Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish today to join with my colleague, Senator Snowe to introduce the bipartisan Rural Aviation Improvement Act. Senator Snowe has been a longtime champion of commercial air service in rural areas, and I applaud her continued leadership on this important legislation. One of the goals of our bill is to preserve and improve the Essential Air Service Program. Congress established the Essential Air Service Program in 1978 to ensure that communities that had commercial air service before airline deregulation would continue to receive scheduled service. The Essential Air Service Program currently ensures commercial air service to over 100 communities in 35 States. EAS supports an additional 39 communities in Alaska. Without EAS, many rural communities would have no commercial air service at all. I believe our bill makes a number of important improvements to EAS to ensure rural communities continue to have the commercial air service that is so vital to their futures. Our bill also extends through 2011 the Department of Transportation's authority to provide grants to cities under the Small Community Air Service Development Program, which was first established in 2000. The program helps rural communities establish new air service or to promote and improve their existing air service. Since it was first enacted, a number of New Mexico communities have won grants, including most recently Gallup in 2006. All across America, small communities face ever-increasing hurdles to promoting their economic growth and development. Today, many rural areas lack access to interstate or even four-lane highways, railroads, or broadband telecommunications. Business development in rural areas frequently hinges on the availability of scheduled air service. For small communities, commercial air service provides a critical link to the national and international transportation system. I do believe Congress must help ensure that affordable, reliable, and safe air service remains available in rural America. The Senate Commerce Committee and its Aviation Subcommittee are well along in developing a reauthorization of aviation programs this year. I look forward to working with my colleagues Chairmen Inouye and Rockefeller and Ranking Members Stevens and Lott to improve commercial air service programs for rural areas. I believe our bill is one important step in that process.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the landmark 1999 Surgeon General's report on mental health brought a hidden mental health crisis to the attention of the U.S. public. According to that report, 13.7 million children in our country--about one in five--suffer from a diagnosable emotional or behavioral disorder. Such disorders as Anxiety Disorders, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, and Depression are among the most common in this age group. Yet more than two-thirds of these children do not receive any treatment. Long waiting lists for children seeking services, including those in crisis, are not uncommon. The primary reason is that severe shortages exist in qualified mental health professionals, including child psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and counselors. The President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health also found that ``the supply of well-trained mental health professionals is inadequate in most areas of the country . . . particular shortages exist for mental health providers who serve children, adolescents, and older Americans.'' The situation is no better in our public schools, where children's mental health needs are often first identified. According to the National Center for Education Statistics within the Department of Education, there are approximately 479 students for each school counselor in U.S. schools, nearly twice the recommended ratio of 250 students for each counselor. The situation in my home State of New Mexico is a case in point. Estimates suggest that 56,000 children and adolescents in New Mexico have an emotional or behavioral disorder. Of these, roughly 20,000 have serious disturbances that impair their ability to fulfill the demands of everyday life. In 2001, there were a total of 44 child and adolescent psychiatrists in the entire State of New Mexico. The impact of this shortage on the affected children and their communities is disconcerting. Research shows that children with untreated emotional and behavioral disorders are at higher risk for school failure and dropping out of school, violence, drug abuse, suicide, and criminal activity. For New Mexico youth, the suicide rate is twice the national average, the fourth highest in the nation, and the third leading cause of death. By one estimate, roughly one in seven youth in New Mexico detention centers are in need of mental health treatment that is just not available. New Mexico is not alone in its struggle to address the needs of these children. Nationwide, over 1600 urban, suburban, and rural communities have been designated Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas by the Federal Government due to their severe lack of psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and other professionals to serve children and adults. Rural areas are especially hard hit. For example, in New Mexico there is one psychiatrist per 20,000 residents in rural areas, whereas in urban areas there is one per 3000 residents. In rural and frontier counties, it is not unusual for the parents of a child in need of services to travel 60 to 90 miles to reach the nearest psychiatrist, psychologist, or other mental health provider. In States like Alaska and Wyoming, the distance may be even farther. Finally, graduate programs providing the vital pipeline for the child mental health workforce have not sufficiently increased their funding, class sizes, and training programs to meet the ever growing need for these specialists. In the U.S., only 300 new child and adolescent psychiatrists are trained each year, despite projections by the Bureau of Health Professions that the shortage of child and adolescent psychiatrist will grow to 4,000 by the year 2020. Federal grant funding for graduate psychology education has also been significantly reduced in the past two years, which could reduce the numbers of child and adolescent psychologists entering the profession. Clearly something needs to be done to address this serious shortage in mental health professionals to meet the growing needs of our Nation's youth. It is for this reason that I rise today with my colleagues Senator Collins of Maine, Senator Leahy of Vermont, Senator Durbin of Illinois, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Harkin of Iowa, Senator Stabenow of Michigan, Senator Dodd of Connecticut, and Senator Sanders of Vermont to offer The Child Health Care Crisis Relief Act of 2007. This bill creates incentives to help recruit and retain mental health professionals providing direct clinical care, and to help create, expand, and improve programs to train child mental health professionals. It provides loan repayments and scholarships for child mental health and school-based service professionals as well as internships and field placements in child mental health services and training for paraprofessionals who work in children's mental health clinical settings. The bill also provides grants to graduate schools to help develop and expand child and adolescent mental health programs. It restores the Medicare Graduate Medical Education Program for child and adolescent psychiatrists and extends the board eligibility period for residents and fellows from 4 years to 6 years. Across all mental health professions, priority for loan repayments, scholarships, and grants is given to individuals and programs serving children and adolescents in high-need areas. Finally, The Child Health Care Crisis Relief Act of 2007 requires the Secretary to prepare a report on the distribution and need for child mental health and school-based professionals, including disparities in the availability of services, on a State-by-State basis. This report will help Congress more clearly ascertain the mental health workforce needs that are facing our Nation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and my statement be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the appended letter from the Mental Health Liaison Group, representing 40 national professional and mental health advocacy organizations in support of The Child Health Care Crisis Relief Act of 2007, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish today to join with my colleague, Senator Snowe to introduce the bipartisan Rural Aviation Improvement Act. Senator Snowe has been a longtime champion of commercial air service in rural areas, and I applaud her continued leadership on this important legislation. One of the goals of our bill is to preserve and improve the Essential Air Service Program. Congress established the Essential Air Service Program in 1978 to ensure that communities that had commercial air service before airline deregulation would continue to receive scheduled service. The Essential Air Service Program currently ensures commercial air service to over 100 communities in 35 States. EAS supports an additional 39 communities in Alaska. Without EAS, many rural communities would have no commercial air service at all. I believe our bill makes a number of important improvements to EAS to ensure rural communities continue to have the commercial air service that is so vital to their futures. Our bill also extends through 2011 the Department of Transportation's authority to provide grants to cities under the Small Community Air Service Development Program, which was first established in 2000. The program helps rural communities establish new air service or to promote and improve their existing air service. Since it was first enacted, a number of New Mexico communities have won grants, including most recently Gallup in 2006. All across America, small communities face ever-increasing hurdles to promoting their economic growth and development. Today, many rural areas lack access to interstate or even four-lane highways, railroads, or broadband telecommunications. Business development in rural areas frequently hinges on the availability of scheduled air service. For small communities, commercial air service provides a critical link to the national and international transportation system. I do believe Congress must help ensure that affordable, reliable, and safe air service remains available in rural America. The Senate Commerce Committee and its Aviation Subcommittee are well along in developing a reauthorization of aviation programs this year. I look forward to working with my colleagues Chairmen Inouye and Rockefeller and Ranking Members Stevens and Lott to improve commercial air service programs for rural areas. I believe our bill is one important step in that process.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the landmark 1999 Surgeon General's report on mental health brought a hidden mental health crisis to the attention of the U.S. public. According to that report, 13.7 million children in our country--about one in five--suffer from a diagnosable emotional or behavioral disorder. Such disorders as Anxiety Disorders, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, and Depression are among the most common in this age group. Yet more than two-thirds of these children do not receive any treatment. Long waiting lists for children seeking services, including those in crisis, are not uncommon. The primary reason is that severe shortages exist in qualified mental health professionals, including child psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and counselors. The President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health also found that ``the supply of well-trained mental health professionals is inadequate in most areas of the country . . . particular shortages exist for mental health providers who serve children, adolescents, and older Americans.'' The situation is no better in our public schools, where children's mental health needs are often first identified. According to the National Center for Education Statistics within the Department of Education, there are approximately 479 students for each school counselor in U.S. schools, nearly twice the recommended ratio of 250 students for each counselor. The situation in my home State of New Mexico is a case in point. Estimates suggest that 56,000 children and adolescents in New Mexico have an emotional or behavioral disorder. Of these, roughly 20,000 have serious disturbances that impair their ability to fulfill the demands of everyday life. In 2001, there were a total of 44 child and adolescent psychiatrists in the entire State of New Mexico. The impact of this shortage on the affected children and their communities is disconcerting. Research shows that children with untreated emotional and behavioral disorders are at higher risk for school failure and dropping out of school, violence, drug abuse, suicide, and criminal activity. For New Mexico youth, the suicide rate is twice the national average, the fourth highest in the nation, and the third leading cause of death. By one estimate, roughly one in seven youth in New Mexico detention centers are in need of mental health treatment that is just not available. New Mexico is not alone in its struggle to address the needs of these children. Nationwide, over 1600 urban, suburban, and rural communities have been designated Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas by the Federal Government due to their severe lack of psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and other professionals to serve children and adults. Rural areas are especially hard hit. For example, in New Mexico there is one psychiatrist per 20,000 residents in rural areas, whereas in urban areas there is one per 3000 residents. In rural and frontier counties, it is not unusual for the parents of a child in need of services to travel 60 to 90 miles to reach the nearest psychiatrist, psychologist, or other mental health provider. In States like Alaska and Wyoming, the distance may be even farther. Finally, graduate programs providing the vital pipeline for the child mental health workforce have not sufficiently increased their funding, class sizes, and training programs to meet the ever growing need for these specialists. In the U.S., only 300 new child and adolescent psychiatrists are trained each year, despite projections by the Bureau of Health Professions that the shortage of child and adolescent psychiatrist will grow to 4,000 by the year 2020. Federal grant funding for graduate psychology education has also been significantly reduced in the past two years, which could reduce the numbers of child and adolescent psychologists entering the profession. Clearly something needs to be done to address this serious shortage in mental health professionals to meet the growing needs of our Nation's youth. It is for this reason that I rise today with my colleagues Senator Collins of Maine, Senator Leahy of Vermont, Senator Durbin of Illinois, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Harkin of Iowa, Senator Stabenow of Michigan, Senator Dodd of Connecticut, and Senator Sanders of Vermont to offer The Child Health Care Crisis Relief Act of 2007. This bill creates incentives to help recruit and retain mental health professionals providing direct clinical care, and to help create, expand, and improve programs to train child mental health professionals. It provides loan repayments and scholarships for child mental health and school-based service professionals as well as internships and field placements in child mental health services and training for paraprofessionals who work in children's mental health clinical settings. The bill also provides grants to graduate schools to help develop and expand child and adolescent mental health programs. It restores the Medicare Graduate Medical Education Program for child and adolescent psychiatrists and extends the board eligibility period for residents and fellows from 4 years to 6 years. Across all mental health professions, priority for loan repayments, scholarships, and grants is given to individuals and programs serving children and adolescents in high-need areas. Finally, The Child Health Care Crisis Relief Act of 2007 requires the Secretary to prepare a report on the distribution and need for child mental health and school-based professionals, including disparities in the availability of services, on a State-by-State basis. This report will help Congress more clearly ascertain the mental health workforce needs that are facing our Nation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and my statement be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the appended letter from the Mental Health Liaison Group, representing 40 national professional and mental health advocacy organizations in support of The Child Health Care Crisis Relief Act of 2007, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Clinton amendment No. 1183 be further modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 5 minutes of the remaining time be reserved for Senator DeMint.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to first speak on behalf of an amendment I offered with Senator Obama. It is one of the two amendments that will be voted on in the sequence at 2 o'clock. The amendment is aimed at addressing what I believe is a very shortsighted provision in this draft immigration bill. My amendment applies only to this new guest worker program we are creating under the bill, the so-called Y-1 program. It doesn't impact the Y-2 program, which is the seasonal and nonagricultural program that is based on the existing H-2B program, or the H-2A program, which is the agricultural temporary worker program. Under this immigration bill as it now stands, Y-1 workers--guest workers, which is how we refer to them--would be able to work in the United States for three 2-year work periods. But before they could renew their visas for the second and the third of those 2-year work periods, they would have to leave the country for at least a year. This is the so-called 2-1-2-1-2 provision. Work for 2 years, leave for 1 year, work for 2 years, leave for 1 year, work for 2 years, and then leave for good. The total number of work years in the United States would be limited to 6 years, but the work pattern would be interrupted twice each time by a 1-year absence requirement. The amendment I have offered, and that we will be voting on in a few minutes, simply removes the requirement these guest workers leave the country before they renew their visas. It would leave in place the term of the visa, which is 2 years, and it would not alter the 6-year total work limit that is provided for in the bill. In addition, it would modify the requirement that Y-1 workers meet all of the relevant requirements under the program each time they apply to renew their visas. Over the last 2 days, I have come to the floor to discuss this provision a couple of times. I strongly believe it does not make any sense from a policy standpoint and, ultimately, we are going to be judged by how much sense this legislation makes. As I have pointed out, this provision is bad for employers; it harms American workers; it will be difficult and costly to implement; and it will likely encourage these workers, whom we are bringing here as so-called guest workers, to overstay their visas. For these reasons, my amendment has the broad support of labor groups, such as the Service Employees International Union; business organizations, such as the National Association of Home Builders and the Associated Builders and Contractors; and immigration and religious groups, such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the American Association of Immigration Lawyers, and the National Immigration Forum. The coalition of organizations supporting this amendment is indicative of how harmful the 1-year absence requirement would be from a variety of different perspectives. I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the following material be printed in the Record: the statement that was issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, a letter by the Associated Builders and Contractors Organization, a letter by the National Association of Home Builders, and a statement by the SEIU, the Service Employees International Union.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, with regard to the employer, it would be extremely costly to require businesses to retrain and rehire new workers every 2 years. No employer I am aware of would think it satisfactory for an employee to take a 1-year so-called break every couple of years. Each of us in the Senate employs people in our offices, here in the Capitol and our home States. This would be an unacceptable condition for us, and I am sure it would be for any employer. Businesses would have to hire other workers to take over for the leaving guest worker, would have to invest time and money in retraining additional staff. This would be extremely burdensome, particularly on small businesses. From an economic standpoint, I believe it generally does not make sense to enact laws that cause instability in the workforce and create requirements that unnecessarily impose significant costs on our small businesses. I am not an economist, but this does not seem to be a sensible way for us to do business. Let me take a moment to read a portion of a letter I received from the National Association of Homebuilders on this issue. The letter says: This system essentially makes the entire program in title IV unworkable for the construction industry. In the residential construction industry, employers spend much time and resources training employees. To arbitrarily lose valued employees at the end of 2 years, as they are forced to return home for a full year, creates unnecessary amounts of instability in our workplaces, and wastes scarce employer resources. The construction industry is not the only sector of the economy that would be adversely impacted by this provision. The new guest worker program is not limited in the respect that existing temporary worker programs are in terms of the work being seasonal or within certain industries, such as in agriculture. These are, in fact, permanent jobs we are talking about, and they are scattered throughout our economy and will be affected if we leave this provision unchanged. The 1-year absence requirement is also harmful to American workers. Kicking workers out of the country every 2 years ensures that there will always be guest workers who will be coming in to be paid at the low end of the pay scale, and this will result in a depression of wages for all workers, not just those guest workers but for the American workers who are competing for those jobs as well. According to a letter of support I have asked to be printed in the Record that I received from the Service Employees International Union, they say the following: Employers will be less likely to invest in worker training or other benefits and wages to retain workers. . . . The 2-1- 2-1-2 is a recipe for wage depression, job turnover and increased illegal workers. The structure of the new guest worker program will also result in a substantial number of these workers overstaying their visas so they don't have to leave the country for an extended period of time. The Government has not done a great job in the past of ensuring that individuals leave the country at the expiration of their visas, and I have no reason to believe--I don't think any of us have any reason to believe--that the Department of Homeland Security will be able to do a substantially better job in the near future. In December of last year, after the Government Accountability Office issued a report regarding the US-VISIT Program, which is a mechanism by which Government is supposed to be able to track the entry and the exit of foreign visitors, the Department of Homeland Security scrapped its plans to implement the exit portion of that program for U.S. land ports of entry. In essence, the GAO report found it could take up to 10 years to develop the technology required to fully implement the program and that the cost of doing so could be in the tens of billions of dollars. There is nothing in the immigration bill that indicates that this capability is within our reach. In section 130 of the bill, the Federal Government is required to come up with a schedule for deploying the exit component of the US- VISIT system. However, we have already been told by the GAO that this will not be a reality for a very long period of time. In crafting this immigration bill, there has been a lot of attention given to trying to bring together individuals with a wide variety of political views. In my opinion, we have not focused enough on the practical aspects of how this bill is going to be implemented. Compromises need to be made as part of any legislative package, but we cannot lose sight of the need to craft legislation that makes sense from a policy standpoint and that actually can be implemented and can work. It is my belief the new guest worker program is currently structured in a manner that has more to do with the politics of getting a compromise among those who drafted the legislation than it does with sound policy. As I have discussed, the requirement that these guest workers leave every 2 years before renewing their visas is bad for employers, it is harmful to American workers, it is difficult to enforce, and it will likely result in a larger population of undocumented workers in this country in the future. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and to help make this bill more workable and better public policy. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, DC, June 6, 2007. U.S. Catholic Bishops Urge Senate To Support Amendments Protecting Asylum Seekers and Guest Workers in the Comprehensive Immigration Bill The U.S Conference of Catholic Bishops urges Senators to vote for the following amendments to S. 1348, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007: The Lieberman Safe and Secure Detention Amendment. Lieberman amendment #1191 would maintain U.S. obligations to international human rights by providing safe and secure detention for victims of torture and persecution seeking asylum protection in this country. While awaiting judgment on their cases, persons claiming persecution or fear of persecution in their home countries often are subjected to prison-like conditions in U.S. detention facilities without proper health, nutritional, physical or spiritual care. This amendment makes major improvements to the U.S. detention system by reinforcing the country's rich heritage and tradition of assisting especially vulnerable persons. The Bingaman Guest-Worker Workability Amendment. Bingaman amendment #1267 would eliminate the requirement for the ``years out'' for guest workers who are renewing their temporary Y-visas. By requiring workers to leave the country after two years, only to return one year later, the underlying legislation would create a highly-bureaucratic and unstable system for guest workers to come in to the country. It is likely that many guest workers would overstay their visas, knowing that they are to return in just a year, and many government resources would likely be devoted to seeking out and punishing individuals who are providing valuable and much-needed work. The Bingaman amendment provides a significant step toward creating a worker program that is more humane, workable, and desirous for both guest workers and employers alike.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I first thank my colleague and congratulate him for his leadership on this bill. I know he has worked long and hard to bring this bill to the floor and is making the best out of a very awkward, difficult situation in trying to get all the interested parties under the same tent. I am reminded of when I was attorney general of my State of New Mexico. One of the duties of the attorney general in New Mexico is to issue what are called attorneys general opinions about different legal points that come up. Sometimes those opinions are followed by various State agencies and then they are challenged in court. I remember in one of the cases where it was challenged in our State supreme court, a friend of mine on the State supreme court, who was a very wise man, wrote an opinion essentially saying that the opinion I had issued, the attorney general opinion, was wrong. He said attorneys general opinions are entitled to great weight, except when they are wrong. That is sort of the way I feel about the bill that has been brought to the floor. I have great respect for those who have put it together, and it is entitled to great weight and deference, except where it clearly is wrong. That is what we are trying to do with this amendment, is to correct an area of the bill that clearly is wrong. I hope my colleagues will see it the same way and support my amendment. But I compliment the Senator from Pennsylvania for his leadership on this important issue. Amendment No. 1177 I wish to speak very briefly about another amendment, unless the Senator from Pennsylvania wishes to say something, and then I would defer to him. I gather he does not need to at this point. Let me speak briefly about another amendment I have filed. It is amendment No. 1177. It provides forestry workers with Y visas some of the same rights to ensure that the terms of their guest worker contracts are honored the same way other guest workers in the agricultural sector can have their contracts honored. This is an amendment that is eminently reasonable. It was adopted by unanimous consent during the debate as part of the immigration bill we passed out of the Senate in the last Congress. I hope we can get agreement from the managers of the legislation to include it this year as well. So I wished to briefly allude to that amendment and urge every consideration of it. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Landrieu be added as a cosponsor to amendment 1267.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment tries to eliminate the 2- 1-2-1-2 provisions in this bill. The underlying bill says if a guest worker comes here, they can work for 2 years, they are kicked out for a year, they can come back, work for two more, they are kicked out for a year, they can come back work for two more, then they are kicked out for good. What my amendment does is to say: Let's bring them here for 2 years, allow them to renew their visa twice, so that they would be here a maximum of 6 years. This makes a lot more sense for employers, for American workers who are competing for these jobs, for the guest workers themselves. This has the support of the business community, the unions, the Catholic bishops. Everybody interested in this bill supports this. This is commonsense legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words about Craig Thomas. He was a friend of mine and of all of us in the Senate. His death is a shock to this institution and to all of us. I heard the news this morning on the radio, as many of us did, I believe, and I was genuinely shocked to hear that he had died. My last encounter with him was the week before we had our recess where I had the chance to be with him in the Energy Committee, and he was there and very much participating in that committee hearing. He had a great deal to say, as he usually did, and an interest in what was going on. I think the first thing that comes to my mind about Craig is that he was an example of courage in the face of adversity. I have seen several interviews recently where I was very admiring of Elizabeth Edwards and the tremendous example she is presenting for the entire country about carrying on in the face of adversity after having been diagnosed, as she has been. I think the American people appreciate that, and understandably. I appreciate it, and I am sure everyone who is aware of her circumstance appreciates it greatly. The same can be said about Craig Thomas. Craig was diagnosed with leukemia shortly before his reelection this last fall, and I think everybody had to know that this was not a minor illness that was easily overcome. Craig took it in stride. He was here working in the Senate. He went through the chemotherapy and he was back, regaining his strength, and all of us admired that. All of us admired the way he faced that adversity, and he did all that he could, all that was humanly possible, to overcome that adversity. I had the good fortune to serve with Craig on two committees, including the Energy Committee, where he was chair of the National Park Subcommittee. He took a great interest in issues affecting not only national parks but our public lands generally and, of course, our energy issues as well. I also had the good fortune to serve with him on the Finance Committee. The chairman of the Finance Committee this year appointed a new Subcommittee on Energy and Natural Resource Tax Issues. I was fortunate to be named chair of that, and Craig was named as the ranking member. So he and I spent a lot of time together, both in the Energy Committee and in the Finance Committee, sitting in hearings and talking about the agenda of the committees and generally interacting. I had the other great good fortune of taking a trip last year that Senator Warner and Senator Levin sponsored--a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, in April of 2006, with Craig Thomas. Craig and I were both invited to be on that trip. So I spent time with him and interacted with him in Afghanistan and in Turkey, where we made a short stop, and also in London, where we met with some British defense officials. Three things came through to me that I think are my recollection of Craig Thomas: First, his decency as a human being. When you are with a person for a substantial period of time, you get a sense of their decency as a human being. I have spent a lot of time with Craig Thomas in this Senate and on that trip to which I just alluded. I can vouch for his basic decency. He was always considerate, always civil, always concerned about the feelings of others and the reaction of others. The second characteristic I would allude to is his ability to ask tough questions. Craig liked to think of himself as a conservative. I would characterize him, as much as anything, as sort of a skeptic. Whenever the experts were telling us what the solution to a problem was, or what their analysis of a problem was, he was one who would stand back and say: Wait a minute, let's question some of that expert advice and expert analysis that you are giving us. That is very much needed by people in public office. You need people who will ask the tough questions, and Craig Thomas asked the tough questions. Third is the characteristic that others have spoken of here--that he was a straight shooter; he was straightforward in his view of the issues. You didn't have to guess what Craig thought about an issue. He would tell you, and it was a heartfelt view that he was expressing. So this is a very great loss to this Senate, to the people of Wyoming, and to the country. I consider him to have been a superb public servant. The people of Wyoming were extremely well served by him, the country was well served by him, and this Senate was well served by having him as one of our distinguished members. I extend my condolences to Susan and the family and, of course, to all of the people who are friends of his in his home State. He will be fondly remembered in this Senate. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1267 and note that I have a modification of that amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to briefly describe what this amendment does. I understand there is not a plan to have a vote on this amendment this evening, but I wish to explain briefly what this amendment does. There are three programs in the underlying bill that are related to so-called temporary workers. One of them is the new guest worker program. That is the program we amended the provision of 2 weeks ago when we reduced the number of people eligible to come into the country under that program each year from a number of 400,000 to 600,000 down to 200,000. This current amendment, amendment No. 1267, I have called up again deals with that same guest worker program. It tries to make the program more workable. The underlying bill says if a person comes into this country under that program, that person is eligible to get a visa for 2 years to work here, then is required to leave for 1 year, then is eligible to come back again for another 2 years, then is required to leave for another year, then is eligible to come back again for another 2 years, and then is required to leave permanently. So it is what I have come to refer to as the 2-1-2-1-2 structure of this guest worker program. Frankly, it does not make a lot of sense. It does not make a lot of sense from the point of view of employers or employees--guest worker employees--or American workers who might also want to apply for those jobs or similar jobs. Let me explain what I have in mind. As regards an employer, if someone came into my office in the Senate and said: I have a great proposal for you. I would like to work for you for 2 years and then I am going to take off for a year, and then I will come back again and want my job back for another 2 years, and then I am going to take off for another year, and then I am going to come back and want my job back for another 2 years, I would not hire such a person. It would not make any sense. You need continuity in your workforce. You do not want people coming and leaving for substantial periods of time. So from an employer's perspective, this makes absolutely no sense. From the employee's perspective, if you are one of the guest workers, what are you supposed to do during the year you are not permitted to stay in this country? You are supposed to go back to your home country. Why would we believe that person would be able to support themself and their family during that year when they are not working here? They have to find a job there. When they leave there, obviously, that employer's employment situation is disrupted. So that does not make sense from the point of view of those guest workers. It does not make sense from the point of view of American workers who might want these jobs. These are generally thought of as construction jobs. These are not agricultural jobs we are talking about, and they are not seasonable jobs. They are permanent jobs. It is just that by the provisions of this bill, we are suggesting let's take a permanent job and try to make it temporary by kicking people out of the country every 2 years. So that is the only thing temporary about these jobs. This does not make sense from the point of view of American workers either. American workers who want to work in these construction positions will find there is a constant flow of entry-level workers coming back into this country every year saying: OK, I know I was here before. Now I am back again. I am starting at the bottom of the ladder again. Pay me the entry-level wage, and I will take any job you have. So the upward pressure on wages in that construction industry is eliminated. There is no upward pressure. You have this very large group of entry-level workers coming back every year. This does not make good sense. My amendment simply says, let's do what we did last year. We passed a bill last year. We had good bipartisan support for it. Basically, the bill, last year, said: Let's do one 3-year visa, and let it be renewed for a year. What I am proposing in my amendment is, let's do a 2-year visa. Let it be renewed twice. Then the 6 years is up. So we are not changing a lot of other aspects of the bill. I know there are some in this Senate who think we should change other aspects. In fact, I think we should as well. But I am not trying to do that in this amendment. I am saying let's at least eliminate this 1-year hiatus that is built in between each of these 2-year visas we are providing for in this guest worker program. To me, this is eminently sensible. It is something we ought to do. Governor Napolitano wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times on June 1 of this year, and she said the following: The proposed notion that temporary workers stay here for two years, return home for a year, then repeat that strange cycle two more times makes no sense. No employer can afford this schedule--hiring and training, only to have a worker who soon will leave. It will only encourage employers and workers to find new ways to break the rules. What we are doing is setting up a system that will encourage workers to overstay their visas. Much of the illegal immigration problem we have in this country today is not because people have sneaked across the border--although there are many of those--it is because people have come here legally and overstayed their visas, and they are now illegally living in this country. If you ever wanted to have a system that would generate more people coming here and illegally overstaying their visas, we have designed it in this bill. So my amendment tries to correct that to some extent. It says once they come here and go to work, they are given a 2-year visa. They can renew that two times and work the full 6 years. So it maintains the 6-year limit that the sponsors, the architects of this legislation, have intended, but it makes a lot more sense in the way it works. Let me mention one other aspect which I think is crucial; that is, we need a system that is workable. We do not have the capacity today--we, the Federal Government--to keep track of people who leave the country. We can keep track of the ones who come in, but if you ask the Immigration Service how many of those who come in are still here, they do not know. We do not have the capacity today to track the people who leave. So we are setting up a system where we have 200,000 a year coming in. Two years later that 200,000 is supposed to leave. The next year 200,000 more people come. Two years later that group is supposed to leave. We have no way of implementing this system and ensuring it is being complied with. So the whole thing is assuming a capacity and a capability that the Federal Government does not have today. It would be much simplified if we were to adopt the amendment I have offered. I hope my colleagues will support the amendment. It would improve this bill significantly. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to introduce the National Geothermal Initiative Act of 2007, along with my cosponsors, Senators Reid, Murkowski, Stevens, Salazar, Tester, and Snowe. This bipartisan bill establishes a national goal where at least 20 percent of the total electrical energy production in the United States should be from geothermal resources by 2030. Under the National Geothermal Initiative, the national goal will be accomplished by establishing and carrying out new programs for geothermal research, development, demonstration, and commercial application. This act also extends an ongoing study being conducted by the United States Geological Survey to characterize the complete geothermal resource base for use in future geothermal energy development. Finally, the act will provide international market support for geothermal energy development. It is critical with ever increasing energy demands that new energy solutions are continually developed and explored. With continued research, development, demonstration, and deployment of new technologies, geothermal energy holds great promise as a growing renewable energy source. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection the text was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to introduce the National Geothermal Initiative Act of 2007, along with my cosponsors, Senators Reid, Murkowski, Stevens, Salazar, Tester, and Snowe. This bipartisan bill establishes a national goal where at least 20 percent of the total electrical energy production in the United States should be from geothermal resources by 2030. Under the National Geothermal Initiative, the national goal will be accomplished by establishing and carrying out new programs for geothermal research, development, demonstration, and commercial application. This act also extends an ongoing study being conducted by the United States Geological Survey to characterize the complete geothermal resource base for use in future geothermal energy development. Finally, the act will provide international market support for geothermal energy development. It is critical with ever increasing energy demands that new energy solutions are continually developed and explored. With continued research, development, demonstration, and deployment of new technologies, geothermal energy holds great promise as a growing renewable energy source. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection the text was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from Alabama for his strong words and strong support for the amendments we offered a few weeks ago on the guest worker program. Let me thank my colleague from Alabama for his support particularly for that amendment 2 weeks ago. I want to take a few minutes in morning business today, before the Senate gets into its busiest period of the week--which we all know begins on Tuesday, usually--to talk about two other amendments I have filed to this bill, and I hope I will have a chance to have the Senate vote on before the bill is completed. Let me first talk about one of those amendments that is addressing a provision in the immigration bill that I think is impractical and I don't think makes any sense, the provision I am trying to correct. Before addressing the specific provision, let me once again put this in context. This bill, the underlying legislation, calls for three so- called temporary worker programs. There is an agricultural temporary worker program, and I am not suggesting any change to that program. That is part of the underlying bill. There is a seasonal temporary worker program, where people can come in for up to 10 months and then have to leave the country for 2 months and then come back the next year. That one I do have a second amendment on, which I want to talk about in a minute. Then there is the new temporary worker program that was the subject of my amendment 2 weeks ago. Let me briefly describe how this third so-called temporary worker program works. It contemplates a new guest worker program. It says guest workers would be permitted to come to this country and work for 2 years. At the end of the 2 years, they have to leave the country for a year. Then that same worker could come back for another 2 years and then leave the country again for another year; then come back and work 2 more years and then have to leave the country permanently. So over a period of, I guess it would be 9 years--during that period the worker could be here up to 6 years, but there would have to be two periods of a year each during which the worker was outside the country. My amendment, which is cosponsored by Senator Obama, would remove the requirement that guest workers leave the United States before they renew their visas to work under this program. It would not modify the total period they could stay here, which would still be limited to 6 years. It would not change the terms of their visa. But the amendment I am offering would provide that guest workers would be given a 2-year visa they could then renew twice and do their full 6 years of work and then their visa would no longer permit them to stay. Requiring these workers to leave the country for a lengthy period of time between each 2-year work period is a problem for several reasons. It is bad for the employers, first. It is also bad for American workers who might also want to have some of these jobs--and these are generally construction type jobs. These are not agricultural jobs. These are not jobs for teenagers in seasonal employment. Obviously, another problem with this provision is it is extremely difficult and costly to enforce. I doubt seriously if we have the capacity to enforce it at this point. It increases dramatically the likelihood that individuals are going to overstay their visas. First, let me talk about the employers. It would be very costly and burdensome to require that employers rehire and retrain new workers every 2 years. Employers are not going to give an employee a 1-year vacation. When one of these so-called guest workers leaves the job in order to comply with this provision of law, the employer will have no choice but to find somebody else to bring on. The 1-year leave provision would be especially harmful to small businesses, and it would cause enormous instability in the workforce if they actually depended upon guest workers for some of that work. Governor Napolitano from Arizona recently wrote a column in the New York Times. Let me quote a couple of sentences from that column. She says: The proposed notion that temporary workers stay here for two years, return home for a year, then repeat that strange cycle two more times makes no sense. No employer can afford this schedule, hiring and training, only to have a worker who soon will leave. It will only encourage employers and workers to find new ways to break the rules. Now, that was on June 1 in the New York Times. In my view, Governor Napolitano is absolutely correct. The current bill is also bad for American workers. American workers will be forced to compete with a constant flow of guest workers who would always be at the low end of the salary scale by virtue of the fact that they would have to leave every 2 years. So if guest workers are kicked out of the country every 2 years, wages cannot increase, there will always be a justification to pay those workers the lowest possible wage. The requirement that these guest workers leave the country every 2 years would also result in an increase in the number of individuals who overstay their visas in order to avoid having to leave the United States for that lengthy period of time. It would also create additional costs in terms of tracking those individuals and ensuring that they, in fact, do leave the country. These costs, of course, would have to be borne by the taxpayer. It also assumes that we even have the administrative capacity to track all these people. Here we are talking about at least 1.2 million so-called guest workers under only this program. I am not talking about the other two so-called temporary guest worker programs. But under this so-called temporary guest worker program, we are talking about 1.2 million workers. So we are saying that we would then have administrative responsibilities somewhere lodged in the Federal Government to keep track of the comings and goings of these workers every year. I have real doubts about our ability to do that. Obviously, that is an assumption. It is assumed, as part of the underlying bill, that we do have the ability to do that. So if the program is designed in a manner that is bad for employers, it is bad for employees, it is difficult and costly to implement, it will lead to an increase in the number of individuals who overstay their visas, then obviously the question arises: What is the justification for keeping this provision in the bill? I think, unfortunately, the only justification I have been able to find is that it is being kept in the bill in order to fit this political mantra that we have been hearing now for months about ``temporary means temporary,'' rather than to implement any sound policy. When you look at these guest worker programs, unlike the other existing guest worker programs, such as the H-2B seasonal program for nonagricultural workers, the H-2A agricultural program, which were designed to fill jobs that, in fact, are of a temporary nature, the new Y-1 program, which we are talking about here, is designed to fill jobs throughout the economy that are permanent jobs. These are jobs in the construction industry, primarily. The 2-1-2 requirement, which is in the underlying bill, artificially tries to turn these workers into temporary workers by kicking them out of the country every 2 years, even though they will be filling jobs that are not temporary, they are permanent jobs. Last year's immigration bill, S. 2611, allowed new guest workers to stay in the United States for a period of 3 years to renew that visa for a total of 6 years. There was no requirement that the individuals leave the country before they renewed that visa. I think that type of framework is much more sensible. One of the primary goals of comprehensive immigration reform is to create a new and workable system that would ensure that we are not in the situation we are in now once again 20 years from now. I do not believe the current framework of this so-called temporary worker program advances that goal. Let me also take a moment to address concerns that the adoption of this amendment will somehow kill the immigration bill. During debate on the immigration bill, questions keep arising about whether a particular amendment being offered by one Senator or another is consistent with the so-called ``grand bargain'' that has been reached. I commend the Senators who worked tirelessly to come up with an agreement on this difficult issue. This agreement was reached between a handful of Senators. That should not be considered, in my view, a substitute for deliberation by the full Senate. One of the first amendments I offered was the one the Senator from Alabama referred to, an amendment that reduced the number of guest workers under this program to 200,000 per year--the number of new guest workers, I should say. Despite the fact that amendment was adopted by or supported by 74 Senators, I have heard repeated questions about whether this was a deal killer. It is interesting to me that a measure which garners the support of three-quarters of the Senate somehow is considered a threat to the prospects of passing the legislation. Frankly, I believe we are focused on the wrong set of issues. We ought to be trying to concentrate on getting a bill that has the broadest bipartisan support in the Senate. I think that each of those amendments, the one I offered 2 weeks ago and this amendment I have been talking about, will help us to achieve that. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider the consequences of leaving the existing procedures in place for Y-1 guest workers. I strongly believe that if we keep this provision in its current form, we are going to create an expensive and unworkable program for employers, a system that harms American workers, and an incentive for guest workers to overstay their visas. For that reason, I hope, when the opportunity comes for a vote, my colleagues will support our amendment. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would then continue to speak as in morning business for another few minutes to talk about another amendment. I have also today filed an amendment on another part of the bill. The second amendment is aimed at addressing a different issue related to the Y-2 temporary worker program. Now, the Y-2 program is a temporary worker program, and it revises and incorporates the existing H-2B seasonal nonagricultural program. As I mentioned earlier, this amendment would address the problem of people whom we bring into the country for up to 10 months, allow them to work here, whether they are working at resorts or working at some kind of seasonal employment, nonagricultural seasonal employment, and then we require them to go home for 2 months. Then they can do that each year. As Senators have discussed this program, and as it has been discussed in the press, its been stated that the underlying substitute amendment provides for an annual allocation of visas from 100,000 initially to up to 200,000 each year, depending upon the market demand. I have a chart I can put up that I think will describe what the Y-2 guest worker program--if, in fact, the 15 percent increase is triggered in the years, the first 4 years of the program, and how you get from 100,000 up to 200,000. Well, that is the description. This chart is a fair description of this program as it has been reported in the paper. However, before the substitute amendment was filed, the underlying bill--I call it a substitute amendment because that is the technical, correct name for it--a provision was handwritten into the bill that provides that in any year from now on, the returning Y-2 workers who are present in the United States in any of the preceding 3 fiscal years would not count against the cap. So the whole idea of 200,000 is not right. The yellow represents the 200,000, the increase from 100,000 to 200,000. But the red on the chart represents the potential pool of returning workers. You can see this is taken from an analysis that was done for me by the Congressional Research Service. We asked them to please look at the provision and give us their analysis of what is the size of the group that could come in under this program with this provision in it. They said: Well, it could be up to about 1.6, 1.7 million people over 10 years; they would be eligible to come in every year. Now, that is not cumulative, that is every year that many people would be able to come in. The impact of this little-noticed provision is quite profound. Obviously, this is the high end of the approximation because we would not expect that every single worker who came here to work for 10 months during 1 year, or for some period during 1 year, would choose to come back the next year. But I think a reasonably high percentage of them might choose to come back. Today, we have about 135,000. This year, in 2007, we have about 135,000 workers in the country or connected in this country this year under this seasonal temporary worker program. I have no problem seeing that increased to 200,000. That is what the initial draft of the bill contemplated. I do have a problem when it might increase by well over a million. I think that is not what many Members of the Senate understand is going to happen under this bill. I do not think it is what should happen under this bill. I think it is reasonable to require that the numerical limitation already in the bill actually means something; that is, the 200,000 limit. The amendment I am offering does not eliminate the returning worker provisions, not by any means. It says: If you want to change the number from the current law, which is 66,000 up to 100,000, fine. If you want to then say it can grow from 100,000 to 200,000 per year, fine. But let's not also say that anyone who has worked here in any of the 3 preceding years can come in on top of that because that is when your numbers get totally out of control. The amendment is aimed at ensuring the bill does what I believe a majority of Senators believe it does; that is, it would allow the issuance of up to 200,000 Y-2 visas each year for these seasonal workers. I think that is something which I can support as a matter of policy. Again, my amendment merely brings the underlying language of the bill into line with what I believe most Senators think the bill now provides; that is, keeps it under 200,000. That is a description of the two amendments I have filed today. I think they are both meritorious amendments. I urge my colleagues to look at them, to consider them. I hope very much that I have an opportunity to get votes on those amendments this week before we conclude action on the bill because I think both amendments would--each of the two amendments would improve the bill and make it much better public policy. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 5, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the preparedness of Federal land management agencies for the 2007 wildfire season and to consider recent reports on the agencies' efforts to contain the costs of wildfire management activities. 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 e-mail to rachel_pasternack@energy.senate .gov. For further information, please contact Scott Miller at 202-224-5488 or Rachel Pasternack at (202) 224-0883. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, June 7, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on Alternate Energy-Related Uses on the Outer Continental Shelf: Opportunities, Issues and Implementation of Section 388 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 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 e-mail to gina_weinstock@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Patty Beneke at 202-224-5451 or Gina Weinstock at (202) 224-5684.