Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to discuss the process under which we consider this bill that has been set forth by the majority leader earlier. I also want to discuss a critical issue facing our farmers. I do not want to belabor the point that has been made by our distinguished Republican leader, Senator McConnell, and by Senator Gregg about the importance of an open amendment process, but I do want to add some context, if I might. I understand it is the majority's prerogative to fill the amendment tree, and it has been done by leaders of both parties in the past. However, I wanted to go on record about the potential serious danger of this process. Earlier, the majority leader stated that only amendments that are relevant to the farm bill will be allowed to be offered and voted on. Well, I cannot think of any amendment more relevant to the economic security of the American farmer than an amendment to increase the renewable fuel standard. I am very hopeful the amendment will meet the test the leader has made for amendments. I don't know yet whether it will, but I think before I am finished and before other speakers are heard, it should be quite obvious that there is no amendment that could be offered that is more important to rural America and the farmers than this one. Since we passed the first ever renewable fuels standard in the Energy Policy Act of 2005--and the occupant of the chair was a member of the committee that wrote it--bipartisan--and played a very vital role in a number of its provisions--since that Energy Policy Act, we have seen a surge in ethanol jobs and a surge in the construction of ethanol plants. I think we all know that. In 2006 alone, the ethanol industry supported the creation of 160,000 new jobs, while producing 5 billion gallons of ethanol. These are American farm jobs which help produce American fuels and help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It seems to me the relevance of ethanol is asked and answered. My bipartisan amendment would set annual requirements for the amount of renewable fuels used in motor vehicles, homes, and boilers. It would require that our Nation use 8.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels in 2008 and progressively increase to 36 billion gallons by 2022. My amendment will help the ethanol industry right now by doubling the current ethanol mandate from 7.5 billion gallons in 2009 to 15 billion gallons by 2015. That will ensure that America will be using the additional ethanol that farmers are producing. Beginning in 2016, an increasing portion of the renewable fuels must be advanced biofuels. Advanced biofuels include cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, and other fuels derived from unconventional biomass feedstocks such as sorghum. The required amount of advanced biofuels begins at 3 billion gallons in 2016 and increases to 21 billion by 2022. I want to depart from my text and talk a minute with the Presiding Officer and any other Senators who are listening. This amendment is part of the so-called Senate Energy bill passed in June. It has three major parts, and this is one part of it. This is one that has a lot to do with ethanol, but it was part of the Energy bill we passed and took a lot of pride in. Since then, the House passed a bill. The House passed two bills on energy. Their bills were, for all intents and purposes, completely different than the Senate's bill. We have been totally unsuccessful in moving anything in the direction of getting either our bill or their bill moving toward a bicameral solution in conference or by agreement between the two Houses through appropriate people. That is not occurring. There is lots of talk but no action. Pretty soon we will be giving the excuse for doing nothing for the ethanol prices--we will be saying, wait another month and we will get this agreement with the House. The Senate-passed bill will somehow get negotiated out with the House, with somebody, somehow, sometime, even though they don't have any provision in their bill that is like the one I am talking about. This amendment is in our bill--the bill of the Senate--that we worked so hard on. It is the one the President talked about in his State of the Union Address, as the occupant of the chair might remember. Cellulosic was what everybody talked about: In about 2 years we break that R&D requirement and we are ready to go with the most critical new fuel--cellulosic. Now we sit and say, let's not do anything. I am kind of prejudging what some will say tomorrow when this amendment, which will be filed at the desk and which is nothing more than the Energy bill that was passed with all of the amendments that were adopted, that was subtitle B, the biofuels for energy security and transportation as part of the Energy bill--it is now an amendment I am asking to be attached to the farm bill. I think it should meet the leader's test where he said it has to be something that is strongly related to agriculture or he isn't going to consider it. Considering things such as perhaps the Lugar bill, which is highly touted as a substitute--it won't pass, but it will be permitted to be offered as an amendment, I assume. This amendment is very important. We could get out of here in December and not have an agreement with the House on this energy bill. I repeat: They don't have this provision in their bill. They are going to have to accept a whole new approach. Energy security and transportation through biofuels is part of the three components of the bill, of the big bill we are talking about. We would have to find some way for the House to accommodate all three of the big sections, because they have none of them. They don't have this one. They don't have CAFE, on which our fellow committee members on Commerce worked very hard. They don't have CAFE in theirs. They don't have this provision, and they don't have the very large provision we have in ours with reference to maintenance and security, reducing the costs of various fuel products. So it is not going to be easy to get that. It would be very easy--if the majority leader agrees tomorrow, it would be very easy to adopt this amendment and, eventually, if the agriculture bill passes and goes right over to the House, and they have no alternative--they have to go to conference with a farm bill that is going to be very popular and it is going to have this provision on it, and it is very popular. As my colleagues know, if it were freestanding and didn't have any of the problems of: Does it belong on this bill, which I think is an irrelevant statement--we shouldn't be talking about that--it belongs on this bill, we are going to make up a rule if we don't let it come on here. It fits; it is germane; it is relevant. Any words we have used historically for amendments, it is that. Now, beginning in 2016, an increasing portion of renewable fuels must be advanced biofuels, which must include cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, and other fuels derived from unconventional biomass feedstocks, such as sorghum. The required amount of advanced biofuels begins at 3 billion gallons in 2016 and increases to 21 billion by 2022. Advanced biofuels do not have many of the challenges that conventional ethanol does. The inclusion of advanced biofuels strikes a balance that will allow America to begin diversifying our fuel supply in a very short term and in the long term. That is why, when supporting these same provisions in the Energy bill, the Renewable Fuels Association said that they ``strike the right chord''--that is what this does--noting that ``such an investment in our Nation's energy future promises to spur the creation of new, good- paying jobs across the country.'' This amendment consists of the very same provisions passed by the Senate in June as we considered the Energy bill. Some may ask, then, why do I seek to offer this amendment to the farm bill? I have already told you my answer. Repeating, first, the Energy bill is languishing largely because the House has very different provisions, and we have no way of going to conference. We are not in conference. We are negotiating in some way. People are talking. Committees are talking, but nothing is agreed upon by anyone as to the process or procedure. Certainly, we have to have that bipartisan. It will not pass if it comes here from the House and doesn't have some Republican input. I assume it will come from people such as me, as ranking member of one of the committees, or maybe Senator Stevens, who would have to be part of it if it were to have a real chance. The second reason is this amendment is relevant to the farm bill. It is necessary now to reinvigorate the ethanol industry, and that industry and everything that makes it up is looking to Congress to extend this mandate as soon as possible. In one sense, we have been a victim of our own success. Thanks to the 2005 Energy bill, rural America has answered the call for increased ethanol production. In fact, we have now exceeded the original mandated amount in our fuel mix. For example, in 2006, the ethanol standard was 4 billion gallons and, in fact, our domestic production of ethanol was 5 billion gallons. We can do more and the American farmer is looking for Congress to do more. Over the last year, the price of ethanol has dropped nearly 40 percent. The reason for this is simple economics. We have an increased supply and diminished demand in the marketplace. As a result the construction of new plants has been delayed meaning new job growth has been diminished and rural communities are looking to us to take action. We cannot wait for a languishing energy bill while rural communities are losing their opportunities. This amendment is not simply relevant to the farm bill, Mr. President. It is necessary. This matter will come back. It will be filed sometime tomorrow, or the next day, depending on when the leader will talk to me on the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senator Kennedy, Senator Leahy, and Senator Specter to introduce the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007. This bill will reauthorize and improve several programs intended to provide Federal support for collaborations between criminal justice and mental health systems. It is estimated that approximately 16 percent of adult U.S. jail and prison inmates suffer from mental illness and the numbers are even higher in the juvenile justice system. Many of these individuals are not violent or habitual criminals. Most have been charged or convicted of nonviolent crimes that are a direct consequence of not having received needed treatment and supportive services for their mental illness. The presence of defendants with mental illnesses in the criminal justice system imposes substantial costs on that system and can cause significant harm to defendants. In response to this problem, a number of communities around the country are implementing mental health courts, a specialty-court model that utilizes a separate docket, coupled with regular judicial supervision, to respond to individuals with mental illnesses who come in contact with the justice system. This past spring, I visited the courtroom of Judge Michael Vigil in the First Judicial Court of Santa Fe, NM. Judge Vigil operates a mental health court that helps individuals who have been involved in nonviolent crimes that do not involve weapons and who have been diagnosed with a mental illness. It is a 14-month program that attempts to keep defendants with mental illness out of jail. The court meets every Friday for about an hour. Defendants are required to attend individually designed therapy sessions, take their medications, and submit to random drug tests and breathalyzer tests. The appearances before Judge Vigil are akin to ``check-ups'' to make sure the defendant is on course, taking his or her medications, and that the defendant is in good health. If a participant violates the rules, they are sanctioned. If the violations are serious enough, the defendant can be removed from the program and sentenced to jail. The day I visited Judge Vigil's court, I witnessed a participant graduate from the program. I spoke with the defendant and his mother after the hearing. They told me how this program had helped turn his life around. Participation in this program had kept him out of jail and more importantly helped him access treatment, housing, and other critical supports. By addressing the mental illness that contributed to his criminal act, this man received the services he needed to hopefully prevent him from repeating his crime or committing a more serious crime. Furthermore, the program helped reduce the burden on the judicial system allowing for resources to be focused on violent criminals. Many communities are not prepared to meet the comprehensive treatment and needs of individuals with mental illness when they enter the criminal justice system. The bill we are introducing today is intended to help provide resources to help States and counties design and implement collaborative efforts between criminal justice and mental health structures. The bill will reauthorize the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction grant program and reauthorize the Mental Health Courts Program. It will create a new grant program to help law enforcement identify and respond to incidents involving persons with mental illness and it will fund a study and report on the prevalence of mentally ill offenders in the criminal justice system. All of these reforms will help to address this problem from both a public safety and a public health point of view. This will help save taxpayers money, improve public safety, and link individuals with the treatment they need to become productive members of their community. Certainly, not every crime committed by an individual diagnosed with a mental illness is attributable to their illness or to the failure of public mental health. Mental health courts are not a panacea for addressing the needs of the growing number of people with mental illnesses who come in contact with the criminal justice system. But they should be one part of the solution. Evidence has shown that in communities where mental health and criminal justice interests work collaboratively on solutions it can make a significant impact in fostering recovery, improving treatment outcomes and decreasing recidivism. I want to thank my good friends for working with me on this very important issue. I appreciate their commitment to advancing these important programs and I look forward to working with them to pass this legislation this Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There geing no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senator Kennedy, Senator Leahy, and Senator Specter to introduce the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007. This bill will reauthorize and improve several programs intended to provide Federal support for collaborations between criminal justice and mental health systems. It is estimated that approximately 16 percent of adult U.S. jail and prison inmates suffer from mental illness and the numbers are even higher in the juvenile justice system. Many of these individuals are not violent or habitual criminals. Most have been charged or convicted of nonviolent crimes that are a direct consequence of not having received needed treatment and supportive services for their mental illness. The presence of defendants with mental illnesses in the criminal justice system imposes substantial costs on that system and can cause significant harm to defendants. In response to this problem, a number of communities around the country are implementing mental health courts, a specialty-court model that utilizes a separate docket, coupled with regular judicial supervision, to respond to individuals with mental illnesses who come in contact with the justice system. This past spring, I visited the courtroom of Judge Michael Vigil in the First Judicial Court of Santa Fe, NM. Judge Vigil operates a mental health court that helps individuals who have been involved in nonviolent crimes that do not involve weapons and who have been diagnosed with a mental illness. It is a 14-month program that attempts to keep defendants with mental illness out of jail. The court meets every Friday for about an hour. Defendants are required to attend individually designed therapy sessions, take their medications, and submit to random drug tests and breathalyzer tests. The appearances before Judge Vigil are akin to ``check-ups'' to make sure the defendant is on course, taking his or her medications, and that the defendant is in good health. If a participant violates the rules, they are sanctioned. If the violations are serious enough, the defendant can be removed from the program and sentenced to jail. The day I visited Judge Vigil's court, I witnessed a participant graduate from the program. I spoke with the defendant and his mother after the hearing. They told me how this program had helped turn his life around. Participation in this program had kept him out of jail and more importantly helped him access treatment, housing, and other critical supports. By addressing the mental illness that contributed to his criminal act, this man received the services he needed to hopefully prevent him from repeating his crime or committing a more serious crime. Furthermore, the program helped reduce the burden on the judicial system allowing for resources to be focused on violent criminals. Many communities are not prepared to meet the comprehensive treatment and needs of individuals with mental illness when they enter the criminal justice system. The bill we are introducing today is intended to help provide resources to help States and counties design and implement collaborative efforts between criminal justice and mental health structures. The bill will reauthorize the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction grant program and reauthorize the Mental Health Courts Program. It will create a new grant program to help law enforcement identify and respond to incidents involving persons with mental illness and it will fund a study and report on the prevalence of mentally ill offenders in the criminal justice system. All of these reforms will help to address this problem from both a public safety and a public health point of view. This will help save taxpayers money, improve public safety, and link individuals with the treatment they need to become productive members of their community. Certainly, not every crime committed by an individual diagnosed with a mental illness is attributable to their illness or to the failure of public mental health. Mental health courts are not a panacea for addressing the needs of the growing number of people with mental illnesses who come in contact with the criminal justice system. But they should be one part of the solution. Evidence has shown that in communities where mental health and criminal justice interests work collaboratively on solutions it can make a significant impact in fostering recovery, improving treatment outcomes and decreasing recidivism. I want to thank my good friends for working with me on this very important issue. I appreciate their commitment to advancing these important programs and I look forward to working with them to pass this legislation this Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There geing no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Preserve America and Save America's Treasures Act to formally authorize two important historic preservation programs--the Preserve America Program and the Save America's Treasures Program. I am pleased to be joined in this effort my colleague from New York, Senator Clinton. Both the Preserve America Program and the Save America's Treasures Program have demonstrated significant success nationwide. However, both administration programs have relied solely on the will of the appropriations process and currently lack the long-term stability provided by formal authorization. This bill would authorize these two important programs and provide for the protection of America's heritage for years to come. The Preserve America initiative was announced by First Lady Laura Bush on March 3, 2003, and established by Executive Order 13287. The initiative was developed in cooperation with a number of Federal agency partners to encourage and support community efforts for the preservation and enjoyment of our priceless cultural and natural heritage. Since 2003, 549 cities in all 50 States have been designated Preserve America Communities, and 140 of the Preserve America Communities have received a combined total of $10 million to develop sustainable resource management strategies and sound business practices for the continued preservation and use of heritage assets. The Save America's Treasures program began during the Clinton administration as a national effort to protect our Nation's threatened cultural treasures, including historic structures, collections, works of art, maps and journals that document our heritage and to highlight and preserve the history and culture of the U.S. The program was established by Executive Order 13072 in February 1998. Save America's Treasures was originally created as the centerpiece of the White House National Millennium Commemoration, and as a public-private partnership that included the White House, the National Park Service and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. From 1998 through 2006, over $300 million in Federal and private funding has been awarded for over 1,000 grants. While both programs are nationwide in scope, I want to highlight the fact that the Preserve America and Save America's Treasures programs have also been very successful in my home State. Las Vegas and Silver City, NM, have been designated Preserve America communities, and 15 Save America's Treasures grants worth nearly 5 million dollars have been awarded over the years to entities throughout the State of New Mexico for various historic preservation projects. From the Palace of the Governor's Collections in Santa Fe to the Lincoln Historic District, where the outlaw Billy the Kid participated in the Lincoln County War, these programs have proved invaluable to preserving the rich heritage of New Mexico. I am proud to offer this bill to authorize these two important historic preservation programs. I hope my colleagues will join with me in approving the Preserve America and Save America's Treasures Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Preserve America and Save America's Treasures Act to formally authorize two important historic preservation programs--the Preserve America Program and the Save America's Treasures Program. I am pleased to be joined in this effort my colleague from New York, Senator Clinton. Both the Preserve America Program and the Save America's Treasures Program have demonstrated significant success nationwide. However, both administration programs have relied solely on the will of the appropriations process and currently lack the long-term stability provided by formal authorization. This bill would authorize these two important programs and provide for the protection of America's heritage for years to come. The Preserve America initiative was announced by First Lady Laura Bush on March 3, 2003, and established by Executive Order 13287. The initiative was developed in cooperation with a number of Federal agency partners to encourage and support community efforts for the preservation and enjoyment of our priceless cultural and natural heritage. Since 2003, 549 cities in all 50 States have been designated Preserve America Communities, and 140 of the Preserve America Communities have received a combined total of $10 million to develop sustainable resource management strategies and sound business practices for the continued preservation and use of heritage assets. The Save America's Treasures program began during the Clinton administration as a national effort to protect our Nation's threatened cultural treasures, including historic structures, collections, works of art, maps and journals that document our heritage and to highlight and preserve the history and culture of the U.S. The program was established by Executive Order 13072 in February 1998. Save America's Treasures was originally created as the centerpiece of the White House National Millennium Commemoration, and as a public-private partnership that included the White House, the National Park Service and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. From 1998 through 2006, over $300 million in Federal and private funding has been awarded for over 1,000 grants. While both programs are nationwide in scope, I want to highlight the fact that the Preserve America and Save America's Treasures programs have also been very successful in my home State. Las Vegas and Silver City, NM, have been designated Preserve America communities, and 15 Save America's Treasures grants worth nearly 5 million dollars have been awarded over the years to entities throughout the State of New Mexico for various historic preservation projects. From the Palace of the Governor's Collections in Santa Fe to the Lincoln Historic District, where the outlaw Billy the Kid participated in the Lincoln County War, these programs have proved invaluable to preserving the rich heritage of New Mexico. I am proud to offer this bill to authorize these two important historic preservation programs. I hope my colleagues will join with me in approving the Preserve America and Save America's Treasures Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, how much time is that?

Mr. DOMENICI. I appreciate that. First, I wish to thank the Senator. I wish to say to the Senate, I talked to Senator Lott, and I understand that when the 4\1/2\ minutes is up, the regular order will be that we return to Amtrak; is that correct?

Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator indicated to me he was next with some amendments, but he would be willing to give me about 5 minutes. Now, we can do it either way. We can say, I would like 5 minutes before--what I have been given here, plus 5 before we go to the bill.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent to that effect.

Mr. DOMENICI. That means I can go up to 9\1/2\. I am not sure I will, but who knows. This is a favorite subject, so I might talk all night if you let me.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am here because the distinguished majority leader spoke today, and I wasn't here when he talked about the two Energy bills that are outstanding--maybe it is three. The House has a couple of Energy bills and we have one, and they are languishing, so to speak, because there is no conference, no official conference. The distinguished majority leader used the phrase, saying we ought to marry the two bills. Now, the leader knows I have every bit of respect for him, and I have talked with him about this Energy bill at least 10 times. I have even suggested in writing some ideas about how we might have a conference that is not a conference but accomplishes the same thing. With that, I wish to say right off, Mr. Leader and fellow Senators, these two bills are so different, so different, that they are incompatible. So you cannot say marry them, because that marriage cannot last. You cannot start it because the bills are diametrically different, with the exception of a few pieces that are not terribly relevant that are the same. What they have, we don't have; what we have, they don't have. You cannot marry them. It is a hard job to work a bill when you don't have a conference. I will repeat what I have suggested. At least 2 Republican Senators who were part of the big bill--maybe myself from the Energy Committee, and maybe Senator Stevens from Commerce--have to be part of negotiating every part of the bill or it is going to be very difficult to get 60 votes in the Senate. I cannot make it any clearer. That is what I have told them. I still say that. I don't know where we do it, but maybe we could informally agree to something like that. So don't bring up a big piece of the bill that has been negotiated out between some House Members and Senate Members but you have not worked it with the Senators who put together the basic pieces of the big bill in the Senate. As a member of the Senate Energy Committee for 30 years, I have learned a lot about what it takes to pass a comprehensive, bipartisan energy bill and get it signed. As chairman in 2005, I shepherded through the Senate the most comprehensive Energy bill in decades. Over time, when fully implemented, this bill will have a very positive impact across every sector of energy. Strengthening America's energy security doesn't have an overnight solution. It is not something that can be accomplished in 5-second bites. Instead, it requires long vision and courage to make a difficult decision. Both the Senate and the House have passed bills, as I indicated. While the Senate bill takes big, important steps to diversify our fuel sources to increase our energy efficiency and conservation, the House bill does little more than, in a sense, increase the energy cost for America. The majority leader suggested that we marry these bills, as I indicated. However, this marriage of convenience would be an inconvenient burden. I would call it an incompatibility for those who fill up their gas tanks and heat their homes. The centerpiece of our Senate efforts on energy is a mandate which would require an increasing portion of our fuel to come from advanced biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol. These newly advanced, clean biofuels will eventually help make America less dependent upon foreign oil. The House Energy bill contains no such provisions and, in fact, takes steps that would reduce our domestic energy supply. This led a former Member of the Senate to write: unless Congress includes provisions for increasing supply, this will remain an energy bill without energy. Again, that was a former Senator. I think people could guess who it is. He is from down South, maybe from Louisiana. The House repeals numerous provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that are already increasing domestic energy production. Across the country, applications for drilling permits are on the rise. I know a little bit about it. That is out in my part of the country. I know that sounds wrong, but they are on the rise. Last year, we did produce more oil than we did before because the activities are taking place. We will need to continue this rise to keep up with our Nation's demand for domestic oil and natural gas. Instead of expediting the process of domestic oil and gas production, the House bill slows it down. Instead of decreasing domestic gas and oil exploration and production costs, the House bill increases the costs. I guess the answer to that is, well, everybody is making too much money, so increase costs. Frankly, we don't generally do that in the United States. That is what we have tried before when we had such strange things as a tax on the rich. We tried an extra tax on oil because it was making too much money. We got in big trouble because it never did work. The price tag is a $16 billion tax increase on American oil and gas production--on big and small businesses alike. This is a conservative estimate, and I fear one that will increase behind closed doors. The House bill results in a punitive fee on deep sea production or, in the alternative, a ban on future leasing altogether. That one is an interesting one. People look at that and say it is good, we ought to do it. Incidentally, that is so anti-American, you cannot believe it. I believe it is also unconstitutional as an ex post facto law. But that is not the issue. That is one of the things we are not going to marry up because plenty of Members in the Senate--at least on our side of the aisle--think that because a mistake was made--not made by a Republican President, it was made during the Presidency of our last Democratic President. A mistake was made and the royalty requirements were not included and the bids let. Those people who got those bids and didn't pay any royalties were trying to collect from them after the fact. That is one of their provisions in the House bill and not in ours. You could tell that is in for a heavy fight. I don't know whether you could pass a bill in the Senate that had the division they have. They say any of those companies in that position, they pay up something they don't owe, but they pay it up anyway or they cannot drill for 20 years. I cannot imagine anything that looks more anti-American, more like a banana republic that takes over oil companies and releases them and nobody knows what is going on. These types of measures will reduce our domestic energy supply, increase our energy cost and, over time, play into the hands of the large state- owned oil companies in unstable regions around the world. The House-passed Energy bill is a gift to our global competitors in China, Russia, and the Middle East. This is not just an energy issue, it is a national security issue. The more we increase our dependence, the less secure we become. The higher prices we put on energy at home, the greater the costs we place on our strategic competitiveness abroad. The House Energy bill doesn't end at increasing costs for consumers at the pump. It also targets those of us who use electricity. By requiring States that lack natural resources to meet an unachievable, mandatory, renewable portfolio standard, we increase costs. Those who cannot meet this standard will simply pay a fee. Remember, that was not offered in the Senate. My friend, the chairman of the committee, is for that and he didn't offer it. I speculate that he didn't offer it because it might have made the bill impossible to pass. But it is in the House bill, so it is not so easy to say let's go and marry them. Somebody has to sit down and talk seriously about whether that kind of provision can stand the test of a head count as to whether we can get a bill through the Senate. If I am needed, I am needed to help get a bill. If I am not needed to get a bill, you can marry anything to anything and bring it to the floor and see what can happen. I have been a long-time supporter of renewable energy in both the appropriations process and in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. I led efforts to protect an offshore wind project in unfair opposition. The bill I authored provided the largest and most important tax incentives for renewable energy in American history. We don't need to do anything else to help with wind energy. It is growing at the most rapid pace of any of the renewables. As a matter of fact, it is my understanding the orders for turbines for wind energy are so far behind that you have no wait for 2 years. Most of them are being made overseas. You see, it won't do any good--we don't need more States mandated to produce 15 percent of their energy through wind, and they are allowing a 4-percent credit or something. We ought to increase the tax incentive, so it is not going out too quickly. I support sound, smart policy on increasing our domestic renewable energy supply, but I oppose tax increases on the American energy consumers. The next 30 years will bring a massive shift in American wealth if we continue to increase our dependence on foreign oil. That is what will happen. Plainly and simply, the Senate bill moves away from this trend. The House bill does not; it accelerates it. I will say that again. The next 30 years will bring a massive shift of American wealth if we continue to increase our dependence. That shift is at an incredible level at this point. For these reasons, we cannot simply marry these two bills in the dark of the night. Instead, we need a bipartisan conference committee similar to the one we had in 2005. If we cannot get it in any official way, we are going to have to find a way to do it. It cannot be expected that those on the other side of the aisle will meet with certain Republicans and they will change these bills and say now we have married the bills and we can pass them. That will not happen. This is a difficult bill on the Senate side but a good one. As a matter of fact, I can say the bill that passed the Senate is one of the best bills we have ever passed. It sort of came from three committees, and it is different, but it will certainly, over 10 years, do a lot for our country. But you don't put on top of it a tax--this tax of $16 billion. They tried it here and it was defeated on the Energy bill. But because the House has it, there is talk that we have to marry it up and take their tax provision. Where are you going to get the votes for that? And that is so with other things that are in the House bill and not in ours. I thank Senator Lott for being patient. Clearly, we will discuss the issue more and maybe sit down at a table and talk about it among Senators of both parties. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest that this is absolutely imperative. For citizens who are on disability to have to wait 2 years on an appeal, as the Senator said, is unacceptable. The money this is providing will take care of that. He asked the administrator, and that is what is needed, and we ought to do it. We have Social Security and disability, and then they make them wait 2 years, and all of the offices are being cut back because they don't have enough operating money. We should pass this amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I would like to honor and give special attention to New Mexico's Fort Union National Monument in Mora County. Located in the Mora Valley between the Santa Fe and Sangre de Cristo mountains, Fort Union established in 1851, dates back to New Mexico's territorial days, protecting the area's inhabitants and trade routes. This year Fort Union has initiated a new effort called ``The New Mexico Volunteers Living History Program.'' Volunteers in this program will depict the Hispanic soldiers of the 1st New Mexico Volunteers, who were enlisted and stationed at Fort Union during the Civil War. One of the current volunteers is a direct descendent of the 1st New Mexico Volunteers. With some training and drilling, Fort Union hopes to begin presenting living history programs depicting the 1st New Mexico Volunteers in early spring next year at Fort Union as well as other local venues. Fort Union has also reinstated nighttime candlelight tours, and also hopes to provide a public venue for night sky viewing while partnering with local colleges and universities to interpret the skies, and be used as a classroom venue complementing science curriculums. I am proud of the work being done at Fort Union to reach out to the community and provide a glimpse of our historic past. The upcoming activities at Fort Union remind us of our rich history in New Mexico, and I commend the staff at the Fort for their efforts and their hard work to further integrate the unique history of the Fort into the surrounding area and expand their role as a resource for local students and residents. I look forward to the advancement of this program in the months to come.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today my good friend Senator Dodd and I submitted a resolution designating the week of October 21 as the 2007 National Character Counts Week. Our character is the foundation of who we are as people and how we are perceived by the world. Every day our character and ethics are tested through the decisions we make and the behavior we exhibit. The National Character Counts program focuses on ``Six Pillars of Character'' which are promoted through school and community based character education programs across the country. The six pillars are: trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. I have supported Character Counts throughout the years because I believe this program reaches out to all youth and adults, as the Character Counts Coalition states, no matter the individual's race, creed, politics, gender, and wealth. In my home state of New Mexico, we have run many successful Character Counts programs throughout the years. While many schools initiate Character Counts programs there are also many other organizations that develop character based programming. I would like to take the time to recognize some of the successful programs we have had in New Mexico for 2007. Character Counts works in New Mexico because it is truly a community partnership. There was a brilliant example last week during the Albuquerque International Balloon Fiesta. The Balloon Fiesta staff hosted 60 selected school kids for 2 days of festive activities. Northrop Grumman provided tethered balloon rides. Meals on Wheels fed the young people lunch, and the Albuquerque Balloon Museum gave some of the students a tour of the exhibits to show them the history of hot air balloons. These were fun days, but the children certainly learned about civic responsibility with some of our state's top business and community leaders. A once in a lifetime experience for many of these kids, and exposure to adults demonstrating respect, responsibility, trustworthiness, fairness, citizenship, and caring; the ``Six Pillars of Character.'' During the week of October 21, I hope everyone takes the time to participate in a Character Counts event in their local area. I know in New Mexico we will be having some special celebrations. On October 19 in Albuquerque, NM, there will be a Character is the Heart of New Mexico Parade, put on by Duranes Elementary beginning at the Old Town Plaza and ending at the Albuquerque Museum. On October 25, Roswell will celebrate 13 years of Character Counts with a Character Counts Super Celebration at Roswell High School. And on October 27, Gallup will celebrate with a Character Counts Parade starting at Fourth and Coal and ending at Lincoln Elementary School. All of these organizations and schools as well as the many others not mentioned here, are to be commended for their hard work in developing these programs and spreading the message that character truly does count. I believe this program is making a difference in my home State and across the country. I want to encourage more people to become involved with the Character Counts program, but most of all I hope individuals will take the time to reflect on what the ``Six Pillars of Character'' mean to them. I hope all of my colleagues will support this effort.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wish to commemorate the 50th anniversary of space flight, the NASA space program, and its contributions past and present to the United States as well as to New Mexico. Just over 50 years ago on October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the first artificial satellite to orbit around Earth, which propelled the world into the space age. This era saw an unprecedented rise in scientific and technological developments benefiting mankind both on and off the surface of the Earth. New Mexicans have a long history of contributions to NASA and to the U.S. space program, beginning in 1929 when the ``Father of Modern Rocketry'' Robert H. Goddard moved to Roswell and began his work designing and testing rockets. In 1946 the first ever rocket was launched from U.S. soil into space from what is now White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. Shortly after the Soviet launch of Sputnik, the United States launched Explorer I, using Goddard's research on the Redstone rocket as the launch vehicle. Later that year on July 29, Congress passed the National Aeronautics and Space Act. This law created NASA as we know it today in order to ``provide for research into problems of flight within, and outside the Earth's atmosphere, and for other purposes.'' In 1961 a chimpanzee named ENOS, trained at Holloman Air Force Base in Alamogordo, was launched into orbit around Earth and safely returned after two full orbits. Fellow space travelers, Astronauts Drew Gaffney, Sidney Gutierrez, Mike Gutierrez, Edgar D. Mitchell, and former Senator Harrison J. Schmitt, whom I had the honor of working with years ago, all call New Mexico home. White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico currently provides an alternative landing site for the space shuttle, serves as the primary training area for NASA space shuttle pilots and is used for research on the next generation of the space shuttle. NASA has collaborated with, and funded, research at the University of New Mexico, New Mexico State University, and New Mexico Tech. This funding has been used to continue to expand the limits of understanding in the fields of science and technology. NASA continues to work with Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories on cutting edge research and development programs. New Mexico's Holloman Air Force Base in Alamogordo is also home to the 2007 X-PRIZE Cup competition, the world's largest air and space flight demonstration. In just a few days, on October 27 and 28, lunar lander vehicle competitions, launches, and air show performances will take place along with ground static displays of rockets, NASA displays, robotic displays, and military aircraft displays. I know that the competition will again be fierce for the X-PRIZE Cup, and I am very excited that all the action will take place in New Mexico. I am proud of New Mexico's role and rich history in space and with NASA. It is a great honor for New Mexico to contribute in so many ways to this remarkable program which has played such a large role in our Nation's history and which continues to be so important to our advancement. From the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions of the 1960s space race to the shuttle age and beyond, NASA has been on the cutting edge of technology, and they are consistently pushing the limits of understanding. Through space exploration we continue to gain a clearer picture of the history of our universe, our planet, and ourselves. In honor of 50 years of space flight, NASA will be hosting lecture series, future forums, and science expos throughout the country beginning this month and continuing through October of 2008. I am in awe of what NASA has done and can only anticipate what exciting things they will bring this country, and the world, over the next 50 years.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wish to commemorate Border Binational Health Week. Being that New Mexico is a border State, I have great interest in honoring the citizens of my State who live and work near the border. Border Binational Health Week, which is celebrated this week, is a way for border States to promote sustainable partnerships to help address border health issues. This year's theme is ``Families in Action for Health,'' which is an effort to make sure all people are healthy, and families working together can make sure that happens. Border States have a unique set of concerns citizens elsewhere may not experience. By recognizing Border Binational Health Week, we can begin a dialogue on these issues, between countries. Several events are being held around the State to raise awareness. The events include a Red Ribbon Rally Parade and Health Fair in Sunland Park; a Family Health Fair in Las Cruces; a Health Disparities Forum in Silver City; a 1\1/2\ mile Walk out West in Alamogordo; and a Youth Promotora Training and Educational Workshop in Animas and Lordsburg. Each of these activities help promote healthy living in border States, and especially border communities. It is my hope that border health will be discussed not only during this week but all year long.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the city of Santa Fe and their award for one of 2007's Great Streets. Canyon Road was showcased by the American Planning Association as being one of the top 10 streets in the country. Canyon Road is unique in that it combines elements of commercial and residential living in a way that makes guests want to visit this street time and again. It is the heart of the residential arts and crafts district, and many artists sell their work on this street. Canyon Road is loaded with art galleries that draw crowds of art connoisseurs and simple lovers of art. Art is a huge part of the culture in Santa Fe, and Canyon Road epitomizes that culture. This street is enjoyed by locals and tourists alike. It is great to see Santa Fe recognized along with cities like New York City and St. Louis. Canyon Road was listed alongside other famous roads, such as North Michigan Avenue in Chicago and Ocean Drive in Miami. It is great to see the character and distinctiveness of my State represented on lists such as these. The American Planning Association has only solidified what New Mexicans already know, that this street is a place all should enjoy. I invite all of you to visit New Mexico and go take a leisurely stroll down the legendary Canyon Road.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the community of Clovis, NM, on its 100th birthday. Since the first train depot was built in this area a century ago, Clovis has continued to grow and expand its economy. Clovis has seen its share of turmoil and adversity throughout the past 100 years, and yet it has maintained its sense of community and is now seeing consistent growth. The growth has been so remarkable that the city has been dubbed the ``City on the Move.'' The land, flat and fertile, has been an asset for farmers, cattle growers and dairymen all across the area. And most recently, the largest cheese producing factory in North America was built here. Clovis is home to Cannon Air Force Base, which was recently put on the BRAC list for closure. But the town fought back, and now Cannon is not only staying open, but they have received a new mission as an Air Force Special Operations Base which is slated to expand the base even further. In honor of this centennial birthday, Clovis planned many events. Some of the events included the unearthing of a time capsule, a parade, cook-off, photo exhibit of Clovis over the last 100 years, and the year will culminate with an Anniversary Celebration Banquet this Saturday night. Clovis is such a special place and I am honored to see this community continue to succeed. It is with great pleasure that I recognize this unique town here today on the Senate floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wish today to pay tribute to the contributions of Hispanic Americans as we commemorate Hispanic Heritage Month. This occasion welcomes the opportunity to celebrate the achievements made by Hispanic Americans to enrich the culture and day- to-day life of the United States. Today, there is no denying the strength and impact of Hispanic Americans, who are now more than 40 million strong. In my home State of New Mexico, 44 percent of the total population is made up of people of Hispanic descent, which according to the Census Bureau, is the largest proportion of any State in the Union. What has truly been remarkable to me over the years is the extent to which the Hispanic community has thrived in every facet of civic life. For instance, I am proud to call attention to the remarkable achievement of PFC Jose F. Valdez, one of 48 Hispanic American Medal of Honor recipients. Born and raised in Governador, NM, Jose served during World War II near Rosenkrantz, France. He heroically saved the lives of his fellow comrades by engaging in a firefight which allowed the soldiers to escape after an enemy counterattack. Similar tales of bravery are prevalent in the history of Hispanic Americans, who have served with distinction in every U.S. military campaign including our current engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the areas of science, medicine, sport, art, business, and public service, the various achievements of the Hispanic community are immeasurable. This year, Hispanic Business magazine celebrated its 25th anniversary by profiling 500 of the largest Hispanic-owned companies in the United States, a nearly tenfold increase from the magazine's initial listing in 1982. These companies boast total revenues of $36.6 billion, which is a sizable contribution to the American economy. Twenty-five of these top-ranked companies join me in calling New Mexico their home. At the top of this list is Manuel Lujan Agencies from Albuquerque, NM, which has also been awarded ``Most Admired Company'' by New Mexico's top 100 private companies. Also included in this list is Centinel Bank of Taos in Taos, NM, which is one of the very few minority-owned financial institutions in the United States. I am pleased that Manuel Lujan Agencies and Centinel Bank of Taos are joined by such firms as Roses Southwest Papers, Applied Tech Associates, Networx and Sparkle Maintenance Inc. The fact, is Hispanics in New Mexico today lead a growing number of firms that help set the pace for a growing economy in my State, and many of them are firms involving high technology, construction, and service industries. While there is no doubt that Hispanics have fought to protect our freedoms and made advancements in the corporate world, they are also leaving their imprint on the world of entertainment through sports and the arts. Of the athletes currently playing in the National Football League, 24 players are of Hispanic descent. These players are represented on 16 teams across the country, and during a recent football matchup, Grammy winners Gloria Estefan and the musical group Ozomatli performed the national anthem at the halftime show in honor of this month's celebration. In my home State, music legends like Al Hurricane and the popular Tobias Rene add to the rich cultural contributions being made to our society. I encourage Americans to take this moment to remember all of the areas of our society that have been influenced by the Hispanic community. I would also like you to recall the sacrifices Hispanics have made to preserve the liberties and freedom that make America a beacon of hope to millions around the world. These men and women have stood up as proud Americans and volunteered to protect their families and communities during the global war on terror. Our Nation is stronger because of these men and women. They deserve the gratitude of the Nation for their sacrifices. The tradition of Hispanic Heritage Month dates back almost 40 years. In 1968, Congress started by designating a week to celebrate Hispanic heritage. By the early 1980s, we decided to extend the designation to cover a month starting on September 15. The extra time has been a necessary and appropriate change to allow us to recognize the long record of contributions Hispanic Americans have made to our communities and to our Nation. I call on the American people to join with all children, families, organizations, communities, churches, cities, and States across the Nation to observe the month with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wish today to recognize a fellow New Mexican, Michael Hooffstetter, for his hard work and advocacy on behalf of individuals living with Parkinson's disease. Michael is in Washington this week receiving a very prestigious award from the Parkinson's Action Network, the Milly Kondracke Award. The award's namesake was a well-known Parkinson's advocate who worked tirelessly to increase awareness of this disease and support Federal funding for research until her death in 2004. The award is presented annually to an advocate who demonstrates the incredible strength of spirit and commitment to advocacy that Milly demonstrated. I am very pleased that this year's recipient is Michael Hooffstetter. Each of the last several years, Michael and others from New Mexico have come to Washington and met with me to discuss programs that help those suffering with Parkinson's disease. As the New Mexico State coordinator for the Parkinson's Action Network, Michael speaks candidly about his disease, the treatments he has undergone, and the effect it has had on him and his family. Michael's Air Force service has given him a special interest in the Department of Defense Neurotoxin Exposure Treatment and Research Program. I have always appreciated his honesty and insight and admire him for his advocacy. Michael Hooffstetter has helped many people by dedicating his time and efforts through the Parkinson's Action Network. I congratulate him for this award.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I believe I have up to 10 minutes, and I yield myself that time.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have heard my distinguished friend from South Carolina, and have great respect for his thought process, for the way he presents things. Frankly, I do not mind listening to him, so I was here early, and I got to hear what he had to say. But we have been working on this issue of SCHIP for more than a few months, in fact, for more than a few years. So some come in at the end and have a whole new theory about it, and others, like myself, who happened to be the Budget chairman back a few years ago, when this program was born--and I remember making room for it in a budget resolution so it could be a reserve fund, and we could end up with this amount of money. It kind of lived through 2 or 3 years of getting knocked around and not doing its job, and doing part of it, and as things progressed I ended up supporting a proposal that involved SCHIP. This Children's Health Insurance Program Act of 2007 is now before us. I indicated my support for it when Senator Chuck Grassley and his cohort, the chairman of the Finance Committee from Montana, were putting together a compromise bill using this money that had been allocated for health care some 3 or 4 years ago. So I supported it as Senator Grassley and others put together a program. New Mexico has a terrible problem with uninsured children. Nearly 25 percent of the children have no insurance--worst in the country. SCHIP will help this problem, no doubt about it. The bill we are voting on today--whether my good friend who spoke just before me agrees with the terminology--is a compromise. Many on the other side of the aisle wanted $50 billion to $70 billion more in spending. On my side of the aisle, they wanted much less. Some wanted as low as $5 billion. This bill gave us $35 billion--right down the middle. Whether that means anything, it does to me. It means some people worked very hard to try to get a bill we could support, that would begin to get us somewhere with reference to changing the direction of health care for children who might see light someday. The bill gave us $35 billion, I repeat. In August, I came to the floor and made a statement. I said I did not like what the House of Representatives was doing. I said I did not support massive increases in spending and eligibility proposed by the House. I made it very clear I did not want a reauthorization that included revisions to the Medicare Program. Now, I am just one Senator, but it turns out that five or six or seven Republican Senators somehow or other all thought the same way. They were thinking just as I was, that we were not going to let ourselves get used so that this SCHIP was opening a crack in the door, and we did not know what we were talking about, and we would open the door, and we would spend three times what we had in mind. Well, that was not going to happen. Senator Grassley came around and asked, and I said: $35 billion. That is it. If you put any more in, I am out. I remember him coming to me and saying: Is that it? Twice I said: That is it. Don't bother me anymore. I am your friend, but anybody can understand $35 billion is $35 billion. It is not $38 billion. It is not $50 billion. If you want to do any more, go look for somebody else to make your majority. He said: No, I don't want to do that. I want you. Is that all you will do? I said: Yes, that is all I will do. So everything I did is not part of the record, but I am reflecting for the Senate and for those on my side of the aisle who do not understand why I am doing what I am doing and want the President to veto this bill. I do not want him to veto it. I think it is a mistake, and I am saying it right now, and I will say it again. But I did say I did not want massive increases in spending and eligibility proposed by the House. I did say I did not want a reauthorization that included revisions to the Medicare Program. Clearly, I made that point. I made it not only to Senator Grassley, but I made it to the chairman of the committee, Senator Max Baucus of Montana. We got to where Senator Baucus would speak to me every 2 or 3 days and report to me what was going on. I was not on the conference. But the reason he did that was he understood if he went to conference and changed that $35 billion, which had become a very important number, he would start losing me. So I was just as effective as being at the conference, but so were about seven or eight others who were still on board and who still think $35 billion is enough because the cheapest insurance around is insurance to cover children. We all know that. Now, that is not degrading. It is a fact. You can buy more insurance for children per dollar than for any other class of people. That is logical. Children do not get sick as much as old people. They do not get sick as much as middle-aged people. So they are healthy. The insurance is cheap. Now, the conference committee listened--the one that Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus were part of--they compromised the bill before us, and they did it in a fair way. What was fair? Thirty-five billion dollars--no more, no less--the amount we had agreed to that we said we would help them with. If they wanted to dream about big dreams for this small program--that I remember vividly we started in the Budget Committee, and it languished around. We started it some 4 years ago, or 5. I have not been back as chairman of that committee for quite a while, so it was not done yesterday. The conference committee, as I said, listened, and they did exactly what Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus had told us would happen. They provided $35 billion in new resources to provide health coverage for millions more children in working families. Here we get into an argument: Who is working in families and who is not? Well, I understand we could have that argument and extend it beyond 8 o'clock. We could be here until morning. But we are not going to do that. It is established. It strengthens outreach and enrollment efforts to make sure all children who are eligible for the program get the services they need. That has always been a problem with children. The Presiding Officer knows that. We cover children, and then in 2 years they come back and say: Yes, we covered them, but they did not get covered. What do you mean? Well, we did not find them. Well, how do we find them? Well, the best way is to wait until they go to the emergency room, and then you find them in the emergency room and you sign them up. I thought: My, is that the best way we can do it? It turns out it is very difficult, especially among our poor people, to get them to round up their children and come and get them lined up. The best way is if they happen to go to a hospital. You get them then. You don't want them to go to a hospital, but I am telling you what it turns out to be. Maybe it has changed since I last worked on this. Years do go by. But I think what I said is still right. It also makes improvements to the program such as mental health parity, which I know a little bit about. I am glad this legislation ensures plans that offer mental health services provide benefits that are equivalent to other physician and health services. This is one of the most difficult areas of unfairness for American coverage we have had, and we are making big strides toward resolving it. This bill makes its little contribution to resolving that problem. The administration has issued a statement indicating the President will veto this legislation. Mr. President, that is a mistake. Maybe you will win; maybe you won't. I guess in the Senate you won't win, Mr. President. Maybe you will win in the House. I don't know. But this will not go away. It is solved. It ought to be done. We ought to go on and look somewhere else if we are going to try to find money to save. Those who think this is a great veto item, I think what I have just explained is, it is not a very good one. We ought to go ahead and take care of some of the children and get on to some other issues. A majority of my colleagues have said they support this bill. Sixty- nine Members voted for cloture this morning--cloture meaning to cut off debate and get on with the vote. My commitment to children's health care remains firm today. It remains as firm as when I agreed to the first use of SCHIP money in a new and different, innovative way so its asset value could multiply significantly. I support the passage of the compromise SCHIP reauthorization. All in all, it is a pretty good bill. I hope it outlasts our debate and is voted on tonight. Then I hope it is not vetoed by the President. I yield the floor and thank the Presiding Officer for recognizing me.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to inform the Senate about amendment No. 2981. I greatly appreciate Chairman Levin's and Ranking Member McCain's cooperation in including it in the managers' package. My amendment to the Defense authorization bill calls for a review of the Department of Energy's strategic plan for advanced computing. This review would be completed by the independent scientific advisory group and assess where the Department is headed in this important area. The measure focuses attention on the essential role our national laboratories play in advancing the state of the art for high performance computing a vital area for our national security and scientific leadership. Our laboratories have been instrumental in pressing the limits of raw computing power and creating more sophisticated simulation capabilities. Since the early days of scientific computing and continuing through the development of today's advanced parallel computing systems, the laboratories pioneered the development of high performance computing and software development. From developing advanced computing architectures and algorithms to effective means for storing and viewing the enormous amounts of data generated by these machines, the laboratories have made high performance computing a reality. These capabilities have become a requirement for certifying the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear testing. They also find application far outside laboratory walls. The Stockpile Stewardship Program was created as the alternative to underground nuclear testing, to ensure that our nuclear weapons systems would remain safe, secure and reliable. Doing so without nuclear testing required significant investments in computer modeling and simulation. This investment has paid enormous dividends. Every year, computing power increases at a pace set by America's national laboratories. The world's current fastest supercomputer is Lawrence Livermore's ``Blue Gene,'' which recently exceeded 280 ``teraflops'' or trillions of calculations per second. Oak Ridge's ``Jaguar'' system and Sandia National Laboratory's ``Red Storm'' are second and third, each exceeding 100 teraflops. The applications go well beyond security and basic science. The laboratories have worked hard to transition these capabilities to academia and industry, simulating complex industrial processes and their environmental impact including global climate change. Collaborations with the private sector have also driven down the cost, so that now high performance does not mean high expense. This has had an enormous impact, making advanced computing within the reach of an ever wider circle of users including the Department of Energy's Office of Science. At the labs today, not only do these computers run advanced experimental models that give us confidence in our nuclear deterrent, but they also help us decipher the human genome and develop improved medicines. Advanced computing has also helped Sandia engineers understand the safety risks to the Space Shuttle, when the foam from the fuel tank hit and damaged the heat tiles. We will continue to use advanced computing to support engineering design work to ensure that our bridges and infrastructure are safe, as well as filter massive amounts of data in an effort to predict where terrorists are planning to attack next. These achievements did not happen by accident. They required planning, commitment and follow through. Unfortunately, I am concerned that we may be losing this focus and commitment to support long term research on advance computing architectures and continue the search for even greater simulation capabilities. The Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security Administration appear not to have a coordinated strategy for advancing the state-of-the-art in computing and instead propose to actually reduce computing capacity within the laboratory system. I believe this is a mistake. In the Senate Energy and Water Development appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008, Chairman Dorgan and I have proposed to establish a joint program office for high performance computing led by the NNSA Administrator and the Under Secretary for Science. This office will have the primary responsibility of ensuring a well balanced portfolio of computing platforms for the DOE and the Nation. The proposed office will develop a high performance computing technology roadmap and acquisition strategy for the DOE. I strongly believe that DOE and NNSA must pool their resources and establish an advanced computing R&D program. A long term, Department-wide strategy is necessary to ensure that the world class simulation capabilities within the complex are maintained and investments are made to drive innovation. If the past success of the program is a predictor, there will be amazing new technological innovations and the cost of computing will fall like a stone. This will ensure that universities, laboratories, U.S. businesses and law enforcement will have the computing capability necessary for their success. We must continue to raise the bar, giving our best and brightest new targets to aim for, ensuring that America will retain its technical leadership in advanced computing. I would like to pay tribute to the men and women of Sandia, Los Alamos and Livermore National labs and their private sector counterparts at Cray, IBM, and Intel, and the Department of Energy and the NNSA. These individuals have worked extraordinarily hard to solve complex computing architecture and software challenges. This work has paid off and we must remain committed to future excellence in this field. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a listing of the world's fastest computers be printed in the Record. I would like for my colleagues to note that 8 of the top 10 computers are located at U.S. Department of Energy national labs and universities and this would not be the case except for the investments made by the Department of Energy.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, H.R. 976. Reauthorizing the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, before it expires is critical to ensure health care access for millions of our Nation's children. My home State of New Mexico has a terrible problem with uninsured children. Recent reports have New Mexico at the bottom in the Nation for coverage of children. In 1997, while I was chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, I helped to create SCHIP as part of the Balanced Budget Act. The program has been a success. Over the past decade, SCHIP has helped reduce the number of children without insurance. The bill we are voting on today is a compromise. In August, both the House and the Senate passed two very different versions of an SCHIP reauthorization. At that time, I came down to the floor and I said I did not like what the House of Representatives was doing. I did not support the massive increases in spending and eligibility proposed by the House and I did not want a reauthorization that included revisions to the Medicare Program. The conference committee listened to these concerns, and I am pleased that the bill before us today closely resembles the SCHIP bill passed by the Senate 68-31 in August. My comment to children's health care remains firm today. I support the passage of the compromise SCHIP reauthorization. It is a good bill. It provides $35 billion in new resources to provide health coverage for millions more children in working families. It will strengthen outreach and enrollment efforts to make sure that all children who are eligible for the program get the services they need. It also makes improvements to the program by including language on mental health parity and dental health coverage.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the Albuquerque Reads program and Pat Dee for the work he has done on this immensely successful program. Albuquerque Reads has helped thousands of students in the Albuquerque area gain proficiency in reading. Reading can expand a student's imagination and open their minds to new ideas. Reading is the gateway to attaining knowledge. This very basic skill can catapult students into new levels of understanding and give them the tools they need to excel. I have always been an avid reader, which has helped me become what I am today. I never stop learning, and I hope these students never stop either. It was a pleasure to visit with Pat Dee when I was in New Mexico a few weeks ago. The work he has done with this program has been noticed by many, including the President of the United States. Mr. Dee received a Volunteer Service Award from the President for the many hours he has dedicated to helping students learn to read. He directs over 300 volunteers who help facilitate the program and is looking to expand it with an additional 200 volunteers. Albuquerque Reads places these volunteers in underperforming schools to tutor kindergarteners. With their help, reading proficiency has increased 40 percent. I want to say thank you to Albuquerque Reads and Pat Dee for all that you have done for students in the area. I wish you much success in the future.