imprison more than 70,000 Japanese Americans in prison camps. This Congress has since gone on record indicating its regret at that action taken by this Government. Today, the executive branch has once again asserted extraordinary powers. The President has argued that he has the authority to indefinitely imprison anyone, whether a citizen or noncitizen, that he deems to be an enemy combatant, and the judicial review of such decisions is not needed or appropriate. It is in times such as these that our Founding Fathers envisioned that habeas corpus would be preserved. According to the Wall Street Journal article earlier this year, an estimated 70 percent of individuals held at Guantanamo were wrongfully imprisoned. BG Jay Hood was quoted as saying in that article: Sometimes we just did not get the right folks. This is not the time Congress should suspend the writ and grant the executive branch additional unchecked authority. The administration has gone to great lengths to avoid the legal restraints that normally would apply under our legal system. They have argued that the laws of war are not applicable because we are fighting a new type of enemy. They have argued the criminal laws are not applicable because we are fighting a war. The administration position is that there is a rights-free zone where the President has complete authority to detain and hold individuals indefinitely. Within this framework, the administration argues that the prohibition on torture is an unnecessary barrier. They argue that the Geneva Conventions are outdated, that constitutional rights do not exist for this group of individuals. In essence, they argue that the rights of these prisoners, if any, are at the discretion of the President. According to press reports, in deciding where they wanted to hold suspected terrorists, the administration has gone to enormous lengths to avoid putting them some place where they would be under the jurisdiction of our courts. They considered Soviet-era detention centers in Eastern Europe, secret facilities in Thailand, Egypt, Jordan, and Zambia. They finally settled on putting them at Guantanamo in Cuba because, as the Secretary of Defense said, it was the least worst place. It also had the advantage, they thought, of giving them a plausible argument that they were outside the reach of the U.S. courts on the theory that since this was Cuban territory, if these prisoners had objections or problems they could always seek redress from the Cuban Government. That was the argument our own Department of Justice made in our courts. Of course, the Supreme Court disagreed in the Rasul case and held that Guantanamo prisoners do have the right to challenge the basis of their detention in U.S. Federal court. As I understand it, the number of prisoners facing trial today is about 10. That is 10 out of the 500 prisoners who are being held there. The rest are being held without charges. There is no prospect for them being charged in the near future that I am aware of. The President and the administration in this country have a credibility problem with regard to our detention policies. The administration says one thing regarding its position on torture. We appear to do something different. We all watched as the President toured Latin America last week and reassured our allies at every stop that, in fact, it is not the policy of our Government to engage in torture. We are on the defensive on an issue that should not be an issue in this country. We can effectively combat terrorism without resorting to these types of techniques, and we can do so in a manner consistent with American values. Our Nation's longstanding commitment to the respect of law, to the rule of law, and basic human rights is founded on a set of values that distinguishes us from terrorists and it is important that we keep those principles and those values intact as we pursue this war on terrorism. This is not the time to back away from the basic principles this country was founded on. Considering the ambiguity that exists with regard to the legal status of so-called enemy combatants and the revelations that have come out regarding secret prisoners, irregular rendition, torture and abuse, I believe it would be a tragic mistake to further limit the ability of our courts to provide the minimal judicial review that has been afforded thus far. The world has come to doubt our Government's commitment to the rule of law as a result of many of the actions I have recounted. Let us not provide an additional basis for those doubts by stripping our Federal courts of the right to consider petitions for habeas corpus. I urge that this amendment be defeated. If appropriate, after consideration of this amendment, I have an alternative amendment which would enact the first three sections of Senator Graham's amendment as we passed them on the appropriations bill but would delete the portion that strips the Federal courts of jurisdiction.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. That will be an acceptable result.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me speak very briefly. I wanted to clarify a couple of points. The Senator from South Carolina has indicated that instead of people having a right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus, we are going to give them the right to challenge the legality of their detention in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. That is not what his amendment says. His amendment says the Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia shall have a limited scope of review. The jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on any claims with respect to an alien under this paragraph shall be limited to consideration of whether the determination of the combatant status review tribunal regarding such alien was consistent with such procedures and standards as specified by the Secretary of Defense. The very limited scope of review that he would provide to the court of appeals would just say you can look to see whether they, in fact, followed their own procedures--the procedures set out by the Secretary of Defense--not whether the status, or whether the detention of that individual is legal. That is the question that the writ of habeas corpus gets to--a question of whether, in fact, a person is being legally held by the government. To say that we are going to give the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia authority to look at whether the Department of Defense followed their own procedures does not, in fact, solve that problem. I think that is clearly a clarification that needs to be understood by everyone. The other point that I would make is it does not matter, frankly, what people put in these petitions. I heard my colleagues--both the Senator from South Carolina and then the Senator from Arizona--say we have these outrageous requests being made that they didn't like the peanut butter, they don't like the television they are having to watch. It doesn't make any difference what they put in these petitions. The writ of habeas corpus which the Senator from South Carolina would have us eliminate as to these individuals is a procedure which says the court can determine whether you are legally being held, not whether you are given the right peanut butter, not whether you are being allowed to see the right DVDs, and there is no obligation of the court to grant any of these petitions. There is no obligation of the court to hold hearings on any of these petitions. All we are saying is if a court receives a petition from an individual who is being held prisoner and determines that there is a problem or a potential problem, that court does have authority to go ahead and issue an order which is a writ saying bring that individual here and justify the imprisonment of this individual. This is the bedrock of our constitutional system. This is the bedrock of our legal system which goes back long before the Founders even wrote the Constitution. It would be a very tragic mistake for us, on a Thursday afternoon, in an amendment to the Defense authorization bill, to dispense with this for this or any group of individuals. I urge my colleagues to resist the amendment, as I did before. If the amendment is defeated, the second-degree amendment which I would offer contains the first three sections of the amendment that the Senator from South Carolina has offered. That is the portion of the amendment which we agreed to for the Defense appropriations bill and that is the part which is appropriate for us to enact again as part of this bill, if the Senate desires to do so. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Go right ahead.

Mr. BINGAMAN. How much time remains, Mr. President?

Mr. BINGAMAN. And how much on the side of the proponent?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I do not intend to call for a vote on my amendment at this time. We can proceed to the next item on the unanimous consent request.

Mr. BINGAMAN. That is correct. I will not offer the amendment at this time so we can proceed to the remainder of the votes that are scheduled.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, as I understand the unanimous consent agreement we have entered into, it is still possible to file second- degree amendments and to propose second-degree amendments to the Graham amendment even after we take the series of votes that are scheduled tonight. And it is not my intent to go to a vote on my amendment at this time so we can proceed to the remainder of the votes.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to ask a question for clarification. I anticipated offering a second-degree amendment, for which I understood I would be entitled to 30 minutes equally divided. I want to make sure I have a right to argue that amendment and have my 30 minutes of debate on my second-degree amendment before we wind up agreeing to a 4:30 vote.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, could I clarify, how long is this discussion going to take because I know this is set for 4:45.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the concern is, we still need a few minutes to complete the debate on the Graham amendment and my second degree. I would hate to see that time all used up while they are discussing this other amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield whatever time the Senator needs.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?