Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I would like to commemorate the 65th anniversary of the founding of Holloman Air Force Base near Alamogordo, NM, on June 10, 1942. Established 6 months after the entry of the United States into the Second World War, Holloman served as a training center for B-17, B-24, and B-29 bomber crews for the duration of that conflict. Over the course of the war, 20 bomber groups trained at Holloman before serving in the European and Pacific theaters of the war. After the war, Holloman became the primary Air Force base for the testing and development of guided missiles and unmanned aircraft. Holloman was also the site of several notable events, including a 1954 rocket-propelled sled test that reached speeds of 632 miles per hour and earned Dr. John P. Stapp the title of ``Fastest Man Alive.'' Additionally, Holloman was the location of CPT Joseph W. Kittinger, Jr's, 102,800 feet skydive in 1960 that broke four world records and it was there that ENOS, the chimpanzee who made the first American animal orbital flight, received his training. In 1968, a new era at Holloman began with the arrival of the 49th Tactical Fighter Wing. For the last 39 years, the 49th has called Holloman home and has flown F-4 Phantom IIs, F-15 Eagles and in 1992 became the only Air Force unit equipped with the F-117 Nighthawk, also known as the stealth fighter. Holloman also serves as the home to the German Air Force Tactical Training Center. Today, Holloman is preparing for another major transition. As the F- 117 is retired, the 49th will begin to receive new F-22 Raptors. Since its founding, Holloman has played an important role in the development of new technologies and has been home to the world's most advanced aircraft. Most importantly though, I believe it is the men and women who serve at Holloman who make it one of this country's premier military installations. I would like to thank all those who served and continue to serve at Holloman for their hard work and dedication. I have no doubt the work done at Holloman will continue to contribute to the national security of the United States for another 65 years.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor. I will be glad to yield for a question.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I ask the Senator from California, would she like to speak now and then I will speak after her? I have all my time. I would just as well accommodate you. You are going to speak 5 minutes, and the Senator, would you like to speak 3\1/2\, then, and then I will use mine at the end?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask it be ordered that that time be allotted now and the time for the Senator from New Mexico follows that.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield to the Senator from California.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I first say to Senator Bingaman, I enjoyed his remarks and summary of where we are and where we have been. Most of that trip has been together; part of it with you on the majority and part of it me on the majority. In combination, there is some pretty good legislation. People may still say they want more, but when you have a system such as we have in America, you have to have two bodies, the Senate and House, agree. We have debate, they have a Rules Committee. Then you go to conference and, think of it, how those two, the House and Senate, naturally disagree. Right? We have to get all that in agreement before we have a bill that goes to the President. Then he has to sign it. We are lucky. The very first one we did, the big bill, probably the best piece of legislation in modern times to cause America to produce more energy, what energy we could, and to do it in a manner that was frugal, with reference to environmental damage, was the first one and the President did us a great favor. He came to our State to sign it, as you recall. It was the first major piece of legislation. I think that was great on his part, a very good gesture, because the two Senators were from New Mexico and it was the first big bill and it was one he signed with relish--which means, even as to the executive branch, it was not too far off the mark. Before I get to my statement, I am going to say there is one thing that did not go right. In your remarks, Senator, you mentioned a couple of times how we in the first bill had promoted technology because it was obvious to everyone that, so long as America lived in a world with cheap oil, the power of those who would invent and would use new technology in the field of energy was minimized when gasoline was 50 cents at the pump, because there was no broad incentive to do something about it. But about the time we got to our major bill, it was quite clear that we no longer were even major players on the international oil scene. They could almost do with us what they wanted because we were way too dependent. They grew more and more, and that made those who do not like America less and less concerned about the economics of them having a monopoly, so to speak. Toying around with the country that is an open economic society is a big difference. They can really wreak havoc. But when we did our bill, we put in a provision, a kind of catch-all. I remember working on it, and I remember you questioning it. Then after a while we agreed, and it was the section that provided for loan guarantees and other incentives for the technologies we mentioned in this bill as being most important for America's future. You and I remember one of those that happened was nuclear. We even had to work hard on a different kind of incentive for nuclear, and we got it in. It was a new kind of insurance for the first few who built theirs, that they get an insurance policy from the Federal Government so as to permit them to expedite the building of that very complicated, energy-producing nuclear powerplant. But the administration, because somebody in high places does not like loan guarantees--there are all kinds of loan guarantees in government and in this world. But somehow somebody said: You know, we don't like them. And the Department of Energy does not do them, if you can imagine. So the Department of Energy has not been doing loan guarantees. Who cares. There are loan guarantees all over the Government. The Department of Agriculture has billions of dollars in loan guarantees. I don't think we are going broke. They are paid back. It is just that the guarantees are given in a manner that permits those who use them to get money where they otherwise would not. Well, we did not do that yet in that first bill. I think we still-- you and I--owe the citizens of our country another push, and maybe we ought to check into it and give one more push to the administration to see how we can enhance the promotion of loan guarantees by the administration because there should be, for all kinds of products that need a lot of money for experimentation, and for many other technologies, there should be a very big pot of loan guarantees. Not $300, $400 million, there ought to be more, a few billion, so that they can do the work, draw their money on new ideas, and get on with helping us make that step from a society that was almost totally roped in by oil and gas and nothing else, into a society with a great divergence of energies. That is the way we are going in the legislation. The bill before us continues that momentum. So I speak today as we prepare to consider energy legislation on the floor of the Senate to provide the proper context of this bill. I think it would be instructive to reflect, as I have just done, upon the recent accomplishments of Congress. I have already indicated to you about 2 years ago the President signed the Energy Policy Act of 2004. Senator Bingaman from my home State, this sweeping law was the most comprehensive energy policy enacted in decades. I have watched with pride--and this has not been mentioned enough because it is hard to do. But I have watched with pride that in just 2 years, this long-term policy has already begun to show great positive impact in the short term. The Energy Policy Act is brightening our Nation's nuclear renaissance. Already over 30 nuclear powerplants are in the works. Imagine that. We went more than two decades without a single one applying, and we have now over 30, with a number of them way up near the top of the clearance scale where we will be seeing them cleared for the beginning of construction soon. I am sure many of us will go to that and say it is high time, and we were pleased to be part of it. Now, if operational, these plants will provide enough electricity for nearly 30 million American homes, while displacing about 270 metric tons of carbon dioxide each year. Just think of that. Think of how much we would have to do to displace that much carbon dioxide if it was produced, and we had to get rid of it after it was produced, in a coal-burning powerplant or some other plant in the process of ignition-produced CO2. This is safe, clean, affordable, and reliable large-scale energy for our Nation. That is why earlier this year the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved two early site permits for new reactors in Illinois and Mississippi. As we try to reduce our dependence on foreign energy and address the issue of the global climate change, it becomes imperative for our energy and environmental security that we keep the momentum going on nuclear energy in this country. On coal technologies, clean coal technologies, the policies set forth in the Energy bill of 2005 have resulted in bringing 159 new coal-based facilities to various planning stages. Over the next 5 years, the United States will add an estimated 60,000 miners to the American workforce. Just think of that, Mr. President. Everybody has been wondering if we are going to have enough jobs, enough jobs for our people, because they are looking at the economy of yesteryear, not of tomorrow. Coal miners, instead of being out of work, we will be looking for people to join the corps of coal miners in this country as we produce more coal because we are going to learn how to use it clean in our country as we seek to avoid this total dependance upon crude oil and natural gas. This past week, the Departments of Treasury and Energy together announced new instructions for applying tax credits for advanced coal and gasification projects. In total, three Energy bill tax credits will provide over $1.5 billion to help advance energy projects and capture and sequester carbon dioxide. These are already being done and the credits have been given under the laws which were written in this thoughtful process of developing legislation over the past 2 years. This bill also put in place mechanisms to ensure a secure, reliable electricity grid for our Nation, and helped transform our agricultural bill into an Energy bill--we already know that--providing rural America literally thousands of jobs and billions in new capital investment dollars to help bring clean fuel to our Nation's gas tanks. In the area of biofuels, the 2005 bill created a solid foundation for these significant policies set forth in the bill, as we will consider this shortly on the Senate floor. As a result of the Energy bill of 2005, we revitalized a renewable fuel industry in America through the first ever renewable fuel standard and production tax credit. We all wondered when that would come. It is done. There are now 114 biorefineries nationwide, with the capacity to produce 5.5 billion gallons of ethanol a year. That is all because of the act that we passed in 2005 that we keep referring to that we worked here in this body, on a bipartisan basis, and then went to the House the same way, and then had the President join us with great joy in signing it in our State. Additionally, ethanol refinery construction and expansion currently in the works has enough combined capacity to have an additional 6 billion gallons of ethanol. The biofuels policy included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 has helped create approximately 10,000 American jobs across many sectors of our Nation's economy. I think sometimes we wonder why the economy did so well. Maybe we should look around and say maybe the money spent on energy facilities across this land, because of this act, had something to do with keeping the employment up and keeping the growth up. I am not sure of that, but I just throw it out. Indeed, that act of 2005 could have been called a jobs act, could have been called a jobs-producing act, a diversification act, providing jobs that were never there before. Ethanol production and demand are setting records in America as we seek renewable fuel to power our cars that we drive. The bill reported out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee this year, with a strong bipartisan vote, we responded to that call for sustainability and to provide a path for the emergence of cellulosic ethanol. That is what we are here to work on today. That will mean we will be able to produce much more cellulosic ethanol, which will do the same thing as ethanol except it will make us able to produce far more since we can add the cellulosic to the ethanol that comes from corn, and what a machine we will have to produce gasoline for our cars. In the 2005 Energy bill, we addressed almost every conceivable area of energy policy--from coal to nuclear to electricity transmission, to oil and gas, hydrogen to biofuels. We did this with a majority of both parties in the Senate, embracing this forward-thinking policy for America. This wasn't even a close vote. In each case it was substantially more than 60 votes, a bipartisan vote, almost equal from each side on each of the important bills. There have been two already. This one will be the third. Simply put, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 has already helped to strengthen our energy security and to grow our Nation's economy. More importantly, if implemented effectively, the larger impacts of this great bipartisan legislation will be felt for decades in this country. As we prepare to debate on the floor of the Senate today, we are going to consider a bill smaller in scope and less bold in its version. Nevertheless, this bill represents bipartisan work spanning four committees of the Senate. There are a lot of good policies in this bill. However, I believe there must be a full and fair debate on this bill and a complete amendment process to ensure that the work we will do in the Senate and for the American people on energy policy will be complete. Anything short of that will be a departure from the example of the 2005 act. The bill we expect to soon consider provides for a biofuels mandate with the potential to displace 20 percent of the growth in gasoline that we use in this country by 2020. This addition of 36 billion gallons of biofuels a year will see the majority of its content come from cellulosic ethanol, a sharp and important move away from corn- based ethanol in our fuel mix. We consider this an energy-efficient measure that if properly implemented has the potential to provide important efficiencies in vehicles, buildings, homes, and businesses to save the American consumer more than $12 billion annually. This is one part of our energy policy that goes unnoticed, the one I have just described, important efficiencies. And I do say to our majority, who was my minority member when we started, that he has led the effort in this part of the changes in the energy policy, those that would make us more efficient. He described today in his speech how much efficiency will come just from washing machines and dishwashers. I am not ashamed to talk on the floor about dishwashers. Some people say we shouldn't talk about dishwashers. Why shouldn't we, when it saves a huge amount of energy? I remember when I got a dishwasher. I got a laundry board as a gift from a constituent because I had helped with REA that went up the mountain and took electricity up there. So she came down to me at the foot of the mountain and said: Here is your washboard. I don't need it anymore; I got electricity. I just bought a washing machine. I am thanking you by giving you the washboard. She didn't have efficiency; that was all brawn, right? Anyway, this bill will save us a lot of energy on those two items that we need and use to make our lives better. On fuel economy, the Senate stands poised to address vehicle fuel efficiency. One way to help reduce our dependency is by reforming our CAFE standards for the vehicles we drive. Everybody should know the Commerce Committee did that and, by act of our leader and the floor procedures, that is on this bill. So if people want to do something about CAFE, it is pending. Once this bill is made pending, it is the subject matter before the Senate, the CAFE standards, which will compel automobile companies to do better than they have in terms of miles per gallon. We have never gone as far as the Commerce Committee did, so it ought to make for a few hot speeches here on the floor. I don't know when they will come, but sooner or later they will because the CAFE standards for vehicles we drive will be changed. I have only one page remaining. I don't need to use all my time, especially when some Senators have had to wait. I will close by saying to Senators who are not paying attention and to staffs watching for their Senators, we are not going to be on this bill very much longer today. If you want to come down and speak, I have a little bit of time. I can give you some. But I think we are going to start yielding to other Senators, I assume, and move on. I haven't talked to Senator Bingaman on that. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. DOMENICI. I reserve that time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI. I object.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back the remainder of my time. I say to the Senator from New York, I was just trying to find out if there were more people on my side.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I object.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this last Saturday, I traveled with my wife Nancy and many of our colleagues in the Senate to Casper, WY, for the funeral service of my friend Senator Craig Thomas. During the service I was particularly impressed by the words of Minority Leader McConnell and I would like to thank him for so eloquently eulogizing Senator Thomas. So appropriately did his words honor Senator Thomas that I hope all our colleges in the Senate will take the time to read them. I ask unanimous consent that this transcript of Senator McConnell's comments be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, 50 years ago on June 8, 1957, Clovis Air Force Base was renamed Cannon Air Force Base. On this anniversary, I would like to like to pay tribute to the men and women who have and continue to serve at Cannon. Cannon was named after GEN John Kenneth Cannon who commanded Army Air Corps forces in the Mediterranean and later was commanding general of all Army Air Corps forces in Europe during the Second World War. After the war, General Cannon served as commander in chief of U.S. Air Forces Europe and commanding general of Tactical Air Command. During his service, General Cannon earned four Distinguished Service Medals, a Legion of Merit, a Bronze Star, and the Air Medal. He also received decorations from Great Britain, France, Italy, Poland, Yugoslavia, and Morocco. For the last 50 years the service men and women who called Cannon home have been deployed numerous times around the world to ensure the national security of our country. They have performed their duty faithfully and in a manner that I am sure would make General Cannon proud. This year we will see major changes at Cannon as the 27th Fighter Wing is deactivated in preparation for the impending arrival of the 16th Special Operations Wing in October. While we are excited for the arrival of the 16th Special Operations Wing, we are sad to see the men and women of the 27th Fighter Wing go. In the coming years I am sure the 16th Special Operations Wing will continue the 27th Fighter Wing's long tradition of excellence at Cannon. Again, I would like to thank the men and women, past and present, who have made Cannon a source of national pride.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, late last night we voted on amendment No. 1151 offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe. The disposition of this amendment can be seen in the Record under rollcall vote No. 198. I was allowed to speak for 1 minute prior to this rollcall vote; however, I wish to extend my remarks in order to fully explain my stance on this important issue. Let me begin by stating emphatically that I fully support English as the official language of the United States. However, I cannot vote in favor of an amendment that would eliminate rights that currently are reserved for my constituents under the New Mexico Constitution. We must be cautious before we act and it is the devil in the details of the amendment that was placed before the Senate, which would chill and infringe on the constitutional rights of our diverse citizenship and would stand in direct contradiction to the constitution of my home State of New Mexico that makes this amendment overreaching. Most people do not know that Congress delayed New Mexico's admission to statehood until speakers of English became the majority of the State. To underline the point, the New Mexico Enabling Act required that the public schools be conducted in English and that ``ability to read, write, speak and understand English without an interpreter . . . be a necessary qualification for all state officers and members of the state legislature.'' However, in 1911 the U.S. Supreme Court found that Congress could not place such conditions on newly admitted States and removed the English language restriction from the New Mexico Enabling Act. Thereafter, New Mexico adopted its State Constitution which contains important guarantees of the rights of Spanish speakers, including the right to vote, hold office, and sit on juries. Specifically, the New Mexico Constitution states ``[t]he right of any citizen of the state to vote, hold office or sit upon juries, shall never be restricted, abridged or impaired on account of religion, race, language or color, or inability to speak, read or write the English or Spanish languages except as may be otherwise provided in this constitution . . .'' Moreover, the New Mexico Constitution requires public school teachers to be trained in both English and Spanish to ensure that Spanish- speaking students are properly taught the English language. Coupled with this constitutional provision is another constitutional right that ensures children of Spanish descent are entitled to a public education. This amendment would not amend the New Mexico Constitution. I mentioned this only to point out another New Mexico constitutional provision that requires all ballots that would amend the New Mexico Constitution be printed in both English and Spanish. The Spanish influence in my home State dates so far back that for the first 20 years of New Mexico's statehood, all laws passed by the State legislature were required to be printed in both English and Spanish. I am always interested to hear others discuss their family histories, some of which date back at least 200 years in this country. However, I think that there is a misconception that the adoption of an official language is strictly in response to illegal immigrants. That is not true. The declaration of an official language directly impacts the history, customs, and traditions of our American families. The family histories that can be heard throughout New Mexico date back over 400 years. These are not illegal immigrants; these are the first inhabitants of the land that is now called New Mexico. Mr. President, while I fully support English as the official language of the United States, I will not support a proposal that would cast in doubt the laws and rights afforded to all of the citizens of New Mexico.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wish to discuss why I voted against cloture this morning on S. 1348, the border security and immigration reform bill currently being debated by the Senate. As a border State Senator, I know first hand the need to secure our international borders because every day I hear from constituents who must deal with illegal entries into our country. We have a crisis on our borders and the status quo is not acceptable. I support many of the provisions in S. 1348 because we must address this border crisis. However, I was forced to vote no on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 1348 because Democrats are refusing to allow votes on amendments to the legislation on the Senate floor. More than 300 amendments have been filed to this bill. Only about 10 percent of those amendments have been dealt with. Clearly the Senate, which is known for its deliberative nature, has not had an adequate opportunity to improve upon this bill on the floor. What's more, this bill did not go through the committee process and so there was no opportunity to improve the bill there. I was here in 1977 and 1978 when the Senate debated the Natural Gas Policy Act. That debate went on for weeks and hundreds of amendments were considered. There is no reason to avoid that process in this situation. The issues of border security and immigration are some of the most important issues facing America today, and those issues deserve full and fair debate. The Democrats' refusal to allow votes on amendments means that my amendments, which are very important to New Mexico, the southwest border, and the Nation, cannot be considered. Those amendments would have provided two more Federal judges in New Mexico to deal with immigration cases, ensured that small businesses have access to temporary workers they need, provided more personnel for Federal land agencies that must help secure Federal land on the international border, allowed New Mexico to reap the economic benefits of Mexican nationals coming legally to the United States for a short period of time for tourism and travel, called for Mexico's cooperation on border security and border crime, addressed the lack of law enforcement radio coverage on remote parts of the international border, strengthened and improved the Border Patrol Academy at Artesia, NM, and called for coordination between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense on aerial surveillance efforts along the border. My amendments are based on needs that are imperative to border security, and many of them were suggested specifically by New Mexicans to help New Mexico. I would like to discuss a few of those amendments in more detail. First, I have heard from many Federal judges from the District of New Mexico and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals about the crisis New Mexico faces from an overloaded immigration docket. Seventy-one percent of Federal criminal cases filed in New Mexico are immigration cases. This is the highest percentage of immigration cases anywhere in the United States, and New Mexico needs more judges to handle that caseload. Unfortunately, I was not allowed to address this crisis by offering an amendment to S. 1348 that would have provided New Mexico with two new Federal judges. Second, I have heard from New Mexico small businesses about their need for temporary workers in the food processing, construction, oil and gas, and restaurant industries. These small businesses were concerned that they would not have access to the temporary workers they need under S. 1348 as it is written, so I offered an amendment to set aside a number of temporary worker visas to only be used by small businesses. Unfortunately, I was not allowed to address New Mexico small businesses' needs. Third, some of the land on New Mexico's international border is Federal land. The Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and Park Service are working with the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, to secure these lands, but these Federal land agencies need more personnel to work on these issues. I offered an amendment to provide this personnel, but that amendment has not been considered. Fourth, remote parts of the New Mexico/Mexico border do not have radio coverage, which prevents DHS and law enforcement from communicating. I have filed an amendment that would enhance radio communications capabilities in these areas, but this amendment has not been considered. Fifth, New Mexico is at an economic disadvantage over neighboring border states because there are no border towns in New Mexico that Mexican nationals can access when they legally enter the U.S. on a laser visa. This is because such nationals can only travel 25 miles into New Mexico. I have filed an amendment to expand the limit laser visa holders can travel into New Mexico so that laser visa holders can legally visit Las Cruces and other towns near the New Mexico/Mexico border. Unfortunately, this amendment, which would bring economic benefits to southern New Mexico, has not been considered. The refusal of Democrats to allow consideration of these and my other amendments is nothing short of irresponsible behavior towards the security of America and the needs of New Mexico, and I cannot support cloture on S. 1348 without assurances that these measures will be considered. Additionally, many of the provisions that I have supported in S. 1348 have been amended to the point that the bill no longer has its initial impact. For example, the temporary worker program that is critical to so many industries in my State does not meet those industries' needs. Further, the bill as amended calls into question some laws and customs of my home State. Because of Democrats' refusal to consider important amendments to this bill, we will not see any of the comprehensive border security improvements that New Mexico and other border States desperately need, and I could not be more disappointed. I support efforts to address border security and immigration reform legislation, and I applaud Senators Kyl, Kennedy, Specter, Salazar, Martinez, Graham, and others who have worked long and hard on this bill. However, I cannot support cloture on the bill at this time.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I came to the floor tonight for a few moments to talk about the significance of the bill that is before us and the work that has been done by Senators and a couple of Cabinet members and great staff. The American people have been telling us for many years that we are confronted with a problem that is apt to destroy our land, destroy our country, destroy our values, and that problem is that we have an inability to control our borders. We have illegal immigrants who come across our borders by the thousands who are, for the most part, interested in jobs. But after some of them get here and their jobs are procured, there are other things they bring with them or do here that make the American people very worried about our future. I, for one, as a Senator of long standing, grow more worried every year as to whether we will ever be able to control our borders and thus control who comes in and who goes out so that we know who they are. We have heard the American people tell us this is our biggest responsibility; that if we don't secure our borders, something bad is going to happen to our country. We have heard them tell us of the horror stories that happen when some of these immigrants come here without authority, without the law on their side; they sneak in, in the dark of the night, or however they have been able to come, and then they form gangs. We have heard about how they have scared our people, hurt them, killed them, and how they fight amongst each other. Of course, I am not talking about all of them. I am saying the American people see this and say to us, can't you ever control our borders? I want to say I think a terrific job has been done with this bill. It is not finished--there are a few more amendments that need to be considered and some time taken to review the final bill--but I believe the bipartisan group that wrote this bill under the leadership of Senator Jon Kyl on the Republican side and Senator Ted Kennedy on the other side, working with their best staff for months, and then both day and night for the last 2 months, have put together a piece of legislation that shows how you can work out practical differences if in fact your goal is significant and you forget about politics, you forget about party, and you begin to write a law you can be proud of. I think we are close to that. I don't think you get there very often. Rarely do you get the opportunity to be part of such a law as a Senator. So for those who are going to vote against this bill, tonight they are saying to themselves, I think I am going to vote against it, I ask you and urge you to think of when you are going to be given an opportunity to vote on a bill, a piece of legislation that is more important than this. If we don't do it now, with your vote, when will we do it? If for some reason this bill fails, those who cause it to fail have to ask themselves, when will we get a bill we can rely on, that we can trust, which is put together by good, practical people who resolved issues in a practical manner by working on the issues that are now confronting us, which are that our borders are wide open and we have no control over what is happening.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. DOMENICI. I am certain if, after we pass legislation such as this, we provide the resources that are needed--and that is very important, and I think we are providing a means and a manner for resources to go to the border in this bill--and, secondly, if we annually make sure the resources and manpower are there to implement this law--because it will require much by way of manpower, much by way of technology--if we give this law that, we will return to say this was a historic event. Indeed, we will have done something good for America and good for our children. Something good for the families of existing immigrants, good for immigrants who are coming in the future and their families, who will also be permitted. We will also look for merit in those who are coming to help America, which is competing in a very difficult world. I am very proud to be on the side of those who are trying to maintain the measure intact, or practically intact, because you can't do much better than was done by this hard-working bipartisan group. The more you try to change it, the more you risk losing it. When you end up thinking what did you lose it for, you end up really wondering whether you did right for your country. I urge that we move as fast as we can, giving Senators an opportunity, those who need it, and, yes, saying we are going to pass it soon--I don't know about tomorrow or the next day but certainly send to our leader a message that if you will give us an opportunity to call up a few more amendments, it will get accomplished. I look forward to more debate, more amendments. Mr. MENENDEZ addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I, too, ask for a ``yes'' vote on the Salazar-Domenici amendment which everybody should understand says that the English language is the common language of the United States. I come from a State that is different from most of yours in that we have had a long history of trouble regarding what language we speak; this has been so from the very time New Mexico started to become a State. The legislature of the United States played around with New Mexico in an effort to see if there could be enough Anglos so there wouldn't be a majority of Spanish speakers at the State's infancy. We were told we had to wait for Statehood until there was a majority of English speakers in New Mexico, and the U.S. Supreme Court later said the Congress could not do that to New Mexico. New Mexico could do what they desired. We voted in a State constitution that still stands that says English and Spanish are common languages and you can speak both languages.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate Los Alamos National Laboratory for its part in completing the 100th genome sequence. Like the Human Genome Project, this achievement serves as a constant reminder of the possibilities before us and a step forward in scientific knowledge. The scientists of Los Alamos National Lab constantly achieve excellence through their various endeavors, and I am proud of their contribution to this vast project. This well-deserved recognition highlights their continuing dedication to serving this country through research in health and environment-related fields. Los Alamos National Laboratory has championed the advancement of national security for over 60 years. In the tumultuous times of World War II, it stood as our Nation's front line in acquiring a superior tool with which we could be certain that freedom would prevail. However, once its mission was complete it continued to pursue the advancement of American security and research. What began as an installation solely focused on the creation of an atomic bomb has developed into a diverse and advanced institution dedicated to securing our nuclear ordinance, combating the effectiveness of weapons of mass destruction, and addressing many problems in areas such as energy and health. Los Alamos National Laboratory serves as one of five national laboratories working with the Department of Energy to sequence genomes. Labeled the Joint Genome Institute, this group of research institutions first helped to complete the Human Genome Project, which has since been called one of the greatest scientific advances of our time. The benefits of this outstanding achievement are many. For example, we can now match organ donors and recipients with less uncertainty and even diagnose disease more efficiently. Over the years, the mission of the Genome Project has oriented itself towards other vital interests. The Joint Genome Institute is now targeting specific animals and microbes with traits that, if harnessed, could aid in areas such as biotechnology, alternative fuels, and the environment. For example, the organism just completed has shown potential in aiding the cleanup of uranium-contaminated areas. This application would greatly benefit Los Alamos itself, which has several radioactive wastesites. In the past, I have strongly supported the research of Los Alamos National Laboratory and the advancement of the Genome Project and have helped each of them secure defense and biotechnology funding. In return, their research has yielded important advances in areas such as health, energy, and the environment. Furthermore, the continuing excellence of Los Alamos National Laboratory has led to the creation of many jobs in the northern New Mexico region. Los Alamos continues to succeed in its purpose of national service, and I am pleased to offer my support and congratulations for their contribution to the 100th mark in the Genome Project.

Mr. DOMENICI

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I first note the presence on the floor of the distinguished Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi. I note also present in the Senate is a beautiful bouquet of flowers on the desk that was occupied by the other Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Craig Thomas. I want to say to Senator Enzi, first, we will all have an opportunity in the next few days and weeks to speak about the Senator who was your colleague who left us last night, and we all will have an opportunity to speak with you and see you on more occasions than this to express to you our heartfelt sorrow for the loss of your colleague. You will suffer a lot of things that will be downers during your life in the Senate--and because we all live our lives, things happen, go up and go down--but I am quite sure you will not have an opportunity to suffer any more severe a loss than the loss of your colleague who was at the same time a cowboy, a marine, a Senator, a father, and, clearly, a husband. He had a wife named Susan. Everybody who knows her loves her. My wife loves her. I called my wife early this morning, after I heard, and I was so pleased she answered the phone herself because I thought: Where will I get her? We may get caught up in the maze of today and maybe I will not be able to talk to her until tomorrow, or maybe Nancy will not be able to talk to me. But, sure enough, it was at 8:30 this morning I was able to talk to her. Her first words, after knowing who I was, were words coming out of her mouth saying: He did a good job for Wyoming, didn't he? I said: You bet. Then: I am sure, not knowing the rest of his life, he must have done a good job in a lot of other areas. Probably he was a good husband--to which there was no answer because that was not intended as a question. He obviously was a wonderful man. Quiet, sort of unassuming, but he was a very involved Senator, especially when it came to Wyoming. Very early on, as he worked his way from the House, where he replaced Dick Cheney, over to the Senate, where he had been elected, he decided he would work for his State. You did not hear of him a lot on national news because he was busy doing what he thought was best for him as a Senator, and that was, representing that great State of Wyoming. What a State that is, and what a Senator they had. From my standpoint, I served with him on two committees. The one I know the most and remember the most is the one we served the longest on: Energy and Natural Resources, which the occupant of the chair has served on with us. But when it came to this man, he frequently worked with Democrats on serious issues because he wanted to get things done. If there is one thing I noticed as we worked together, shoulder to shoulder on this committee, it was that he was impatient because he did not understand when we wasted time and he did not understand why we were doing some certain things. He would ask: Why don't we get on with what we are supposed to do? What are we talking about this for? This is not policy. We are talking about a bunch of little things we ought not be involved in. I think I remember that more than anything else: Can't we get on with it? I remember he was burdened with the fact there is a substance in his State called trona. The other Senator from Wyoming might know about it. He must know about it. Apparently, they were having competition in the world, and he thought the royalties were too high. I don't know. Anybody who served on the committee must have heard the word ``trona'' because he was all over that issue, wanting to get somebody to listen to him about the unfairness of it and to help solve it. I did not get to serve with him on the Finance Committee and other committees he served on, but it would be my guess he was the same way on all of them, that he showed up when he should and did his job as best he could, and that when the chips were down, you could count on him. When the chips were down, he did what he said. He voted the way he would tell you. He worked the way a dedicated person works. For me and my wife, on this day, shortly after his death, I want to say in the Senate that Wyoming sent us a true man. I do not know whether it was the marines who made him a man or what it was, but he was truly different. He was tough minded. He was quiet. But he was impatient, and he wanted to get good things done. I am positive his relatives and his great State will never forget him. He will be remembered by them, just as we remember him. He will leave them, and they will have a big void, without a question, because a giant part of their lives leaves. That goes for Wyoming, and that goes for his wife Susan and their children. I think there are four of them. I did not get to meet them. But if they are like their mother and father, they could not help but be great. With that, I say goodbye to the Senator, and I extend my sorrows to his wonderful wife, and, hopefully, I will be part of whatever ceremony there is for us to send him on his way. May God bless his family and him, and may whatever he aspired to get done, get done by others who follow him because he set such a wonderful basis to get those things completed for his State. I thank the Senate and I thank the junior Senator from Wyoming for the kind man he is. I will be seeing him, and I say to the Senator, if I can help you during these times, please call on me. I am available. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Alabama for expediting his remarks. I did not get to hear all the speeches this afternoon, including the speech of my good friend Senator Salazar from my neighboring State of Colorado or even all of the speech made today by my very good friend from another of my adjoining States, Arizona, Senator Kyl. But I heard a little bit of both of their remarks. I came to the floor after hearing some of the speech of Senator Kyl to tell him how I analyzed his work on this bill. Senator Kyl, I have known you ever since you have been in the Senate. As luck would have it, I can call you my junior. That is only because New Mexicans sent me up here a few years before Arizonans sent you. In no other respect would the use of that word be appropriate because you are a terrific Senator. It would have been a shame if you would have lost this opportunity, with your talent and your ability to convince people, to get the United States of America a new immigration bill. I say to my junior friend from the State of Colorado, the same goes for you as far as your work on this bill. The same goes for Senator Kennedy and the other Senators who were in the group who worked together on this bill. But since the two of you are here, I will use you as an example of all of those who decided they had enough and they were going to work until they had a bill. Let me say that we are not elected to the Senate to handle easy problems, nor are we elected to the Senate to let other people handle problems and then argue that they didn't do it right, so we can be on the defensive all the time and argue against anybody who is trying to do something for the country. We were not elected for that. It happens that we have parties, so most of the time we choose up sides on bills and amendments. Let me suggest to the American people who do not understand it--and I don't say that in any pejorative sense--something good has transpired in the Senate with this bill. One of the worst problems we have is an immigration system that does not work. If there is anybody in the United States who believes the borders of this great, marvelous country are being policed so we can determine who comes in and who goes out-- more significantly who comes in, of course--if they think we can do that, then they are living in another world. They are not talking about their home country because we have little border control yet. We know it in the State of Arizona, my State's neighbor, by just going out and looking. We know it in New Mexico because our Border Patrol agents tell us all the time that thousands of illegal immigrants have come across and thousands more are coming across and we can't stop them. That is because we do not have a comprehensive system, so we get them, they are sent home, and they come back. We arrest them inside the country, we tell them to come to court in 2 or 3 days, they never show up, and we never find them again. The truth is, this great country has about reached a point where we have lost total control of our borders as to citizenry, occupancy, who raises their children here and what influence they have over our society. We have come very close to living under no border or immigration law. For anybody who says to the Senate or to a Senator, either a media person or citizen, ``we do not want this bill because we don't like this or that piece of it,'' let me ask them the question, Do you like what we have? Is that not the right question to ask, Senator? Do you like what we have? If you don't like what we are trying to do after months of work, do you really know what you are advocating for when you tell us don't do it and fax our offices and call us long distance? What you are asking us to do is do nothing. We don't have anything effective. If you want us to not pass a law, you want us to do nothing and you want to leave us with nothing. You want to leave the people of the country open as to who can come to the U.S., how many can come, what they can do when they get here and what kind of opportunity we give them. Right now we do not know who they are, where they come from, or why we are doing what we are doing. That is exactly where we are today. I say to Senators who will come here in the next few days and say: I looked at this bill with my staff, and they told me I had to have an amendment--I urge you be very serious about amendments. I know, better than most, you can make an argument that a few Senators, no matter how well motivated or how good they are, when they get together for months upon months and write a bill, they have not given everybody a chance, in the institution called the Senate, to participate. But I suggest if those people--led by Senator Kennedy, Senator Kyl, Senator Specter and others--if they have produced something that is substantially better than our current laws, do you think there is anything else that is apt to make it through the Congress if this bill dies? Are we really going to go through this effort again next year? I think we are going to have to wait until there is a whole new group of Senators before we write another bill. So before you insist you are going to offer an amendment, even if it kills this bill, so you can exercise your senatorial rights, then I urge you give some serious thought to the proposition: Just so you can say you offered an amendment, do you want to kill a bill which is dramatically better than the laws we are living with, without question? Do you want to kill a bill about which many people who have analyzed it carefully say that if we provide sufficient resources, sufficient manpower, the strength we need and the law enforcement we need, it has a chance of securing our borders so people cannot come in unless they are supposed to? What we are living under has no chance of providing the security we need. The laws cannot be enforced. The laws are not currently, with court interpretations and the like, endowed with the capacity to be enforced. The current law of the land cannot be enforced in a way that will sustain our borders. That is just not possible. So don't wish for us nothing. Don't say: Enforce our current law. There is no good law to be enforced. We have a bushel basket full of loopholes and of opportunities for people to obfuscate and get out of trouble through rules and regulations, so much so that our Border Patrol is so frustrated that they have been for years crying out to us to give them help. When they say help, they always say: Change the law. Fix the law so we can do what you want us to do. This is our chance to do that. I went home for recess like most Senators. I did not travel overseas; I went home. I spoke at three editorial boards in three cities, and I then spoke to a couple of groups, such as the Hispano Chamber in Albuquerque, about 50 to 100 men or women were there. When I had time to answer questions on this bill and to explain its principal provisions, nobody stood up to challenge me, to say that it was bad, except one person who insisted that I was defining amnesty wrong. I ended up in an argument. Maybe I should not have done that, saying ``it doesn't matter whether it is amnesty, here are the words describing what the bill does. Is there something wrong with this accumulation of words we put in the bill that says when somebody can stay here if they have worked for at least 13 years and then they apply for citizenship? Is there anything wrong with those words? If there is not, then we shouldn't worry about amnesty, whether we define it that way or not.'' I believe there is no general amnesty in this bill. The minimum time you must be here to become a citizen is 13 years under 2 different cards, a Z card and a green card. You must spend 13 years being a good resident--not counting how much time you spent here before getting a Z card--and paying fines along the way for violating the law, having to know sufficient English and sufficient civics. Is that amnesty? I thought amnesty was more like a gift. There is no gift here. You have to work and you have to learn and you have to pass an exam and you have to pay fines. And the first thing undocumented workers have to do is get up from where they are, half incognito, and turn themselves in and have enough trust that the Federal Government is going to treat you right. That is the first thing the bill is going to do after securing the border. A lot of people are going to wonder about that. You are going to find out. We are going to put plenty of resources into that, going out and asking them to turn themselves in. Is that right? That is one of the first actions in this bill. Go to where they hide out, because they are illegal aliens, and ask them to come forward. They are not going to be illegal anymore. They are going to get a legal work card. I worked on the immigration bill last year. It was not nearly as good as this bill. I have not worked as long as those who have worked the longest this year. I have worked long enough to be sure I have something here that I can tell my constituents is much better than what we have now. In fact, this bill has a real chance of controlling the borders. Once we have it passed, if we do not throw up our hands and abandon it but keep with it and enforce it and put the money into the equipment needed to do the work required, if we do all those things when we have this bill finished--and we are going to have to do that-- we will have legislation we can be proud of. If we do that, I will be glad to say, in this year, in this month, I worked on and helped pass a bill in spite of many people being against it in the media--we passed something good for the American people from a set of facts that were difficult, from laws we had to amend, which had many special interests that made them difficult to change. I will be saying in that month, this month, this year: We got it done. I will be very happy and very proud in the meantime, for those who are working on the bill--I have a lot of other things on other committees--but I stand ready to be of help wherever I can during the week. You can put me down as one who is ready to help. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, each year, our Nation observes a holiday to honor the brave men and women who have given their lives in service to this country. New Mexicans have a strong tradition of serving in the Armed Forces, and sadly a great many have given their lives in defense of our Nation. Americans from every state and all generations have served bravely and on Memorial Day we remember their sacrifice. It is with particular poignancy that this Memorial Day, we reflect on the sacrifice so many New Mexicans have made while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. I hope New Mexicans will think of these individuals and their families and on this Memorial Day I would like to share one of their stories, that of Marine Corps LCpl Christopher S. Adlesperger of Albuquerque. In late 2004, Lance Corporal Adlesperger, and his unit were deployed in Fallujah and involved in some of the fiercest fighting of the war. On one particular mission, Adlesperger and his squad were ordered to storm an insurgent-occupied building. While moving forward Adlesperger's squad began to receive heavy insurgent fire and several members of his squad were wounded and the rest were pinned down. Adlesperger took action and secured a path for the injured marines to be evacuated. Despite the fact that he was also wounded, Adlesperger continued the assault on the building. Adlesperger is credited with eliminating several insurgents and playing a pivotal role in the successful assault. Tragically, 1 month later, 20-year-old Christopher Adlesperger, was fatally shot while on patrol in the Anbar province west of Bahgdad. This brave young soldier was one of the first New Mexicans to give his life in the Iraq war and on April 13, 2007, Adlesperger was posthumously awarded the Navy Cross for valor. Today, as we honor all the brave men and women who have fought and given their lives to defend this Nation throughout its history, I hope New Mexicans will also pray for the safe return of those still serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.