Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am introducing an important measure that will provide local, State, and Tribal law enforcement agencies along our Nation's borders with critical assistance in addressing border-related criminal activity. I am pleased that Senators Hutchison and Domenici are joining me in introducing this bipartisan legislation.

By virtue of their proximity to an international border, law enforcement agencies operating along the border face a variety of unique challenges. Criminal enterprises are able take advantage of weaknesses in security to traffic drugs and other illicit contraband into the country, as well as smuggle weapons and stolen vehicles out of the country. This creates a nexus of criminal activity that requires substantial resources to address.

While Congress has dramatically increased funding to hire additional Border Patrol agents and to build tactical infrastructure--such as surveillance cameras and barriers--we haven't done enough in terms of helping local law enforcement. The reality is that although we are making some progress in securing the borders, local law enforcement agencies still have to pick up

much of the burden in tackling the criminal activity throughout the region.

Many of these police departments are ill-suited to cover these costs without financial assistance. Many are responsible for large, rural areas of land and lack the personnel and equipment to adequately patrol these areas. If we are going to be successful in bringing real security to the border region, we need to have Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies doing their respective parts to fight criminal activity. But to do this, we also need to ensure that local law enforcement have the resources necessary to play a constructive role, and to recognize the substantial costs they are incurring.

The Border Law Enforcement Relief Act of 2008 would do just that.

Specifically, the legislation would: establish a new competitive grant program within the Department of Justice to assist local law enforcement operating within 100 miles of the U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada; authorize the Attorney General to designate areas outside of the 100-mile limit as ``High Impact Areas'' to permit additional police departments impacted by border-related criminal activity, such as drug smuggling, to access grant funding; and authorize $100 million each year for the next 5 years to implement this program.

Let me also be clear about what this legislation would not do. It does not confer local law enforcement with authority to enforce Federal immigration law. The purpose of this bill is to help these agencies cover some of the costs they incur in addressing border-related criminal activity, not to shift another burden to them.

The U.S.-Mexico border region is a vibrant area, economically and culturally. International trade with our southern neighbor continues to increase and communities on both sides of the border maintain strong ties. Unfortunately, over the last year and a half we have seen a dramatic increase in the level of violence in Mexico as the government steps up efforts to tackle drug cartels--over 4,000 people have been killed. This violence has had a negative impact on both sides of the border, and Congress recently provided $400 million in assistance for Mexican law enforcement to address this problem. But we also need to be aware of the fact that local law enforcement within the United States also need additional resources to prevent this violence from spreading and to fight these drug gangs in a comprehensive manner.

I strongly believe this legislation will provide this essential assistance and I hope my colleagues will support this effort.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing an important measure that will provide local, State, and Tribal law enforcement agencies along our Nation's borders with critical assistance in addressing border-related criminal activity. I am pleased that Senators Hutchison and Domenici are joining me in introducing this bipartisan legislation.

By virtue of their proximity to an international border, law enforcement agencies operating along the border face a variety of unique challenges. Criminal enterprises are able take advantage of weaknesses in security to traffic drugs and other illicit contraband into the country, as well as smuggle weapons and stolen vehicles out of the country. This creates a nexus of criminal activity that requires substantial resources to address.

While Congress has dramatically increased funding to hire additional Border Patrol agents and to build tactical infrastructure--such as surveillance cameras and barriers--we haven't done enough in terms of helping local law enforcement. The reality is that although we are making some progress in securing the borders, local law enforcement agencies still have to pick up

much of the burden in tackling the criminal activity throughout the region.

Many of these police departments are ill-suited to cover these costs without financial assistance. Many are responsible for large, rural areas of land and lack the personnel and equipment to adequately patrol these areas. If we are going to be successful in bringing real security to the border region, we need to have Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies doing their respective parts to fight criminal activity. But to do this, we also need to ensure that local law enforcement have the resources necessary to play a constructive role, and to recognize the substantial costs they are incurring.

The Border Law Enforcement Relief Act of 2008 would do just that.

Specifically, the legislation would: establish a new competitive grant program within the Department of Justice to assist local law enforcement operating within 100 miles of the U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada; authorize the Attorney General to designate areas outside of the 100-mile limit as ``High Impact Areas'' to permit additional police departments impacted by border-related criminal activity, such as drug smuggling, to access grant funding; and authorize $100 million each year for the next 5 years to implement this program.

Let me also be clear about what this legislation would not do. It does not confer local law enforcement with authority to enforce Federal immigration law. The purpose of this bill is to help these agencies cover some of the costs they incur in addressing border-related criminal activity, not to shift another burden to them.

The U.S.-Mexico border region is a vibrant area, economically and culturally. International trade with our southern neighbor continues to increase and communities on both sides of the border maintain strong ties. Unfortunately, over the last year and a half we have seen a dramatic increase in the level of violence in Mexico as the government steps up efforts to tackle drug cartels--over 4,000 people have been killed. This violence has had a negative impact on both sides of the border, and Congress recently provided $400 million in assistance for Mexican law enforcement to address this problem. But we also need to be aware of the fact that local law enforcement within the United States also need additional resources to prevent this violence from spreading and to fight these drug gangs in a comprehensive manner.

I strongly believe this legislation will provide this essential assistance and I hope my colleagues will support this effort.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, July 31, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to conduct oversight on the state of the Nation's transmission grid, as well as the implementation of the 2005 Energy Policy Act transmission provisions, including reliability, siting and infrastructure investment.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Gina [email protected].

For further information, please contact Leon Lowery at (202) 224-2209 or Gina Weinstock at (202) 224-5684.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, July 30, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 1816, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish a commemorative trail in connection with the Women's Rights National Historical Park to link properties that are historically and thematically associated with the struggle for women's suffrage, and for other purposes; S. 2093, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers in the State of Vermont for study for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; S. 2535, to revise the boundary of the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, and for other purposes; S. 2561, to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a theme study to identify sites and resources to commemorate and interpret the Cold War; S. 3011, to amend the Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site Act of 1991 to expand the boundaries of the historic site, and for other purposes; S. 3113, to reinstate the Interim Management Strategy governing off-road vehicle use in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina, pending the issuance of a final rule for off-road vehicle use by the National Park Service; S. 3148, to modify the boundary of the Oregon Caves National Monument, and for other purposes; S. 3158, to extend the authority for the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission; S. 3226, to rename the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site in the State of Kentucky as the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historical Park; S. 3247, to provide for the designation of the River Raisin National Battlefield Park in the State of Michigan; and H.R. 5137, to ensure that hunting remains a purpose of the New River Gorge National River.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected] .gov.

For further information, please contact David Brooks at (202) 224- 9863 or Rachel Pasternack at (202) 224-0883.

Mr. President, I wished to address this issue which both the majority leader, Senator Reid, and the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, have talked about; that is, high gas prices.

This is a very real problem for Americans throughout the country. High gas prices today, the high price of home heating fuels as we approach the fall and winter, particularly natural gas prices which are expected to be much higher this winter; propane prices; and home heating oil prices.

Unfortunately, as I am sure we are all aware, there has been a lot of politics mixed in with the debate about what we ought to be doing to try to deal with and help solve this problem. I hope we can put that behind us and get onto a substantive discussion of the concrete steps that would make sense.

Most agree there are three areas we might constructively address in the very near term in the Congress. I hope we are able to address all three. The first is the one Senator Reid was talking about earlier, and that is, the proper functioning of energy markets or the so-called problem of speculation in our markets.

The second, of course, is how do we reduce our demand for oil. Everyone recognizes that part of the high price of gas is the increasing demand for oil, and the United States is a significant participant in increasing demand.

The third item is the increasing of supply which needs to be part of the solution as well, in my view.

On the issue of proper functioning of the markets, Senator Reid pointed out that as majority leader he has now put forward a piece of legislation which we hope can gain bipartisan support and we hope can be addressed in the Senate in the very near future. It takes some of the ideas that have come from the Republican side of the aisle, and some of the ideas that have come from the Democratic side of the aisle, and tries to meld these two into a piece of legislation that will do some real good in taking speculation out of the market.

Now, there is a lot of dispute as to what extent there is speculation affecting the price of oil. But most experts say the increased speculation in commodity markets is one factor.

On the issue of demand reduction, there are a lot of ideas also around the Congress as to things we might do. The President has not spoken about demand reduction, at least I have not heard him say anything about that. He has not spoken about the issue of speculation in the markets either or urged action there.

But I think the Congress ought to try to address both to speculation issue and demand reduction. Third, we ought to try to do something on the issue of increasing supply. Now, the President has made this his sole issue that requires attention, as I understand his recent statements.

He specifically has said the current ban on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf is what needs to be changed, that is the one thing standing between the American people and a lower price for gas at the pump. Now, 2 days ago, he took action to revoke the Presidential withdrawal of this Outer Continental Shelf land and challenged Congress to act similarly in the immediate future before the August recess.

Let me try to put some facts out for people to understand on this general issue. Before doing so, I ask unanimous consent that my total time allowed be 20 minutes as part of morning business.

This first map tries to make the point as to what we are talking about. We are all talking about the OCS, the Outer Continental Shelf. There are four areas that constitute the OCS. It is an area 200 miles going out from the U.S. coast all around the

country, on the east coast, the west coast, the Gulf of Mexico, and all around Alaska. Those are the four areas that contain Outer Continental Shelf lands. These are submerged lands owned by the Federal Government. They have always been owned by the Federal Government. There is no dispute about that. States have rights going 3 miles out into the Outer Continental Shelf but after that, the Federal Government controls those lands. That is the OCS.

So if we should be drilling more in the Outer Continental Shelf, where does that resource lie? The Minerals Management Service, which is part of our Department of the Interior in this administration, says their best calculation at this point is that 44.9 billion barrels of oil are in the Gulf of Mexico; that is 52 percent. Another 31 percent is not in the Gulf of Mexico, it is around the area of Alaska. On the east coast, there is 4 percent of what we believe exists in the way of oil in the OCS; and on the west coast, 12 percent. That is their best estimate at the current time. On natural gas, it is even a larger amount in the Gulf; there is about the same amount in Alaska as there is oil percentage-wise, 31 percent; and you can see natural gas is 4 percent on the Pacific coast and 9 percent off the Atlantic coast. That is where the resource is. To put it simply, according to this MMS 2006 survey, 83 percent of the oil and 86 percent of the natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf is located in one of two places, either the Gulf of Mexico or the area around Alaska.

The Atlantic coast is estimated to contain only 4 percent of the oil and 9 percent of the natural gas, and the Pacific coast is estimated to contain 12 percent of the oil and 4 percent of the natural gas. That is the basic information.

What is the proposal that Senator McConnell and President Bush have put forward to try to deal with this problem? First, let's talk about what they have not proposed. They have not proposed any change in the Gulf of Mexico. They have said, leave the law as it is in the Gulf of Mexico. There is no proposed lifting of any ban there. Second, they have not proposed anything with regard to the area of second most promise, and that is around Alaska, because there is no moratorium to be lifted up there. Third, they have said as to the two areas that have the least resource as far as we know, the east and west coasts, that we should give the Governors and the State legislatures of the coastal States the authority to decide whether there is to be any drilling off their individual coasts. Not only should we give them that authority, we should bribe them, in a sense, to make the right decision by promising to give them a chunk of the revenue, if, in fact, there is development permitted off their coast and if, in fact, they allow it.

This has been characterized, both by the President and the media, as giving the States a say. That is not what the legislation calls for. This legislation calls for giving the legislatures and the Governors a veto over development off their coasts. That is an unprecedented action by this Congress to say, OK, this is Federal land. This is a Federal resource. We are trying to craft a national energy policy. The way we want to go about it is to give each State legislature and each Governor the ability to veto development off their particular coast. I think that is a terrible idea. I have spoken many times about this. I hope the Congress will not agree to go along with the idea that we shift this responsibility and authority to the State level. That is a point people need to keep clearly in mind.

I believe strongly that there are several categories of land that are not subject to the drilling ban, not subject to any moratoria, where we could be producing more oil and gas. I wish to go through that list and explain it a little bit. The first area is drilling leases that are not producing oil. We know for a fact that most of the area that has been leased is not producing oil. Here is a chart that says 83 percent of the leased area in the OCS is not producing energy. There may be good and sufficient reasons why the companies that lease that land are not producing oil from it, but I believe we need to ensure that there is diligent development of existing leases. I don't know that that is the case. We wrote a letter to Secretary Kempthorne--30 Senators signed the letter--urging him to look into this and see if more can be done. I hope we can do more, and I am persuaded that we can. There are 2,200 producing leases on the Outer Continental Shelf. There are 6,300 nonproducing leases. There are many reasons for this, but clearly this is something we should look into, and I believe we can do better to produce oil from areas that have already been leased.

The second area on this chart is leases offered but not taken by oil companies. Here again, the current 5-year plan includes a sale every year in the central and western Gulf of Mexico. We had a recent sale in this lease sale 181 area that Congress legislated on in 2006, near the eastern Gulf of Mexico. The fact is, for much of the land offered for leasing--two companies at the time--MMS received no bids. We need to get to the bottom of that and figure out why, when we offer this land for lease, companies are not coming forward and actually bidding.

Let me also talk about this third area which is areas scheduled to be leased but not yet leased. The administration has done what previous administrations have done, and that is to have a 5-year schedule of leases. We have a 5-year schedule in place now. The lease sale I referred to in March was part of that 5-year schedule. I believe there are 16 additional lease sales scheduled in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. All of those are on this chart on the right, scheduled lease sales. We need to look at that and ask: Is this an ambitious enough schedule of lease sales? Do we believe there is a greater appetite by the oil industry than this reflects? Do we believe that if we put up more land for leasing, we would get more production more quickly? If so, we should consider doing this. I don't see any reason why the Bush administration couldn't offer a more ambitious plan in this regard.

The final category is areas that are not in the moratorium. They are subject to no moratorium for drilling, and also they are not in the 5- year plan. So they are not scheduled to be leased in the future either. We have a chart here on Alaska. Most of the area I am talking about is the Outer Continental Shelf that surrounds Alaska. You can see it is a very large area. Of course, we claim our right to drill and to ownership of the submerged lands way out around the Aleutian Islands. All of this is part of the Outer Continental Shelf. What this chart shows is that there are 918 million acres in the Outer Continental Shelf around Alaska that are open for drilling but have not been included in the administration's 5-year plan. So of the area in the Outer Continental Shelf in Alaska that is not covered by moratoria, about 15 percent is included in the administration's 5-year plan. The other 85 percent is areas not covered. I would think the first thing to do, if you want to get more production in the OCS in the near term, is to ask: How do we get more of that 85 percent leased? If there is a demand for that, if the oil companies wish to develop that, how do we get that leased or how do we take the schedule of lease sales that take us through 2012 and accelerate some of that? I haven't seen anything from the administration indicating a desire to do that. We need to look at that as well.

All of these things I have on this list are ways to increase oil production that do not require any change with regard to who is going to control access to the Outer Continental Shelf. As I indicated, that would be a big mistake to grant that authority to State legislatures and Governors.

Let me summarize by going back and asking, what should we do, what should we as the Congress do in the coming weeks? And I hope what we are able to do. First, we should deal with speculation. Senator Reid has a proposal in that regard. I hope it can get bipartisan support, and we can move ahead.

Second, we should do all we can to encourage more reduction in demand. There are a lot of good ideas around, from Republicans, from Democrats, from experts on all sides on that subject. We are having a workshop tomorrow in our Energy and Natural Resources Committee where some of these ideas will undoubtedly be discussed, as well as ideas related to supply. We are also going to have a hearing next week on the subject of demand reduction and possible changes in policy that could help. Then we should

also look at supply. That is what the President is focused on. We should develop the leases we have already let that are currently in existence. We should be sure they are being diligently developed and take every step possible to ensure that.

Third, if companies have the ability and the desire to develop more leases on the Outer Continental Shelf, we should accelerate leasing in areas that are not covered by the moratoria, and there are a lot of them, as I think these charts have made clear. There are a lot of areas outside the moratoria that could be leased under current law.

Finally, if the administration knows of particular areas they believe have great promise and would like us to go ahead and open to leasing and that currently are not covered, I would be anxious to have them present the evidence and tell us what those are. We put a provision in the 2005 Energy bill, which many of us worked on, calling for a comprehensive inventory of OCS oil and natural gas resources. It called on the Secretary to do that. The Secretary did do a report, an inventory. He gave it to us in 2006. Unfortunately, what we said in the legislation was that the Secretary should use all available technology, any technology except drilling, including 3-D seismic technology, to obtain accurate resource estimates. The administration chose not to do that. They did not ask us for the funds to do that. So the report they gave us in 2006 does not have the benefit of any 3-D seismic survey. I think if the President believes, and if the Minerals Management Service within the Department of the Interior believes, there are areas that are currently covered by a drilling ban that have great promise, then they should come forward and at least ask for the resources to go ahead and complete the survey they were directed to do in section 357 of the 2005 Energy bill.

There is a lot of progress we can make on a bipartisan basis. We need to quit suggesting that the solution to high gas prices is taking what has always been a Federal decision--that is, who is going to have access to the Outer Continental Shelf and under what circumstances--and give it to the State legislatures and Governors. That would be a major mistake. I hope we do not go that route. There are things we can do on speculation. There are things we can do on demand reduction. There are things we can do on increased supply which I hope will help alleviate this very real problem Americans are faced with.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, July 23, 2008, at 9:45 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to review the status of existing Federal programs targeted at reducing gasoline demand in the near term and to discuss additional proposals for near term gasoline demand reductions.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to RosemarieCalabro@ energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Deborah Estes at (202) 224- 5360 or Rosemarie Calabro at (202) 224-5039.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jeffrey Phan, a fellow in my office, be permitted floor privileges today.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, July 24, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to discuss current policy related to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Tara Billingsley at (202) 224-4756 or Rosemarie Calabro at (202) 224-5039.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a Senate workshop has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The workshop will be held on Thursday, July 17, beginning at 9 a.m., in room SD-G50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the workshop is examine why gasoline prices are so high, and what can be done about it; and why home heating oil and natural gas prices are expected to be so high this winter, and what can be done about that.

All Senators are invited to attend and present their views and recommendations. A limited number of experts will also be invited to participate and make oral statements. In addition, anyone wishing to submit written statements for the record may send them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to rosemarie_calabro@energy .senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Tara Billingsley at (202) 224-4756 or Rosemarie Calabro at (202) 224-5039.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public an addition to a previously announced hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, July 16, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

In addition to the other measures previously announced, the Subcommittee will also consider H.R. 2632, to establish the Sabinoso Wilderness Area in San Miguel County, New Mexico, and for other purposes; and S. 2448, to amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to make certain technical corrections.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected] .gov.

For further information, please contact David Brooks at (202) 224- 9863 or Rachel Pasternack at (202) 224-0883.

Mr. President, I ask that I be allowed to speak for up to 10

minutes. I don't expect to use all that time. And then my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, first, let me comment on the statement Senator Specter of Pennsylvania made about his own amendment. I support his amendment. I wish to make it very clear that the amendment I am offering is not intended as a substitute for his amendment. I favor his amendment. I favor the amendment I am offering as well. And, of course, I favor Senator Dodd's amendment as well, which he is going to speak about in a few moments. I wished to make that clear.

Let me describe the amendment very briefly. I did that yesterday. This amendment is cosponsored by Senators Casey, Specter, Clinton, and Nelson of Florida. It is based on the simple proposition that we ought to conduct a thorough investigation before we grant any retroactive immunity to telecom companies.

In my view, the structure of this bill has it backward. As currently drafted, it would grant immunity first, and then after those companies are shielded for any potential liability for their past actions, the legislation requires a comprehensive investigation regarding the company's participation in the President's warrantless surveillance program.

The amendment I am offering would fix the problem by putting in place what I believe is a more logical process.

As I discussed yesterday, the amendment would do three things. First, it would stay all the civil cases against the telecom companies as soon as the legislation is signed into law. Second, it would allow time for the inspectors general to investigate the circumstances surrounding this warrantless surveillance program. And third, it would give Congress 90 days to review the findings of that investigation before the companies could ask a court to dismiss the cases pending against them.

I believe this is a very modest proposal. It would not change any of the substantive provisions in the immunity title. The amendment only modifies the timing of when these companies may seek immunity.

The amendment would not prejudice or harm the telecom companies while the investigation is being conducted. All the civil cases would be on hold and neither side would be incurring litigation expenses.

It would not create any risk whatsoever of sensitive information being leaked during the remainder of the litigation process. There would be no evidence submitted to the court during this period of stay. There would be no discovery. There would be no classified information being discussed. As I have stated, the cases would be stayed, would be on hold.

Lastly, the amendment would not hamper our Nation's ability to collect necessary intelligence. The amendment does not limit any of the authority being provided to the Government under this legislation to conduct foreign intelligence gathering. It would not discourage telecom companies from assisting the Government in the future. Under this legislation, companies would still be required to comply with lawful directives and would receive liability protection for any help they provide.

But the amendment does do something that I believe is very important. It would ensure that before these cases may be dismissed, Congress has an opportunity to know exactly what illegal acts, if any, it is forgiving. The Senator from Pennsylvania made a very strong case that Members of the Senate do not know what it is we are granting immunity for at this stage.

I believe the American people expect Congress to act in an informed manner. Quite frankly, other than select members of the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, this Congress has not been fully informed about the circumstances surrounding this program. That is precisely why the investigation that is required under the legislation is so important and precisely why it is so important that we get the results of that investigation before we proceed.

We are talking about a program that was not conducted in accordance with the law and from what we do know may have violated the constitutional rights of many innocent Americans. I hope my colleagues will agree it is reasonable to keep these suits from being dismissed until at least we have a complete picture of what actions we are shielding from liability.

I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feinstein be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, the bill that is pending before us has the sequence of events in the wrong order. It provides that once the bill is enacted, companies can go into court and get the lawsuits dismissed. After that, there is an investigation provided for

by the inspectors general to determine what was going on in this program and what, in fact, we are providing immunity for. That is the wrong sequence.

What we ought to do is to stay the cases, stay any proceedings on these cases, keep them in court, have the investigation done--a 1-year investigation, which is provided for in the bill, and then have 90 days in which Congress can review that investigation and the results of it. Only after that would the companies be able to go into court and seek immunity. That is a much more realistic way to proceed. I am glad we have cosponsors of this amendment who support the final bill, we have cosponsors who oppose the final bill.

I hope all Senators will look at this and see this as something they can support. It would improve the legislation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I rise today in support of legislation that will avert a 10.6 percent reduction in payments to providers who care for our Nation's Medicare beneficiaries. It is critical that we pass this legislation today in order to ensure that seniors, who rely on Medicare, will continue to have access to high quality health care.

I also wanted to take this opportunity to engage briefly in a colloquy with Senators Harkin, Murkowski, and Collins about a provision in this bill relating to an expansion of the medical home demonstration.

This bill contains a provision that gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services discretion to expand the Medicare medical home demonstration initially enacted as part of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. I am troubled that the current demonstration does not permit nurse practitioners and other non-physician providers to lead medical home demonstrations. I believe Congress must include these providers in the demonstration.

In my home State of New Mexico, nurse practitioners have been able to practice independently and with full prescriptive authority since 1993. This recognition of their ability to function as independent primary care providers has allowed them to provide care for the most needy of our citizens. New Mexico is a very rural State. In some parts of my State, nurse practitioners are the only primary care providers available. They already serve as medical home providers for many of our citizens and without them many families would have no health care at all.

A June 2008 MedPAC report on primary care includes a discussion of the value of medical home demonstrations, stating ``Medical practices led by physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants are a logical place to turn for these services, particularly practices with strong nursing and other dedicated staff support . . .'' In that report, MedPAC recommended seven requirements for a primary care provider wishing to lead a medical home demonstration. The provider must: furnish primary care, including coordinating appropriate preventive, maintenance, and acute health services; conduct care management; use health information technology for active clinical decision support; have a formal quality improvement program; maintain 24-hour patient communication and rapid access; keep up-to-date records of beneficiaries' advance directives; and maintain a written understanding with each beneficiary designating the provider as a medical home.

I firmly believe that nurse practitioners, or other non-physician providers meeting these standards should be able to lead a medical home demonstration. Furthermore, nurse practitioners epitomize the delivery of high quality, cost-effective primary care that is crucial to the medical homes model.

At a time when primary care providers are so greatly needed, the exclusion of more than 700 nurse practitioners in New Mexico--and more than 137,000 nurse practitioners across this country runs counter to the need for more qualified primary care providers.

I thank my fellow Senators for joining me to discuss this important issue.

Mr. President, could the Presiding Officer please indicate what the order of sequence of events is at this point?

Let me defer to my friend from Michigan. Let me indicate I will plan to use the first 15 minutes of the 30 minutes allocated to me to make a statement now, and then Senator Casey from Pennsylvania will take 5 minutes, and then Senator Levin from Michigan will have the remaining 10 minutes. That is my plan.

I believe the Senator from Michigan wanted to state a question.

Mr. President, I ask to call up amendment No. 5066.

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

Mr. President, this is an amendment cosponsored by Senators Casey and Specter. The main thrust of this amendment is to make a point that this legislation which is currently before us puts the cart before the horse. As soon as we enact the legislation, it essentially grants telecommunications companies retroactive immunity for their past actions, but then after the fact, after they have been granted that retroactive immunity, it requires that an in-depth investigation occur regarding what those activities actually were.

The purpose of the amendment I am offering is simply to put the horse and the cart in the right order. I believe this chart makes the case very well. Let me just allude to this chart.

First, let's look at the process for dismissing lawsuits under the current bill, the way the bill now pends. That is the top line here. You can see the first step would be to enact provisions that would set up a procedure for the telecom companies to seek the retroactive immunity.

Second, in the middle here, in accordance with the underlying provisions, the pending civil cases would almost certainly be promptly dismissed as soon as the Attorney General makes the necessary certifications.

Then the last step, over here at the right--it is very difficult to read from any distance, but the last step says, ``IG's investigation and report to Congress.'' The last step would be investigation about whether the companies' participation in the President's warrantless wiretapping program was lawful and whether the relevant inspectors general can report back to Congress with their findings within a year. That is a requirement in the bill, that they do that report within 1 year.

Basically, the current bill's approach is to grant the immunity first and investigate later, after the companies have already been provided with legal liability protection for whatever it is later determined they have been engaged in. The amendment I am offering would change this by modifying the timing of the process that enables these telecom companies to seek immunity, and it changes it so that the investigation of what has occurred would occur first. Only after that investigation has been completed would we allow the immunity to be granted.

Under the amendment--this is the bottom part of this chart--the first step would still be to enact the legislation establishing the procedures for companies to seek immunity. At the same time, the amendment would stay all of the pending court cases against the telecom companies, thereby putting all those cases on hold. The second

step would be to allow the inspectors general--that is, from each of these Federal agencies that are designated in the statute--allow the inspectors general to conduct their investigation and to inform Congress about what they found. The amendment would then give Congress 90 days to review those findings, after which time the companies could go ahead and seek dismissal of their lawsuits. So the dismissal of the lawsuits would be the last step and not the first step and could only occur after the investigation was complete and after Congress had an opportunity to review their report that has been done.

The bill does recognize that it is important to understand all the facts surrounding the President's warrantless program. I am glad the legislation requires that the relevant inspectors general come to Congress with a report on the subject. This review will cover the establishment and implementation and use of the surveillance program, as well as the participation of private telecom companies.

However, as I have discussed, the bill also allows the same telecom companies to immediately seek and to obtain retroactive immunity for their participation in the program as soon as the bill becomes law. And that is a mistake, in my view. I find it troubling that Congress would confer immunity before the full extent of the companies' participation in the program is known. Maybe these companies acted in good faith, as some of my colleagues have argued. Maybe they did not. I don't know, myself, what the facts are, but, like most Members of Congress who do not sit on the Intelligence Committee or the Judiciary Committee, I received very little information regarding what actually did occur. I do know, however, that their participation in an unlawful, warrantless surveillance program is a serious issue. It deserves the in-depth review we call for in this legislation, but it deserves that review before we grant those companies blanket protection for their past actions. If we go down this path without first conducting the thorough review, we may very well look back with great regret.

To me, a much more sensible approach would be to have the comprehensive IG report submitted to Congress before companies are allowed to seek dismissal of their suits. The amendment would stay all of the civil cases against the telecom companies. It would allow time for the inspectors general to investigate the circumstances surrounding the President's warrantless surveillance program. It would give Congress the 90 days to review what is found in the IG's report.

While retaining the overall substance and structure of the bill, this would give Congress an opportunity, even though it is a brief opportunity, to at least review the inspectors general report before the companies would be permitted to apply for immunity. If Congress does not affirmatively pass legislation within 90 days of getting the report from the inspectors general, then the companies would be free to seek relief from the court.

I would also like to take just a minute to discuss what the amendment would not do. The amendment is not a deal breaker. The amendment would not remove or alter the substantive provisions in the immunity title of the bill. With passage of this amendment, those provisions would remain intact. Personally, I am opposed to retroactive immunity, but the amendment I am offering does not change the substance of those provisions.

Additionally, by staying the pending lawsuits, the companies would not be subject to the costs of litigation during the development of the IG report or while Congress reviews the report's findings. Proceedings in these cases would be suspended until the called-for report is delivered to Congress and the 90 days have passed.

Some of my colleagues have expressed concerns that unless we immediately grant the telecom companies retroactive immunity, they will refuse to provide assistance in the future. I think that is unfounded. Clearly they are under an obligation to do so under the language of this bill.

Regardless of whether Senators generally favor the legislation or are adamantly opposed to it; that is, the underlying legislation, I hope my colleagues will agree that this amendment is a reasonable modification which would, in fact, improve the bill.

Let me point out one other red herring that has come up. In a letter to Senate leadership dated yesterday, July 7, the administration urged that my amendment:

. . . fails to address the risk that on-going litigation

will result in the release of sensitive national security

information, a risk that, if realized, could cause grave harm

to the national security.

I suggest the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence need to read the amendment I am offering. As I stated, the amendment puts all of the cases on hold. There would be no ongoing activity during the time that proceedings in these cases were stayed, so there is no activity that could create a risk of releasing sensitive information.

This is a good amendment. It would improve this bill. It would make it more logical and certainly improve our ability to understand what it is we are being asked to grant immunity for. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, is there any time remaining on the 15 minutes that I had set aside?

I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania that I use two of those to respond to this latest statement. Then I will defer to him for his statement.

Mr. President, I want to respond to the statement by the Senator from Missouri about what all of the reports from the inspectors general would essentially deal with. I believe he said waste, fraud, and abuse, which is sort of the general purview of inspectors general.

That is not my understanding. I understand the inspectors general have been asked to essentially do a review of this.

The Inspectors General of the Department of Justice, the

Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National

Security Agency, the Department of Defense, and any other

elements of the intelligence community that participated in

the President's surveillance program--

Shall all work together to do a report which will look into--

all of the facts necessary to describe the establishment,

implementation, product, and use of the product of the

Program;

access to legal reviews of the Program and access to

information about the Program;

communications with, and participation of, individuals and

entities in the private sector related to the Program;

interaction with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

Court and transition to court orders related to the Program;

and

any other matters identified by any such Inspector General

that would enable that Inspector General to complete a review

of the Program with respect to such Department of element.

I believe the review we are talking about here, and that we are legislating or proposing to legislate, is intended to tell the Congress and tell anybody who reads the report what this program consisted of. That is information we do not have today. And it is entirely appropriate that we get that report before we grant immunity.

That is the thrust of my amendment, I hope all of my colleagues will support it. I appreciate my colleague from Pennsylvania yielding me additional time to speak in response.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the 21st Century Energy Technology Deployment Act to begin to address our need to accelerate the deployment of advanced, clean energy technologies and help establish the United States as a leader in these technologies that will be in great demand in the coming years.

The Energy Committee has had numerous hearings on the challenges we face in the coming decades regarding new energy. Meeting our energy security needs while diverting from our current pathway towards catastrophic climate change will require significant investment. I'm convinced that making this investment is not only the right thing to do for future generations, but that it will pay real dividends to the U.S. economy if we can position ourselves to lead the rest of the world in this necessary transition.

There have been many good proposals advanced to begin our journey down the path towards a more sustainable energy policy. Some of these proposals have even been enacted into law through energy bills in 2005 and 2007, but I think there is general agreement in this body that much remains to be done.

The missing ingredient that this bill seeks to supply concerns traversing the so-called ``valley of death.'' This is the part of the development cycle of a new technology when the technology has been demonstrated at a lab or pilot scale and is ready to be demonstrated at a commercial scale. It is here, we are told, where new technologies, and particularly capital-intensive energy technologies, often languish for want of funding. Banks traditionally aim for moderate risk and predictable returns and simply have very little incentive to bet on unfamiliar technologies with speculative returns. Venture capitalists, who are more comfortable with technology risk, simply can't supply the billions of dollars necessary to push these technologies forward at the pace we need.

This bill can help fill this financing gap between the venture capital community and the banking community and I hope it will act as a catalyst for continuing conversation on this vital topic.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the 21st Century Energy Technology Deployment Act to begin to address our need to accelerate the deployment of advanced, clean energy technologies and help establish the United States as a leader in these technologies that will be in great demand in the coming years.

The Energy Committee has had numerous hearings on the challenges we face in the coming decades regarding new energy. Meeting our energy security needs while diverting from our current pathway towards catastrophic climate change will require significant investment. I'm convinced that making this investment is not only the right thing to do for future generations, but that it will pay real dividends to the U.S. economy if we can position ourselves to lead the rest of the world in this necessary transition.

There have been many good proposals advanced to begin our journey down the path towards a more sustainable energy policy. Some of these proposals have even been enacted into law through energy bills in 2005 and 2007, but I think there is general agreement in this body that much remains to be done.

The missing ingredient that this bill seeks to supply concerns traversing the so-called ``valley of death.'' This is the part of the development cycle of a new technology when the technology has been demonstrated at a lab or pilot scale and is ready to be demonstrated at a commercial scale. It is here, we are told, where new technologies, and particularly capital-intensive energy technologies, often languish for want of funding. Banks traditionally aim for moderate risk and predictable returns and simply have very little incentive to bet on unfamiliar technologies with speculative returns. Venture capitalists, who are more comfortable with technology risk, simply can't supply the billions of dollars necessary to push these technologies forward at the pace we need.

This bill can help fill this financing gap between the venture capital community and the banking community and I hope it will act as a catalyst for continuing conversation on this vital topic.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.