Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. 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 Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on June 6, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the impacts of climate change on water supply and availability in the United States, and related issues from a water use perspective. 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 Michael Connor at (202) 224- 5479 or Gina Weinstock at (202) 224-5684.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 pending amendment be set aside, and I send to the desk an amendment to the underlying substitute and ask for its consideration.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment to reduce the number of visas issued each year under the new guest worker program that is in this bill--reduce it to 200,000. This is 200,000 new visas each year which would be permitted if my amendment were to be adopted. The amendment I am offering is cosponsored by Senators Feinstein, Obama, Dodd, and Durbin. It is essentially the same amendment I offered when we had the debate on the immigration bill last year when we were fortunate to have the support of 79 Senators for the amendment. Let me talk a little bit about the context of this before getting into the detail of the amendment. The Kyl-Kennedy or Kennedy-Kyl substitute amendment allocates 400,000 new guest worker visas per year, and it has in it also an increase mechanism that allows the annual allocation to go from 400,000 up to 600,000 per year. After a few years, presumably, we would be at a level of 600,000 per year from then on. Workers are allowed to stay for a total of 6 years under this program. They would work for 2 years--and Senator Dorgan described this very accurately as part of the debate on his amendment yesterday--and they would be allowed to work for 6 years; that is, they work for 2 years, leave the country for 1 year, work for an additional 2 years, leave the country for another year, and work for an additional 2 years, then leave for good. That is the structure of the system as it now stands. I can go into whatever details Members are interested in to explain how the increase mechanism provided for in the law is structured, but before I get into that, let me just talk about the larger context. This bill, the Kennedy-Kyl substitute, contains really three so- called temporary worker programs which are very distinct, and individuals can come to our country and work in our country under any of these three programs. One program is what I would refer to as the true temporary worker program, and that is where you bring people in for seasonal work. Clearly, that is something we have done for a long time. I think the limit in the law today is 66,000 are permitted to come in each year for temporary work--to work at resorts or work in some kind of a seasonal job--and then that 66,000 is then allowed to be increased to reflect those who have come the previous year or two. In fact, I think the estimate I have seen is that there are about 135,000 people in our country each year doing that kind of temporary seasonal work. This bill, this Kennedy-Kyl substitute, would change that 66,000 to 100,000. It would contain an increase mechanism similar to what is in this new guest worker program, and so the 100,000 would eventually go to 200,000 after a few years. As I understand it now, there is also written into the law, written into the substitute, a provision that says the 200,000 number for the seasonal guest workers does not include people who have been here under that same program working in any 1 of the previous 3 years. Obviously, you have the potential for a great many more than 200,000 to come in as seasonal temporary workers under that provision. Another separate provision of this substitute bill which allows for temporary workers to come in is the agricultural workers program. I point out to my colleagues, that is without limit. There is no cap on that. There is a tremendous opportunity for people to come into this country and work in agriculture. We do not have numerical limits on that, so, to anyone who says we are not going to be allowing people to come into the country to do the work Americans don't want to do, the truth is, if they want to do work that is related to agriculture, we can bring them in, in whatever numbers, without any limits being imposed by this law. The third opportunity to come in as a so-called temporary worker is this new guest worker program. This is a little bit of a misnomer, when we talk about temporary worker, because these are permanent jobs that we are bringing people in to fill. People need to understand that. These are not temporary jobs, these are permanent jobs. We are bringing people in for a temporary period, or a designated period of 2 years, three different times, to do the work. But these are not temporary jobs in the same sense that a seasonal job is a temporary job--that you have it for a few months and then the ski resort closes and you no longer have a job. That is not the kind of jobs we are talking about. As I see it, there are several fundamental problems with this guest worker program as it is currently constructed. The most significant problem is the bill anticipates letting way too many people come into this country in a new, untested program. This is a new program. There is nothing in the current law that is comparable to this new guest worker program that we are talking about. The amendment I and my cosponsors are offering tries to restrict the size of the program until we find out how it is working, until we figure out whether this makes sense. Let's not build into the law automatic increases in a program we have never tested before. Let's not start this program at 400,000 and have it escalate up to 600,000. The amendment I am offering is trying to bring down the size of the program. Another problem with the program is the structure, and I described that. This idea we are going to bring people in for 2 years, kick them out for 1 year, bring them in for 2 years, kick them out for 1 year, is not good for the employee, obviously. That is not good for the employer, obviously. It is not a realistic expectation. I think anyone would have to recognize that is not a good structure. The third problem I have with the bill is there is no real avenue for any of these individuals we are talking about to ever gain legal status, so we are creating a group of workers who have come to this country and worked for 2 years or 4 years or 6 years, to whom then we are saying: Your time is up, go home. There is a tremendous likelihood that we are going to have a lot of people staying over and overstaying their visas. I think that is unfortunate. That is a change from the previous legislation. We passed that bill Senator Kennedy brought to the Senate floor last year and I supported it. There was a much more realistic opportunity for people who came in under the guest worker program to pursue legal status at some time, so the incentive to essentially go underground to try to avoid deportation was not the same in that bill. I think the most significant thing we can do at this point to try to correct the most significant problem with this guest worker program is to reduce the number. Let me show a couple of charts, for my colleagues to understand what we are talking about. The current bill calls for 400,000. The first year this law is in effect, 400,000 are permitted to come in under this guest worker program. Then there is a complicated process if that total is reached. If there is a demand to bring in 400,000 during the first half of the year, then there is an automatic increase of 15 percent. So you bring in an additional 15 percent at that point, which is 60,000, so you are at 460,000. You start the next year at 460,000, but you add another 15 percent to that immediately, and if there is another demand, using up all of those, you can go up another 15 percent. In any event, it rachets up pretty rapidly. It says if the 400,000 is not used up until the second half of the year, then there is only a 10- percent increase each year from then on. What we have done on this chart--and I think people need to try to understand this--is we have tried to show with this graph how many so- called guest workers under this program--not under the other two, not under the ag workers program, not under the seasonal workers program but under this program--how many people we would actually have in the country as the bill is currently written. You would have 400,000 the first year; the second year you would have 840,000 because you would have the first 400,000, plus the second 400,000, plus the increase, 10 percent. You would have 924,000 the third year, you would have 1.4 million the fourth year, you would have 1,958,000 the fifth year, and this keeps going up so, by the eighth year, you would have 3,158,000 people in the country legally working under this program. There is a very important assumption built into this chart. The assumption is that everybody who comes in under this program goes home when their visa says they ought to go home; nobody overstays his or her visa. If, in fact, that assumption is false and people get to the end of their 6 years and say: Wait a minute, I am not ready to leave the United States, I am staying, and they stay here on an undocumented basis at that point and overstay their visa, then they go on top of these numbers. So you have a tremendous number of new people. This is a brandnew program. We have never had this program before. I think that is too large. Let me show what the amendment I am offering does. I did not support Senator Dorgan's proposal to eliminate the guest worker program entirely. I think there is a legitimate argument that some number of guest workers is appropriate to bring into the country to do some of the work. But as I say, this is a brandnew program and we ought to do this in a judicious way and feel our way along. In this proposal that I have put forward, it says let's bring in 200,000 the first year and 200,000 each year after that and see how this goes. We can make judgments and we can alter this in future years. Congress meets every year, so we can alter this if we decide that is not the appropriate number. But let's start with a number that we think makes sense. Even at that very substantial reduction, we would wind up in the eighth year with 1.2 million people in the country under this program, legally working as guest workers. It is not that there are going to be 200,000 people working here each year, there are going to be 1.2 million people working here each year. Again, the assumption is there will only be 1.2 million, assuming everyone goes home when their visa says they ought to go home, which I think is a fairly questionable assumption. That is what the amendment does. I think it is a far better way for us to proceed than what the underlying bill calls for. I know there are some who are coming forward and arguing that this is terrible, that we are not going to have enough people to keep the economy running, that there are going to be all kinds of jobs going unfilled. I point out again that there are other ways people can come to our country and obtain employment. They can do so under the seasonal workers program, which is being increased very substantially under the bill. They can do so under the ag workers program, which has no limits on it at all. Of course, there are other ways that people can immigrate into our country that are provided for in the legislation as well. This is an amendment that I think makes all the sense in the world. I was very pleased we had such strong support for it when we offered it in the previous debate that we had on immigration last year. I hope we can adopt it again this year. By doing so, I think we begin to bring a little more judiciousness to this process if we are going to start a brandnew program. Let me also point out there is provision in this legislation for a commission to be established to review how this new program is working and to make recommendations back to the Congress. I think that is entirely appropriate. To me, that is another reason why we should not be building in automatic escalators in the size of this program. We should not be starting with a program that is so large as 400,000 and going up to 600,000. We should start at 200,000 and keep it right there until we get those recommendations and find out what we think at that point about whether to increase the size of the program or terminate the program or whatever steps we might take at that point. That is the basic gist of my argument. I hope colleagues will support the amendment. I think it is a meritorious amendment. I think it will improve the legislation substantially. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me speak very briefly, and then I will reserve the last minute to try to close this debate. This amendment will reduce the number of people who can come into the country under this new guest worker program. The underlying bill calls for 400,000, up to 600,000 per year coming in under this new guest worker program. The amendment I am offering would reduce that to 200,000 per year, maximum. I think that is plenty. This is an unproven, untested, brandnew program. We need to see how it is working. We need to see the impact it is having on other wage rates in the country. I urge my colleagues to support that amendment. I will reserve the remainder of my time in case there is someone speaking against the amendment. Then I will conclude.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts and congratulate him on his leadership in getting us to this point in the debate. I do hope Members will support this amendment. We had 79 Senators support this amendment when it was offered last year. I hope we get a strong vote again this year. I think this is the prudent thing to do. It does not destroy the bill. It does allow for a guest worker program but a much more prudent one than would otherwise be the case. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly in opposition to the amendment. I have great respect for my colleague from South Carolina, but I think this is very misguided. Chief Justice Rehnquist was speaking in 1994 to a luncheon of the U.S. Sentencing Commission and he said the following: Mandatory minimums are frequently the result of floor amendments to demonstrate emphatically that legislators want to ``get tough on crime.'' Just as frequently they do not involve any careful consideration of the effect they might have on the sentencing guidelines as a whole. Indeed, it seems to me that one of the best arguments against any more mandatory minimums, and perhaps against some of those we already have, is that they frustrate the careful calibration of sentences, from one end of the spectrum to the other, which the sentencing guidelines were intended to accomplish. I think Justice Rehnquist was right, that this is--this, as I understand it, is an amendment that has not been brought up for hearing. These proposed changes in the law have not been brought up for a hearing in the Judiciary Committee. I am not a member of that committee. My colleague Senator Kennedy is, of course, as is Senator Graham. But my impression is this is not the result of a careful deliberation by the committee of jurisdiction here in the Senate. Instead, this is one of these floor amendments that is intended to demonstrate that legislators want to ``get tough on crime'' and particularly want to get tough on crime if it involves immigrants. So that is what is going on here. I think the strongest argument I know, and I am sure this is what the Senator from Massachusetts was mentioning, is the cost that is involved in actually going ahead with this amendment. We are talking about taking people, and instead of kicking them out of the country, we are requiring those individuals be incarcerated in this country at very substantial expense to the U.S. taxpayer for a very long period of time. I don't know that it makes good sense for us to be doing this. One of the purposes of this immigration legislation that is before the Senate right now is to reduce the burden on U.S. taxpayers of all of the immigrants coming into the country. This amendment does the exact opposite. This amendment puts an enormous additional expense on the taxpayers of the United States by saying: If you come into this country illegally, we are going to lock you up and we are going to be sure you stay locked up for a long time. Well, that is fine, as long as you want to pay--what is it--$30,000, $40,000 per year to keep one of these individuals incarcerated. We are paying a lot more to keep an individual in one of these Federal prisons, I can tell you that, than we pay to keep people in some of our best universities. I don't think it is a good use of our resources. I think this is one of these feel-good amendments which says we are not being tough enough on immigrants, let's tighten this thing up, let's be real tough on them. The statistics I have--and these are statistics from the 2006 Source Book of Federal Sentencing Statistics, put out by the United States Sentencing Commission. They have a chart on page 13 where they talk about the distribution of offenders in each primary offense category. It shows that 24.5 percent of the offenders we are incarcerating today are being incarcerated for immigration-related offenses. The only other category that is larger is drugs, where 35.5 percent are being incarcerated for drug-related offenses. So 24.5 percent of our prisoners today are there because of immigration-related offenses. That number is going to go up dramatically if we actually adopt and put into law these mandatory minimum sentences that are contained in this amendment. I wish also to point out that the penalties, the sentences these people are being given and the actual period of incarceration, the number of months of incarceration for these immigration offenses, is fairly significant. It ranges from 22.8 months up to over 25 months. So we are talking about putting people in prison for a significant period of time. As I say, they are all for immigration-related offenses. I think it is foolhardy for the United States to be passing immigration reform legislation to reduce the financial burden on U.S. taxpayers for all of the illegal immigration coming into the country and at the same time adopt an amendment that loads an enormous additional cost on to the taxpayer so we can keep these people in prison for a long time and thereby demonstrate we are getting tough on crime. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a staff member in my office, Lauren Weeth, be granted the privileges of the floor during the pendency of this bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the men and women throughout my home State of New Mexico who provide lifesaving emergency medical services, EMS, and to commemorate EMS Week. During my time in the Senate, I have come to understand the necessity of a highly trained EMS team. Such teams provide lifesaving care to those who are in need, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. An important example of such care is provided to the people of Northern Rio Arriba County by the highly dedicated members of La Clinica EMS, which consists of: Joseph Baca, Paramedic; Phyllis Richards, Paramedic; Wenona Garcia, EMT-1; Rose Rash, EMT-1; Sarah Johnson, EMT-1; Paul Lisco, EMT-1; J.R. Gallegos, EMT-B; James Holiday, EMT-B; Tomas Casados, EMT-B; Stella Martinez, EMT-B; Kathy Morrison, EMT-B; Dave Morrison, EMT-B; Laurel Baker, EMT-B; Ramona Hays, EMT-B; Michael Hays, EMT-B; Emery Baca, EMT- B; B.J. Samora, FR; Josie Maestas, FR; and Marty Madrid, FR. I am proud to join the citizens of New Mexico in expressing my sincere gratitude to EMS professionals and their unwavering dedication to the community.

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 Thursday, May 24, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The hearing will address opportunities and challenges associated with coal gasification, including coal-to-liquids and industrial gasification. 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 two copies of their testimony 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 Michael Carr or Rachel Pasternack.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. 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 Energy of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 645, a bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to provide an alternate sulfur dioxide removal measurement for certain coal gasification project goals; S. 838, a bill to authorize funding joint ventures between United States and Israeli businesses and academic persons; S. 1089, a bill to amend the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act to follow the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation projects to hire employees more efficiently, and for other purposes; S. 1203, a bill to enhance the management of electricity programs at the Department of Energy; H.R. 85, a bill to provide for the establishment of centers to encourage demonstration and commercial application of advanced energy methods and technologies; and H.R. 1126, a bill to reauthorize the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988. 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 Amanda_Kelly@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Jonathan Epstein at (202) 224-4971 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune, designed to address the growing burden faced by this Nation's health care safety net institutions in being able to provide adequate pharmaceutical care to the most vulnerable patient populations. Communities across the country rely on public and nonprofit hospitals to serve as the health care ``safety net'' for low-income, uninsured, and underinsured patients. With the ever-increasing cost of pharmaceuticals, these institutions are struggling more and more to provide basic pharmaceutical care to those least able to afford it. Fortunately, many safety net hospitals are currently able to participate in the Federal 340B Drug Discount Program, which enables them to purchase outpatient drugs for their patients at discounted prices. These hospitals, known as ``covered entities'' under the 340B statute, include high-Medicaid disproportionate share hospitals, DSH, large and small urban hospitals, and certain rural hospitals. I am introducing legislation today, the 340B Program Improvement and Integrity Act of 2007, which would extend discounted drug prices currently mandated only for outpatient drugs to inpatient drugs purchased by covered entities under the 340B program. Although the Medicare Modernization Act, MMA, of 2003 permitted pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer 340B drug discounts to covered entities, this legislation did not include a mandate. Without a mandate we have seen very little willingness on the part of manufactures to offer 340B drug discounts for inpatient drugs. As the prices of pharmaceutical drugs continue to increase sharply, the need for these inpatient discounts grows more and more acute. My legislation would also expand participation in the program to a subset of rural hospitals that, for a variety of reasons, cannot currently access 340B discounts. These newly eligible rural hospitals include critical access hospitals, sole community hospitals, and rural referral centers. In proposing this modest expansion to the program, we have struck an important balance between ensuring a close nexus with low-income and indigent care, ensured that a significant portion of savings is passed on to the Medicaid Program, and strengthened the integrity of the program. Specifically, newly eligible rural hospitals would have to meet appropriate standards demonstrating their ``safety net'' status, as do all hospitals that currently participate in the program. For example, sole community hospitals and rural referral centers, all of which are paid under the prospective payment system, would be required under this legislation to serve a significant percentage of low-income and indigent patients, have public or nonprofit status, and, if privately owned and operated, to have a contract with State or local government to provide a significant level of indigent care. All standards are designed to reinforce the obligation of these covered entities to continue serving low-income and uninsured patients. This legislation would also generate savings for the Medicaid Program by requiring participating hospitals to credit to their Medicaid agencies a significant percentage of their savings on inpatient drugs. It would address the overall efficiency and integrity of the 340B program through improved enforcement and compliance measures with respect to manufacturers and covered entities. This is designed to improve program administration and to prevent and remedy instances of program abuse. In the end, this legislation would accomplish several important goals. It would help safety net providers stretch their already limited resources through increased access to discounted pharmaceuticals; it would enhance 340B program integrity by making sure participants are complying with program rules; and it would help to improve the care provided to this Nation's most vulnerable populations. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune, designed to address the growing burden faced by this Nation's health care safety net institutions in being able to provide adequate pharmaceutical care to the most vulnerable patient populations. Communities across the country rely on public and nonprofit hospitals to serve as the health care ``safety net'' for low-income, uninsured, and underinsured patients. With the ever-increasing cost of pharmaceuticals, these institutions are struggling more and more to provide basic pharmaceutical care to those least able to afford it. Fortunately, many safety net hospitals are currently able to participate in the Federal 340B Drug Discount Program, which enables them to purchase outpatient drugs for their patients at discounted prices. These hospitals, known as ``covered entities'' under the 340B statute, include high-Medicaid disproportionate share hospitals, DSH, large and small urban hospitals, and certain rural hospitals. I am introducing legislation today, the 340B Program Improvement and Integrity Act of 2007, which would extend discounted drug prices currently mandated only for outpatient drugs to inpatient drugs purchased by covered entities under the 340B program. Although the Medicare Modernization Act, MMA, of 2003 permitted pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer 340B drug discounts to covered entities, this legislation did not include a mandate. Without a mandate we have seen very little willingness on the part of manufactures to offer 340B drug discounts for inpatient drugs. As the prices of pharmaceutical drugs continue to increase sharply, the need for these inpatient discounts grows more and more acute. My legislation would also expand participation in the program to a subset of rural hospitals that, for a variety of reasons, cannot currently access 340B discounts. These newly eligible rural hospitals include critical access hospitals, sole community hospitals, and rural referral centers. In proposing this modest expansion to the program, we have struck an important balance between ensuring a close nexus with low-income and indigent care, ensured that a significant portion of savings is passed on to the Medicaid Program, and strengthened the integrity of the program. Specifically, newly eligible rural hospitals would have to meet appropriate standards demonstrating their ``safety net'' status, as do all hospitals that currently participate in the program. For example, sole community hospitals and rural referral centers, all of which are paid under the prospective payment system, would be required under this legislation to serve a significant percentage of low-income and indigent patients, have public or nonprofit status, and, if privately owned and operated, to have a contract with State or local government to provide a significant level of indigent care. All standards are designed to reinforce the obligation of these covered entities to continue serving low-income and uninsured patients. This legislation would also generate savings for the Medicaid Program by requiring participating hospitals to credit to their Medicaid agencies a significant percentage of their savings on inpatient drugs. It would address the overall efficiency and integrity of the 340B program through improved enforcement and compliance measures with respect to manufacturers and covered entities. This is designed to improve program administration and to prevent and remedy instances of program abuse. In the end, this legislation would accomplish several important goals. It would help safety net providers stretch their already limited resources through increased access to discounted pharmaceuticals; it would enhance 340B program integrity by making sure participants are complying with program rules; and it would help to improve the care provided to this Nation's most vulnerable populations. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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, May 15, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the short-term energy outlook for the summer of 2007 for oil and gasoline. 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 two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to rachel_pasternack@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Tara Billingsley at (202) 224-7571 or Rachel Paternack at (202) 224-0883.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. 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 Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, May 30, at 12 p.m. in the Medford City Council Chambers at 411 West 8th Street in Medford, Oregon. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the impacts of the Chinese hardwood plywood trade on the National Forest System and other public lands, and the communities that depend on them. 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.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I note the passing away of Dr. Art Guenther on April 21, 2007. Art Guenther was born April 18, 1931, in Hoboken, NJ. As a kid he loved the outdoors and became New Jersey's youngest Eagle Scout. He wanted to be a forest ranger and hoped to attend a college with a good forestry program, but those schools didn't accept out-of-state students. A teacher had noticed Guenther's aptitude in math and science and got him into Rutgers. There he majored in chemistry, earning his bachelor's degree in 1953. As a grad student at Penn State, he wanted to pursue optics. His thesis advisor asked, ``Why optics? The cream is gone,'' meaning all the good research had been done. Guenther persisted, receiving his Ph.D. in chemistry and physics in 1957. He joined the Air Force and was sent to Kirtland Air Force Base. His mother wondered why they were sending him out of the country on his first assignment. After serving 2 years, he left the Air Force and became a civilian employee and a New Mexican for the remainder of his life. His optics work would pay off in 1960, after the laser was first demonstrated. As the only person at Kirtland with a background in optics, Guenther was asked by the commander of the research directorate to evaluate lasers for potential Air Force use. He toured the country and reported back on the promise of the new technology. At the request of the Air Force, he established a laser program and later became chief scientist of the Air Force Weapons Lab, a position he held for 15 of his 31 years with the Air Force. By 1965 Guenther had become one of the world's leading experts in simulating effects of atomic explosions. He also gained experience in advanced optical systems, high-power lasers, high-power microwaves, pulsed power, materials science, and weapons effects. Guenther is considered a pioneer in the development of pulsed-power technology and its defense applications. Dr. Guenther stood out as not only a scientist but someone who was deeply concerned about bettering the lives of New Mexicans by promoting the spread of science outside the laboratory gates through education and high technology economic development. Art Guenther helped develop an optics curriculum at Albuquerque Technical Vocational Institute. The program was so successful it had a waiting list. In the 1980s, Guenther was one of the first to see a high-tech future for New Mexico. Gov. Bruce King in 1981 established the Governor's Technical Excellence Committee, GTEC, with Guenther as a member. King asked GTEC to assess the State's high-tech assets; they found 15,000 Ph.D.s, major research universities and three Federal laboratories along the Rio Grande. At a time when other States had their Silicon Valley or Research Triangle, it was Guenther who coined the term ``Rio Grande Research Corridor.'' He chaired the State Science and Technology Committee, which proposed and got the five Centers of Technical Excellence in 1983. One of those was the Center for High-Tech Materials at UNM. In 1988, Guenther became chief scientist for advanced defense technology at Los Alamos National Laboratory. In that post, he was science adviser to Gov. Garrey Carruthers and again for Gov. Bruce King. In 1991 he became scientific adviser for laboratory development and manager of alliances at Sandia. Guenther retired in 1998, but his family and colleagues know he didn't really retire. He became a research professor at UNM's Center for High-Tech Materials and was also on contract with the Air Force Office of Scientific Research. He maintained a staggering schedule of travel, meetings, research and civic involvement. Also in 1998, after identifying a wealth of optics activity in the State, he became co- founder of the New Mexico Optics Industry Association. And through NMOIA, he was instrumental in founding the Photonics Academy at West Mesa High School. He also helped organize the Directed Energy Professionals Society. Art received numerous honors and awards. Some of these awards include the Distinguished Executive Rank Award from President Reagan, the Harry Diamond Award from the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, the Director's Award of the International Society of Optical Engineering, the David Richardson Medal of the Optical Society of America, and the Arthur L. Schawlow Medal from the Laser Institute of America in 1983. He has twice received the New Mexico Distinguished Public Service Award. In 1992 he was one of the first Americans to be named to the Russian Academy of Sciences. He had worked with Russian scientists since the 1960s and was credited with improving communication between the two countries. Guenther brought so many technical meetings to Albuquerque that he earned a special award from the Albuquerque Convention and Visitors Bureau. On April 25, the New Mexico Optics Industry Association honored him with the organization's first Lifetime Service Award. Mr. President, my State was blessed by Art Guenther's energy and dedication and we will miss him.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. The hearing will be held on May 15, 2007, 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. 553, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain segments of the Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; S. 800, to establish the Niagara Falls National Heritage Area in the State of New York; S. 916, to modify the boundary of the Minidoka Internment National Monument, to establish the Minidoka National Historic Site, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land and improvements of the Gooding Division of the Minidoka Project, Idaho; S. 1057, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain segments of the New River in the States of North Carolina and Virginia as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; S. 1209, to provide for the continued administration of Santa Rosa Island, Channel Islands National Park, in accordance with the laws (including regulations) and policies of the National Park Service; S. 1281, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain rivers and streams of the headwaters of the Snake River System as additions to the National Wild and Scenic River System; H.R. 161, to adjust the boundary of the Minidoka Internment National Monument to include the Nidoto Nai Yoni Memorial in Bainbridge Island, Washington; H.R. 247, to designate a Forest Service trail at Waldo Lake in the Willamette National Forest in the State of Oregon as a national recreation trail in honor of Jim Weaver, a former Member of the House of Representatives; and H.R. 376, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of including the battlefields and related sites of the First and Second Battles of Newtonia, Missouri, during the Civil War as part of Wilson's Creek National Battlefield or designating the battlefields and related sites as a separate unit of the National Park System. 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 David Brooks at (202) 224- 9863 or Rachel Pasternack at (202) 224-0883.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the tragic deaths of women and girls in Guatemala, and to submit a resolution urging increased U.S. involvement in addressing this serious issue. Since 2001, more than 2,000 women and girls have been murdered in Guatemala. The murder rate of these women almost doubled from 2001 to 2006, increasing at a higher rate than the murder rate of men. While these killings may be due to a variety of factors, what clearly unifies these cases is the fact that very few of the perpetrators have been brought to justice. Indeed, it is my understanding that as of 2006 there have been only 20 convictions for these killings. In some of the cases police have been implicated in the crimes. The lack of respect for the rule of law, inadequate legal protections for women, ongoing violence in the country, corruption, insufficient resources, substandard investigations, and the lack of independent and effective judicial and prosecutorial systems, all contribute to the inability of the Government of Guatemala to hold those responsible for these killings accountable for their crimes. The result is a general sense of impunity for crimes against women in the country. The Government of Guatemala has taken some steps to address these killings. Guatemala has created special police and prosecutorial units to investigate these murders, and repealed the so called ``Rape Law'' which had absolved perpetrators of criminal responsibility for rape upon the perpetrator's marriage with the victim. The Government also recently entered into an agreement with the United Nations to establish the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala, CICIG, which has a mandate to investigate and prosecute illegal security groups operating with impunity. And Guatemala established the National Institute for Forensic Sciences to improve investigatory and evidence gathering efforts. The resolution I am submitting today is aimed at raising awareness of this issue and encouraging the governments of Guatemala and the United States to work together to stop these killings. Among other things, the resolution: condemns these murders and expresses the sympathy of the Senate to the families of women and girls murdered in Guatemala; encourages the Government of Guatemala to act with due diligence in investigating and prosecuting those responsible for these crimes; urges the Government of Guatemala to recognize domestic violence as a criminal act and to provide adequate resources necessary to strengthen the integrity of the prosecutorial and judicial systems; urges the President and the Secretary of State to incorporate this issue into the bilateral agenda between the governments of Guatemala and the United States; and encourages the Secretary of State to provide assistance in training and equipping special police units to investigate these crimes, implementing judicial reforms and rule of law programs, establishing a missing persons system, creating an effective witness protection program, and supporting efforts to enhance forensic capabilities. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution and give this issue the attention it deserves.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, on March 9, 2007, the Administration transmitted draft legislation entitled the National Park Centennial Challenge Fund Act,'' which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. On behalf of Senator Akaka, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, and myself, I am pleased today to introduce the National Park Centennial Challenge Fund Act, by request, as a courtesy to the Administration. Both Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne and National Park Service Director Mary Bomar have made clear that the National Park Centennial Initiative is one of the highest priorities of the Department of the Interior. The initiative proposes up to $3 billion in new funds over the next decade, with three components. The first component of the initiative is the ``President's Centennial Commitment,'' under which the Administration is proposing an additional $100 million per year in new discretionary funds for the National Park Service. The second and third components, which the Administration collectively describes as the ``President's Centennial Challenge,'' would seek to raise up to $100 million each year over a ten-year period from private donations. All donations would be matched with new Federal funding, up to $100 million annually. The new funding would be used for ``signature projects and programs,'' which the draft legislation defines as ``a project or program identified by the Director of the National Park Service as one that will help prepare the national parks for another century of conservation, preservation, and enjoyment.'' Mr. President, while I commend the Administration for this effort to secure increased funding for our national parks, I still need to better understand many of the specifics of the proposal, and until then, am reserving judgment on it. For example, we need to understand whether the initiative will result in significant new funding for our national parks, or whether increases in funding from the initiative will simply be offset by funding reductions in other important areas. I also have questions about whether the philanthropic goals proposed by this legislation are realistic, given the historic levels of private contributions for national parks. In addition, we need to learn more about the type of projects and programs that would be funded under the initiative, and what role Congress should have in establishing funding priorities. Finally, any legislative initiative that proposes $1 billion in new direct spending without an offset will certainly be carefully reviewed. Secretary Kempthorne and Director Bomar have indicated that they intend to make recommendations to the President later this month on appropriate signature projects and programs as well as goals for the initiative. I look forward to working with both Secretary Kempthorne and Director Bomar on this proposal once those recommendations are complete. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, along with the transmittal letter from Director Bomar and a section-by-section analysis of the bill prepared by the Department of the Interior.

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 Thursday, May 10, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nominations of Joseph Timothy Kelliher, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; and R. Lyle Laverty, of Colorado, to be Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior. 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 two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to amanda__kelly@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836. Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, obviously, I have great respect for my colleague from New Hampshire, and particularly because he is, I believe, the only trained engineer in the Senate, I certainly pay attention when he speaks on issues related to engineering and science, and I think we all need to do that. But I think he is clearly wrong in this circumstance, and let me explain why. The Senator is offering an amendment to strike the provisions of this bill that provide for annual funding increases for education and human resource programs at the National Science Foundation. The purpose of the provision that is in the bill he wants to strike is to ensure the continued involvement of experts at the National Science Foundation in improving science, technology, engineering, and math education at the elementary, secondary, and the postsecondary level. This underlying bill, S. 761, provides for substantial increases in funding for the National Science Foundation, and the amount of those increases is contained in section 401. You can see for the next 4 years there are substantial increases. I would reiterate, as we have many times in this debate, these are authorizing levels. This is not actual appropriation of money. That is the heavy lifting which we are going to have to do later on this year. This authorizes, however, significant increases in funding for the National Science Foundation. As appropriations for the National Science Foundation increase under this legislation, under S. 761, funds for the education and human resources programs will also increase by a proportional amount. We are not in any way diverting funds from basic research or other activities of the National Science Foundation, and we are not specifying that they do things they have not traditionally done. The National Science Foundation has a very impressive record of accomplishment in education at all levels with regard to science, engineering, and mathematics. The National Science Foundation is the engine of innovation for K-12 science, technology, engineering, and math education. Strengthening science and math education is a core mission of the National Science Foundation. This is not a sideline, this is a core mission. When the agency was founded, Congress recognized the importance of involving scientists in the critical questions relating to science education, and they made science education a key part of the agenda of that agency. The National Science Foundation programs range from graduate fellowships to programs for secondary school teachers, to informal museum programs. They are designed to attract students to science, engineering, technology, and mathematics. They are designed to give them the preparation and the fundamental knowledge they need to pursue undergraduate and graduate degrees, and they are designed to support the completion of those degrees. The EHR, which is the education and human resources directorate within the National Science Foundation, also pursues ways for advancing participation and equity in access for all who are interested in pursuing careers in these fields. As a research and development institution, the National Science Foundation is uniquely situated to bring insights to science and math education, and that is the reason why we gave them that job. The National Science Foundation education programs are a catalyst for change in education, and they have been demonstrated to do that. Let me give one example of a successful program, which is NSF's math and science partnership program. An analysis of 123 schools that participated in that program shows improvements in student proficiency in math and science at the elementary, the middle, and high school levels over a 3-year period. This year, the National Science Foundation's budget includes $30 million for these MSP, or math and science partnership, awards. A recent report by the Academic Competitiveness Council found that of the 10 math and science education programs at various Federal agencies they evaluated, all 4 of the programs they found to be effective were being run out of the National Science Foundation. So the authorization level for education and human resources in this bill reflects what the President asked for in fiscal 2008, plus an adjustment of $300 million to allow for the new programs authorized in the bill. Let me directly respond to the main points I understood my colleague from New Hampshire to be making. He started by saying no Member of Congress should be telling NSF how to spend their money, basically. We do that every time we pass an appropriations bill. We tell NSF how to spend their money. We also do it whenever we pass an authorization bill. The last time we passed the NSF reauthorization, which I think was 2003, we specified there precisely how much would go into education versus into other types of activities. So this is not in any way a change. I think everyone in Congress knows the one thing we are good at is micromanaging. We do not give tens of billions of dollars to any agency and say do what you want. We tell them we want this much spent on research and development, and we want this much spent on education. The one other point my colleague from New Hampshire made is we should not get into interfering with the peer review system, which is designed to ensure the best activities are chosen. We anticipated that problem and agree entirely with him. Section 4007 of this legislation, on page 183, is entitled ``Reaffirmation of the Merit-Review Process of the National Science Foundation,'' and it says: Nothing in this division or division A, or the amendments made by this division or division A, shall be interpreted to require or recommend that the National Science Foundation (1) alter or modify its merit-review system or peer-review process; or, (2) exclude the awarding of any proposal by means of the merit-review or peer-review process. So there is nothing in the section the Senator would have us strike that in any way undermines the peer review system. That is certainly something I would not support doing. I believe very strongly this is not a good amendment; that deleting section 4002, which is what the Senator's amendment would do, would be a substantial mistake, and I urge my colleagues to resist the amendment. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. How much time remains for the Senator from New Hampshire?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me use the remaining 2 minutes in opposition to the Senator from New Hampshire, and then the Senator can obviously use as much time as he would like. Let me just reiterate that I think this section which he is proposing that we strike is an important section to retain in the legislation. This is something which is a direct outgrowth of what the Augustine Commission recommended. They recommended that we increase funding for the National Science Foundation and that we ensure that the National Science Foundation substantially increase its efforts with regard to science education. That is what this provision does. That is what this section of the bill does. It says we want to increase authorization for the National Science Foundation, and as we are doing that, we want to be sure there is adequate funding, there is adequate attention given to science education. I believe, if there were a single thing which the National Academy of Sciences report concluded, it is that we are investing way too little as a country in science and engineering and math education across-the- board--in the Department of Education, in the Department of Energy, in the National Science Foundation, in our schools, elementary and secondary and postsecondary and universities. This is an important provision. We should keep this in the bill. I know it is very important to Senator Kennedy. He was very involved in the discussions that went into the drafting of this portion of the bill. As a member of his committee, I strongly object to us deleting this section of the bill. I yield the floor.