Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first of all, let me say thank you to each Senator who commented on my many years of voting, which has yielded 13,000 today. I thank you very much and, in particular, I thank the majority leader for doing what he has done, by setting aside these few moments. I greatly appreciate it. I guess it is pretty easy to get to 13,000. You just stick around long enough and come and vote and you will get there. I don't know how many more I will get but certainly a lot more because there are a lot of years left to come. I don't know how many we will be celebrating, but this is a very special one because of the special people who are here, indicating to me in their own gracious way their appreciation for what I do or don't do in the Senate. I thank all of them for that. Frankly, I don't feel as if I have cast 13,000 votes, so I don't know what that means. Maybe it means I have a lot more to come. I hope so. Maybe it means we are voting a lot more in the Senate than we used to. In any event, it is a proud day because you all have made it one. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, September 14, 2006 at 10 a.m., in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nomination of: C. Stephen Allred, of Idaho, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior, vice Rebecca W. Watson, resigned; Robert W. Johnson, of Nevada, to be Commissioner of Reclamation, vice John W. Keys, III, resigned. For further information, please contact Judy Pensabene of the Committee staff at (202) 224-1327.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Wayne S. Fenton, M.D., Director of the Division of Adult Translational Research and Associate Director for Clinical Affairs at the National Institute of Mental Health who was tragically murdered on September 3, 2006. Dr. Fenton was a man truly passionate about working with the most severe mentally ill population. He was a compassionate and tireless advocate for people with mental illness and the families so desperately trying to help them. He went above and beyond the call of duty and continued a private practice outside of his work at the National Institute of Mental Health. In his private practice, Dr. Fenton readily treated patients with the most severe mental illnesses, very often ones that other psychiatrists refused to see. These are the patients who are most likely to commit horrific crimes when they do not take necessary medication. Just last week, I participated in a panel discussion regarding whether the State of New Mexico should enact an assisted outpatient treatment, AOT, program that requires a court ordered treatment for those who are severely mentally ill. It is time we focus on this issue at a State and national level. Dr. Fenton's death should not be in vain; we cannot continue along a path that not only does not help the suffering, but continues to hurt the community. This is a challenging topic to take on and a hard discussion to have but we must start addressing the link between untreated mental illness and violence or we run the risk of seeing more horrific deaths. Outside of his work and private practice, Dr. Fenton worked with many groups including the National Alliance of the Mentally Ill, the American Psychiatric Association, and the World Psychiatric Association. He served as Deputy Editor of Schizophrenia Bulletin and as a consultant to the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. On numerous occasions he was nominated as one of the Best Doctors in America. He was a leader in the field of mental health research, particularly relating to the study of schizophrenia. Dr. Fenton authored many textbook chapters and more than fifty scientific papers on diagnosing, treatment, and mental health service methods for individuals who suffer from schizophrenia. His central goal was to create a treatment system to allow even those suffering from the most severe mental illness to become functioning members of society. Dr. Fenton's death truly is a great loss to the mental health community. In the words of Dr. Thomas Insel, Director of NIMH, ``It is difficult to grasp such a tragic, shocking loss; a loss not only for his many friends and family but for people with serious mental illness everywhere.'' As advocates for people with mental illness, and mental health policy, my wife Nancy and I had the pleasure to work with him over the years. I am extremely saddened by his tragic death. I want to extend my thoughts and prayers to his family, friends, and coworkers at this time. It is my hope they remember the great impact he made during his time with us. I express my deepest sympathy to them.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I woud like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 12th, at 10:00 a.m. in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony relating to the effects of the BP pipeline failure in the Prudhoe Bay Oil Field on U.S. oil supply and to examine what steps may be taken to prevent a recunence of such an event. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Dick Bouts at 202-224-7545 or Sara Zecher at 202-224-8276.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act of 2006 (H.R. 5970) more commonly known as the Family Prosperity Act. I believe that the Family Prosperity Act is a good compromise because it raises the inheritance tax exemption to $10 million per couple, increases the minimum wage by $2.10, and extends some personal and business tax cuts. I support this legislation because it represents a fair and reasonable compromise on all three of these important issues. For some time now, the Senate has debated the death tax, which is the most confiscatory tax of all. It has been a battle to repeal or modify this tax. In my opinion this tax is in need of modification; however, a full repeal of the death tax has been unsuccessful. Congress must act before the current repeal sunsets and the death tax is reinstated in 2011. Inaction on our part will lead to taxation of estates over $1 million at a rate 55 percent. Therefore, we are now attempting to seek agreement on this compromise measure that will benefit Americans. After careful consideration I have concluded that this bill represents a fair and reasonable compromise. Furthermore, passage of this bill will bring relief that is long overdue. H.R. 5970 is a permanent reduction of the death tax that will exempt $5 million per individual and $10 million per couple. Estates under $25 million would have a maximum tax equal to the capital gain rate of 15 percent. Estates over $25 million would be taxed at 30 percent. The exemptions and $25 million threshold are indexed for inflation and will be fully phased in by January 1, 2015. This tax relief is substantial to States, like my home State of New Mexico that are filled with small business owners, family farms, and ranches. The assets accumulated by these hard-working people should not be taxed a second time nor at a rate that is too high. I believe that by enacting this relief from the death tax, we will be fostering economic growth, business investment, and entrepreneurship. Moreover, this bill will decrease the number of estates that are liquidated in order to pay taxes and will ultimately decrease the number of estates that are required to file a tax return. Some have argued that this legislation is not a compromise and that it will preserve wealthy estates. I firmly believe that this argument is unfounded. This bill will continue to tax estates that hold considerable wealth while at the same time exempting small and medium sized estates that are overly burdened, and often times extinguished, by this tax. I would now like to turn our attention to the minimum wage provisions contained in the Family Prosperity Act. It has been almost 10 years since Congress last voted to raise the minimum wage. In the meantime, our cost-of-living has increased annually and working families have struggled to meet their most basic needs. The pending legislation before the Senate will increase the minimum wage by $2.10 an hour--phased in over 3 years. I have said many times before that I would support an increase in the minimum wage if it was crafted properly. I believe that this bill is crafted properly because it raises the minimum wage while extending some personal and business tax cuts and reduces the overreaching death tax. The current Federal minimum wage just isn't sufficient. Now is the time to raise the minimum wage. It's time to give low-wage workers a raise. There was an editorial published recently in my hometown newspaper, the Albuquerque Journal. The editorial was entitled ``Raise the Minimum Wage: Reduce the Death Tax.'' The editorial hit on some very important points. The focus was that we have tried to address these issues before--and we have failed. It stressed that we need compromise in order to get things done in this Congress. Mr. President, I will ask that a copy of this Albuquerque Journal editorial be printed in the Record. This bill is a good compromise. We have before us a chance to work together to accomplish something for the American people. We should embrace this opportunity and work together. The Family Protection Act contains extensions of several important tax cuts that are currently set to expire. The research and development credit is of significant importance. H.R. 5970 will extend the research and development credit through 2007. Advanced technologies drive a significant part of our Nation's economic strength. Our economy and our standard of living depend on a constant influx of new technologies, processes, and products from our industries. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan frequently reinforced the critical dependence between advanced technology and our economic strength. Many countries provide labor at lower costs than the United States. Thus, as any new product matures, competitors using overseas labor frequently find ways to undercut our production costs. We maintain our economic strength only by constantly improving our products through innovation. Maintaining and improving our national ability to innovate is critically important to the Nation. With this extension, we will significantly strengthen incentives for private companies to undertake research that leads to new processes, new services, and new products. The result will be stronger companies that are better positioned for global competition. Those stronger companies will hire more people at higher salaries with real benefits to our national economy and workforce. Another important tax credit that should be extended is the deduction for higher education expenses. Higher education expenses are on the minds of many families. Saving to invest in education is important to the future of all young adults and to our society as a whole. We must ensure our Nation's future by helping educate America's young adults. That is why it is important to offer tax breaks for qualified higher education tuition and expenses. The Family Protection Act allows taxpayers to deduct $4,000 in qualified higher education tuition and expenses through 2007. The last credit that I would like to comment on is the welfare-to- work credit. This bill extends the welfare-to-work credit through 2007. Business plays an important role in transitioning people receiving welfare into the workforce, and providing incentives for employers to hire welfare recipients strengthens our economy. This is an important provision in the bill and provides one more reason for me to support passage of this compromise. I support this three-part compromise package because it represents a fair and reasonable compromise on all of these important issues. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senate passed one of the most important bills it has considered this year. We passed legislation that I believe is the most important thing we can do in the near-term to stabilize our energy prices and expand our energy supply. This is American can-do legislation. With this bill, we are bringing vast reserves of American energy onshore from the American real estate that we own out in the ocean. We are doing it safely, cleanly, and responsibly. We are bringing this clean energy onshore so our businesses can prosper, our farmers can prosper, and American families can have much needed relief from high energy costs. Right now, energy is on all of our minds. Oil prices continue to climb because of instability in oil rich regions. Today, oil hovers at just below $75 a barrel. Natural gas prices are climbing because of the intense heat in many regions of our country. This week, the price jumped 11 percent in 1 day, and right now it is at $8.05 per million Btu--that price is four times higher than it was 6 years ago. Let me tell you why Americans care so much. Between 1999 and 2005, the price of natural gas in the United States increased by 289 percent. At the same time, we lost over 3 million U.S. jobs in the manufacturing sector. The heat wave gripping our Nation has made energy supply and energy prices a topic of real concern for all of us. As I speak, the lights in the hallways of the Senate and House office buildings are dimmed to conserve energy during this heat wave. I think it is fitting that during a time of strong national concern over our soaring energy prices, the Senate will pass by what I expect to be a wide margin a bill to bring 1.2 billion barrels of oil and 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to market. Every once in awhile, we get it just right. This is one of those times. I am particularly pleased that we did this bill in a way that reinvests in our environment. For decades, our coastal States have produced much of the oil and gas this Nation consumes. They will no longer sit back and go along with leasing without the compensation needed to fix the energy infrastructure and coastal environment that is so critical to our domestic energy survival. Our coastal States provide 27 percent of our oil and 20 percent of the natural gas. MMS estimates that Gulf of Mexico production is expected to rise within the next several years to about 23 percent of our Nation's natural gas production and 40 percent of U.S. oil production. In addition, our coastal States host nearly 50 percent of our refining infrastructure. The hurricanes last fall and the soaring energy prices afterward reminded all of us how critical the coastal States' production and infrastructure are to our energy supply. I am pleased that today marks the beginning of the end of the days of turning our backs on our coastal States while we turn our energy dollars over to hostile regimes. I am pleased that the bill invests a portion of our royalties in the coastal States and the coastal environment instead of forfeiting all royalties and sending that money to hostile governments to buy their energy. I hope the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act marks the beginning of the end of this long cycle of sending our dollars abroad to buy the energy we use here at home. This bill represents America stepping up to the plate to solve our energy problems. It opens up 8.3 million new acres to development of nearly 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 1.26 billion barrels of oil. We are talking about enough natural gas to heat and cool nearly 6 million homes for 15 years. The proof of the substantive merits of this bill lies in is its broad support around the Nation from America's agricultural community, manufacturing community, producers of chemicals and plastics, the textile industry, the utility sector, and small businesses. Literally, thousands of consumer groups representing millions of Americans and millions of American jobs say the same thing--that S. 3711 provides the much needed relief for the American people. That is why this bill is right for America. It is right for our national security. It is right for our economy, our businesses, our farms, and our families. I am pleased at the strong support for this measure. I thank the following Energy Committee staff for their hard work on this bill: Frank Macchiarola, Bruce Evans, Marnie Funk, Angela Harper, Kara Gleason, and Kristina Rolph.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, since its inception in 1902, the Bureau of Reclamation has constructed numerous facilities which have supplied much of the water and power necessary to populate the Western United States. The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences estimates that Reclamation currently owns 673 facilities that are part of 178 major projects. When many of these facilities were constructed, there were few local communities and utilities capable of assuming title to the facilities. However, this is no longer the case. Many project beneficiaries are both willing and able to receive title to Reclamation facilities. The growth of the environmental movement during the 1970s, explosive population growth in the West, Indian water rights claims, and urbanization transformed Reclamation from an agency that plans, designs, and constructs large projects into one that manages existing Reclamation facilities and allocates water resources in accordance with applicable law. Correspondingly, appropriations for Reclamation have decreased over the past 40 years. As chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, I have become increasingly concerned that Reclamation lacks adequate resources to fulfill its current mission, particularly in light of increasing nonreimbursable expenditures required for operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation of Reclamation facilities. For this reason, we need to investigate opportunities, including title transfers, to make more money available to Reclamation. Reclamation project beneficiaries frequently claim that Reclamation services passed on to customers are far more expensive than comparable services in the private sector and that Reclamation ownership of these facilities imposes an unnecessary administrative burden on project beneficiaries. For these reasons, many project beneficiaries who have fulfilled their construction repayment obligations would like to pursue the transfer of title to Reclamation facilities and land. In addition to benefiting project beneficiaries, transfer of title to Reclamation facilities also divests the Federal Government of the liability, operation, maintenance, management, and regulation associated with these facilities. In its framework for transfer of title to Reclamation facilities, Reclamation acknowledged its commitment to a Federal Government that ``works better and costs less.'' I believe that pursuing title transfers on a widespread basis is consistent with this policy. While Reclamation currently has an administrative process for determining which uncomplicated transfers should be pursued by Congress, it is my belief that the process is not as aggressive or comprehensive as it should be. The bill I introduce today would direct the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate criteria for the transfer of title to Reclamation facilities and lands, including multipurpose and multibeneficiary projects. The bill also directs the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a study to identify which Reclamation facilities may be appropriate for transfer. Consistent with current policy, Congress would evaluate which of these facilities should be transferred. I realize that title transfer may not be appropriate for every Reclamation facility. However, I believe that there are a great number of instances in which title transfer would benefit the United States and Reclamation customers. I thank Senator Bingaman, ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, for being an original cosponsor of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, since its inception in 1902, the Bureau of Reclamation has constructed numerous facilities which have supplied much of the water and power necessary to populate the Western United States. The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences estimates that Reclamation currently owns 673 facilities that are part of 178 major projects. When many of these facilities were constructed, there were few local communities and utilities capable of assuming title to the facilities. However, this is no longer the case. Many project beneficiaries are both willing and able to receive title to Reclamation facilities. The growth of the environmental movement during the 1970s, explosive population growth in the West, Indian water rights claims, and urbanization transformed Reclamation from an agency that plans, designs, and constructs large projects into one that manages existing Reclamation facilities and allocates water resources in accordance with applicable law. Correspondingly, appropriations for Reclamation have decreased over the past 40 years. As chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, I have become increasingly concerned that Reclamation lacks adequate resources to fulfill its current mission, particularly in light of increasing nonreimbursable expenditures required for operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation of Reclamation facilities. For this reason, we need to investigate opportunities, including title transfers, to make more money available to Reclamation. Reclamation project beneficiaries frequently claim that Reclamation services passed on to customers are far more expensive than comparable services in the private sector and that Reclamation ownership of these facilities imposes an unnecessary administrative burden on project beneficiaries. For these reasons, many project beneficiaries who have fulfilled their construction repayment obligations would like to pursue the transfer of title to Reclamation facilities and land. In addition to benefiting project beneficiaries, transfer of title to Reclamation facilities also divests the Federal Government of the liability, operation, maintenance, management, and regulation associated with these facilities. In its framework for transfer of title to Reclamation facilities, Reclamation acknowledged its commitment to a Federal Government that ``works better and costs less.'' I believe that pursuing title transfers on a widespread basis is consistent with this policy. While Reclamation currently has an administrative process for determining which uncomplicated transfers should be pursued by Congress, it is my belief that the process is not as aggressive or comprehensive as it should be. The bill I introduce today would direct the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate criteria for the transfer of title to Reclamation facilities and lands, including multipurpose and multibeneficiary projects. The bill also directs the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a study to identify which Reclamation facilities may be appropriate for transfer. Consistent with current policy, Congress would evaluate which of these facilities should be transferred. I realize that title transfer may not be appropriate for every Reclamation facility. However, I believe that there are a great number of instances in which title transfer would benefit the United States and Reclamation customers. I thank Senator Bingaman, ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, for being an original cosponsor of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Friday, September 1, 2006, at 1 p.m. in the Student Union Ballroom at the Student Union Building of Montana State University Northern located at 1 SUB Drive in Havre, Montana. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 3563, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct studies to determine the feasibility and environmental impact of rehabilitating the St. Mary Diversion and Conveyance Works and the Milk River Project, to authorize the rehabilitation and improvement of the St. Mary Diversion and Conveyance Works, to develop an emergency response plan for use in the case of catastrophic failure of the St. Mary Diversion and Conveyance Works, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Nate Gentry at (202) 224-2179 or Steve Waskiewicz at (202) 228-6195.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kyl and Cornyn to introduce legislation that creates the new Federal judgeships recommended by the 2005 Judicial Conference for our U.S. district courts that have a serious overload of immigration cases. I believe it is imperative to equip all of our Federal agencies with the assets they need to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws. That includes equipping our U.S. district courts with enough judges to handle the criminal immigration cases that appear on their dockets. The immigration reform bill passed by the Senate in May recognizes that with increased border security and immigration enforcement there will be increased prosecutions, and the bill calls for more immigration judges to handle those prosecutions. But the bill fails to recognize that repeat immigration law violators can be charged with a felony and tried in U.S. district court. We need to increase the number of judges in our district courts that handle such cases, particularly in those districts that are already overwhelmed with immigration cases. The legislation I am proposing creates eleven new Federal judgeships, as recommended by the Judicial Conference, in the U.S. district courts in which at least 50 percent of their criminal cases are immigration cases. The bill affects four districts, all of which border Mexico. In fiscal year 2004, the Western District of Texas had 5599 criminal case filings, 3,688 of those cases, over 65 percent, dealt with immigration. The District Court of Arizona had 4,007 criminal filings, of which 2,404 cases, or 59 percent, were immigration filings. The Southern District of California has 2,206 immigration filings, 64 percent of their 3,400 total criminal filings. Lastly, the District of New Mexico had 2,497 criminal filings, 60 percent of them, 1,502 cases, were immigration cases. Based on these caseloads, I think we should already be giving these districts new judgeships. But to increase our border security and immigration enforcement efforts without equipping these courts to handle the even larger immigration caseloads that they are expected to face would be tantamount to willful negligence. The New Mexico District Chief Judge, Martha Vazquez, wrote me a letter in May about the situation the New Mexico District faces. Judge Vazquez wrote: As it is, the burden on Article III Judges in this District is considerable. This District ranks first among all districts in criminal filings per judgeship: 405 criminal filings compared to the national average of 87. As in all federal districts along the southwest border, the majority of cases filed in this District relate to immigration offenses under United States Code, Title 8 and drug offenses arising under Title 21. Immigration and drug cases account for eighty-five percent of the caseload in the District of New Mexico. . . In fiscal year 1997, there were 240 immigration felony filings in the District of New Mexico. By fiscal year 2005, the number of immigration felony filings increased to 1,826, which is an increase of 661 percent . . . Increasing the number of Immigration Judges will do nothing to reduce the increasing caseload in the border states' federal courts. The Albuquerque Tribune has also documented the burden immigration cases put on district courts. An April 17 article entitled ``Judges See Ripple Effect of Policy on Immigration,'' stated: U.S. District Chief Judge Martha Vazquez of Santa Fe oversees a court that faces a rising caseload from illegal border crossings and related crime. And help from Washington is by no means certain . . . From Sept. 30, 1999 to Sept. 30, 2004 (the end of the fiscal year), the caseload in the New Mexico federal district court increased 57.5 percent, from 2,804 to 4,416. In the 2004 fiscal year alone, 2,126 felony cases were heard, almost half of all cases in the entire 10th Circuit, which includes Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. Most typical immigration cases go before an immigration judge, and the subjects are deported. But people deported once and caught crossing illegally again can be charged with a felony. And that brings the defendant into federal district court. Those are the cases driving up New Mexico's caseload . . . Some days as many as 90 defendants crowd the courtroom in Las Cruces . . . The same problems are afflicting federal border courts in Arizona, California, and Texas. Similar problems were documented in a May 23 Reuters article entitled ``Bush Border Patrol Plan to Pressure Courts'' which said: President George W. Bush's plan to send thousands of National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border could spark a surge in immigration cases and U.S. courts are ill prepared to handle them . . . Even without the stepped-up security at the border, federal courts in southern California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas have been overburdened. Carelli [a spokesman for U.S. federal courts] said those five judicial districts, out of 94 nationwide, account for 34 percent of all criminal cases moving through U.S. courts . . . Most immigrants caught crossing illegally are ordered out of the country without prosecution. But that still leaves a growing pile of cases involving illegals who are being prosecuted after being caught multiple times or those accused of other crimes . . . Nationwide, each U.S. judge handles an average of 87 cases a year. But along the southern border, even before Bush's plan moves forward, the average is around 300 per judge, Carelli said. Mr. President, the U.S. Congress needs to address the overwhelming immigration caseload in our southwestern border U.S. district courts. The bill I am filing today with Senators Kyl and Cornyn does just that by authorizing the nine permanent and two temporary judgeships recommended by the 2005 Judicial Conference for the four U.S. districts in which the immigration caseload totals more than fifty percent of those districts' total criminal caseload. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kyl and Cornyn to introduce legislation that creates the new Federal judgeships recommended by the 2005 Judicial Conference for our U.S. district courts that have a serious overload of immigration cases. I believe it is imperative to equip all of our Federal agencies with the assets they need to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws. That includes equipping our U.S. district courts with enough judges to handle the criminal immigration cases that appear on their dockets. The immigration reform bill passed by the Senate in May recognizes that with increased border security and immigration enforcement there will be increased prosecutions, and the bill calls for more immigration judges to handle those prosecutions. But the bill fails to recognize that repeat immigration law violators can be charged with a felony and tried in U.S. district court. We need to increase the number of judges in our district courts that handle such cases, particularly in those districts that are already overwhelmed with immigration cases. The legislation I am proposing creates eleven new Federal judgeships, as recommended by the Judicial Conference, in the U.S. district courts in which at least 50 percent of their criminal cases are immigration cases. The bill affects four districts, all of which border Mexico. In fiscal year 2004, the Western District of Texas had 5599 criminal case filings, 3,688 of those cases, over 65 percent, dealt with immigration. The District Court of Arizona had 4,007 criminal filings, of which 2,404 cases, or 59 percent, were immigration filings. The Southern District of California has 2,206 immigration filings, 64 percent of their 3,400 total criminal filings. Lastly, the District of New Mexico had 2,497 criminal filings, 60 percent of them, 1,502 cases, were immigration cases. Based on these caseloads, I think we should already be giving these districts new judgeships. But to increase our border security and immigration enforcement efforts without equipping these courts to handle the even larger immigration caseloads that they are expected to face would be tantamount to willful negligence. The New Mexico District Chief Judge, Martha Vazquez, wrote me a letter in May about the situation the New Mexico District faces. Judge Vazquez wrote: As it is, the burden on Article III Judges in this District is considerable. This District ranks first among all districts in criminal filings per judgeship: 405 criminal filings compared to the national average of 87. As in all federal districts along the southwest border, the majority of cases filed in this District relate to immigration offenses under United States Code, Title 8 and drug offenses arising under Title 21. Immigration and drug cases account for eighty-five percent of the caseload in the District of New Mexico. . . In fiscal year 1997, there were 240 immigration felony filings in the District of New Mexico. By fiscal year 2005, the number of immigration felony filings increased to 1,826, which is an increase of 661 percent . . . Increasing the number of Immigration Judges will do nothing to reduce the increasing caseload in the border states' federal courts. The Albuquerque Tribune has also documented the burden immigration cases put on district courts. An April 17 article entitled ``Judges See Ripple Effect of Policy on Immigration,'' stated: U.S. District Chief Judge Martha Vazquez of Santa Fe oversees a court that faces a rising caseload from illegal border crossings and related crime. And help from Washington is by no means certain . . . From Sept. 30, 1999 to Sept. 30, 2004 (the end of the fiscal year), the caseload in the New Mexico federal district court increased 57.5 percent, from 2,804 to 4,416. In the 2004 fiscal year alone, 2,126 felony cases were heard, almost half of all cases in the entire 10th Circuit, which includes Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. Most typical immigration cases go before an immigration judge, and the subjects are deported. But people deported once and caught crossing illegally again can be charged with a felony. And that brings the defendant into federal district court. Those are the cases driving up New Mexico's caseload . . . Some days as many as 90 defendants crowd the courtroom in Las Cruces . . . The same problems are afflicting federal border courts in Arizona, California, and Texas. Similar problems were documented in a May 23 Reuters article entitled ``Bush Border Patrol Plan to Pressure Courts'' which said: President George W. Bush's plan to send thousands of National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border could spark a surge in immigration cases and U.S. courts are ill prepared to handle them . . . Even without the stepped-up security at the border, federal courts in southern California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas have been overburdened. Carelli [a spokesman for U.S. federal courts] said those five judicial districts, out of 94 nationwide, account for 34 percent of all criminal cases moving through U.S. courts . . . Most immigrants caught crossing illegally are ordered out of the country without prosecution. But that still leaves a growing pile of cases involving illegals who are being prosecuted after being caught multiple times or those accused of other crimes . . . Nationwide, each U.S. judge handles an average of 87 cases a year. But along the southern border, even before Bush's plan moves forward, the average is around 300 per judge, Carelli said. Mr. President, the U.S. Congress needs to address the overwhelming immigration caseload in our southwestern border U.S. district courts. The bill I am filing today with Senators Kyl and Cornyn does just that by authorizing the nine permanent and two temporary judgeships recommended by the 2005 Judicial Conference for the four U.S. districts in which the immigration caseload totals more than fifty percent of those districts' total criminal caseload. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Louisiana for her kind remarks and for her great support in this effort. The junior Senator from Louisiana, who is the Presiding Officer, I thank now for the support and dedicated commitment to what we are doing. It is not only for the State of Louisiana, but for all the coastal States surrounding Louisiana. It is very important for the United States. I commend the Senator for his participation. I would like to thank a Senator who was vital. He was courageous. He stepped forward, as Senators from Florida have not been used to doing. That was Senator Mel Martinez, who came forward and said: I would like to work with you. And he ended up striking a balance for his people of Florida and for America. And he, along with the others we have mentioned, got us going. It has been a pleasure taking this job on and to end up tonight, 10 minutes before the vote, with the full appreciation on the part of scores of Senators that we are about to do something very positive, very important. For a change, very few Senators will still have to say no. Most of the time it is hard to get 60 votes for cloture. Many times it is hard to get that 51 needed for a simple majority. Over the weeks, and finally over the days, the point has come across to the bipartisan Senators in this Senate, this bill is welcome news for the consumers of the United States, for homeowners, families, people who work in all kinds of manufacturing businesses, chemical businesses, plastic businesses, all kinds of activities related to natural gas. Of course, there is oil involved, too, but that is secondary to the natural gas which is also involved. It has finally dawned on everyone here, we own a piece of property. It has USA stamped all over it. It is off the coast of Florida, off the coast of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, out there in the gulf. There are roughly 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas owned by us, much of which is ready to be drilled, much of which can be drilled during the next decade. There is enough gas for 6 million houses for 15 years, to quantify it. That does not mean that is where it is going. It will be added to the availability of the supply and 1.250 billion barrels of oil. It has finally dawned on everyone. Now we will get their vote. That is all on our property. We have been sitting idly by, year after year, saying no, no, no, because we want a moratorium to protect something that needed no protection, the shoreline of Florida. I don't mean that literally. I mean we can drill on this property as provided in this bill with no damage yet, after we have sat here year after year saying no. It does not happen very often, I say to my distinguished assistant Republican leader, but at the very time and day that we are voting, the best evidence you can get is right on the streets, in the homes, and on the television news for the American people to hear, see, and, incidentally, feel: We have had these enormous heat waves and the use of natural gas has jumped so much. That creates a scarcity; that creates an increase in price. Yesterday, the day before this vote, the price increased 11 percent in 1 day. Right now, it is $8.05 per million Btus. That price is four times higher than it was 6 years ago. That is incredible, but it is true. Fellow Senators, when you vote tonight to add 1.2 million barrels, if this went to the President and got signed, we instantly add it to the ready reserves of America for crude oil waiting to be drilled and put into the system. Members would be voting to instantly add to our ready reserves of natural gas which we could start getting on the market in the not too distant future, almost 6 trillion cubic feet. We have a crisis right in front of our nose and we have a partial cure right in front of our nose, but this time we decided we would go ahead and do it, not continue to say no and to worry ourselves to death over what could happen. This could happen, that could happen, do we need it, should we do it. That is what has happened in the United States recently when we are trying to make energy decisions. We do not want to recognize that there is a bit of a risk, but you have to take a bit of a risk for a big benefit. In this case, it is a very minimum risk and a very big benefit. I am particularly pleased in this bill we are reinvesting in our environment. For decades, our coastal States have produced much of the oil and gas which the Nation consumes. They no longer sit back and go along with leasing without compensation needed for their infrastructure, the coastal environment. It is so critical to our domestic energy survival. We have changed direction and said ``share it with them.'' That is a good idea, a new precedent which we need not be embarrassed about. We also have said we want to share some of this wealth with the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a very good national program. We have not done that before. That, too, is good precedent, good ground to break, and sets us on a good path. For those who worry, again, about that and about sharing with the States, I regret if that concerns them so much they will not vote for this bill. I am very sorry about that. In this case, the benefits so outweigh the risks of changing policy or changing direction that we should have a stampede, not a vote, when it comes time to count. I am not going to do justice to all those who helped me by mentioning them all because I will not get to it. That is probably my mistake. I thank my friend and colleague from the State of Louisiana who is here in the Senate. She started working with me early as a member of the committee. Obviously, Senator Vitter, also, from Louisiana, an early participant. I thank him greatly for his efforts, as well as all the coastal State Senators. I also thank the distinguished leaders on our side who encouraged and urged passing. In fact, I would say about my good friend from Kentucky, I think he thought more about my proceeding to get this done than I did a few weeks ago. He kept saying it was a great day, get along with it, Pete, let's do it. So we are doing it. This is a good bill. It took a little effort. It took a little time. Nonetheless, compared with other bills around here these days, it is not going to go to the graveyard. It is not going to die because Senators were able to talk the Senate into voting again to delay or kill a bill. They have not been able to do that on this bill. We are grateful. The American people ought to know that even with the hurdle of 60 votes which was required because of filibuster threats on this bill, we prevailed. We have learned also that when we vote tonight, I think we only need 51 votes for a change. That is a very good sign. Finally, we are at a point where a 51-vote majority would win. We thought it was that way all the time, but it wasn't. Finally, after all the hurdles, we will have many more than that, but this is going to pass. For those who are watching, we are at a point where that old- fashioned majority would be enough. We learned about the majority in school. It has been thrown out the window because there is so much politicking going on. Every vote is 60 votes around here. In the next few years we will have a few more of those, Mr. Leader, with the tax bill, and it will be 60 votes because someone is screaming filibuster. I used to think filibusters were great when I first came to the Senate. Then I almost changed and said: Throw them away. I don't know where I am now. I do know I am for using part of the Budget Act to get around filibusters.

Mr. DOMENICI. I am through. It will be a nice evening. I am going to go back and sit down. Thank you, Senator Frist, for helping me. I want you to thank me for letting you have a happy day for a change. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DOMENICI

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe I have 15 minutes at this point.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me say, before the distinguished Senator from Virginia leaves the floor, here is how I see the situation in terms of coastal waters and the tremendous resources that are along the coast today, including the Senator's State. I see us on the verge of making the first breakthrough in 25 years. If this breakthrough occurs and this bill passes and this bill gets signed, the breakthrough is that your State and your people--openly and bright--might want it, too. In fact, you have been talking about that. The point I am making is, we are doing this right. Let us get this one done, as you have said, and you certainly have not said we should not. I don't imply that. But the right thing for the country, in fact, of these prolonged moratoria is to pass 181 before us because it is big. It is real. It is right. It is now. It will happen and it will hurt no one. Besides, you will see bids to open with short periods of time saying: We will drill. You will see companies announcing what they are going to do. That will be the stimulus. I am not a football expert, but it is sort of like if the goal is to maximize, eventually, over time, the coastal production of America from a venue of stagnation, if that is the goal--and I am not there yet, but if that is the goal--what you do is you make the first 10 yards right now. This is the first 10 yards. This is the breakthrough. Now you are going to see it, and you can say: Man, we can make it. Then your State will come, and other States will come. So I am very pleased we chose to limit it to the four States plus Florida and to this big piece called 181, plus 181 south, which you have lauded here today. I will close by telling you something that you can now tell your people when this bill passes. On the day of the vote, for those who don't think this is a good bill, I want to remind them, and you can remind them, that it was just announced that natural gas had its biggest gain this year. Bloomberg announced that natural gas rallied to its biggest gain this year in the U.S. on a record-breaking heat wave, and the prices went up. So right now we are celebrating something very negative, that the supply is not sufficient. And with the excess heat, the price went up. What we want to tell them is, pass this bill. Start using these resources. Put them in our inventory, right? Get our businesspeople out there investing to drill, and we will have natural gas coming from 181, this big piece of real estate, energy laden, 6 trillion cubic feet on this one piece, enough for 6 million homes for 15 years, 1.2 billion barrels of oil on just this one piece. Get started, right? That is why we are going to do it. I think we have the votes. But if you know anybody who is not for it, I say to the Senator, you tell them we celebrated the wrong thing today because we have been doing things wrong. It is time to do it right. That is what I think, and that is what this bill is. You are on the right track, and I commend you. This bill will get us started. I hope you understand that.

Mr. DOMENICI. We can't do it all at once. I am so pleased we picked the right one. And with the help of that man sitting in the chair, the Presiding Officer today--we call him ``President'' today, but he is actually a Senator--with his help, because he had a little guts, he decided to talk to his people instead of echoing. He went out there and talked and said: Let's do something. They agreed to this, after years of dilly-dallying, right? We are doing something for the country. The Presiding Officer, Mel Martinez, the junior Senator, is part of this three or four or five people who led this actual attack on this moratorium. Moratorium has something to do with death. That is what the moratorium was, death for us, this crazy idea that these resources should be locked up when you could drill for them and not hurt anybody. It is finally going out the window, little by little, with this bill. Two windows going out. We will see how it works. The public is going to say: Boy, it works. And then some more windows will go out later. And that is what you are talking about. Thank you so much.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield to the Senator. I have the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator. In response to what the junior Senator from Virginia just said, obviously, this bill sets not only the precedent of getting rid of the moratorium for deep water drilling off the coast of Florida, but it also sets a precedent of revenue sharing with the coastal States that surround the activity. That is what the Senator is talking about. Obviously, the Senator from New Mexico favors that. I don't have to answer his question specifically. I favor that. I took a gamble and said: I am one to do that. I started off saying, I think I can get it done. I think we can get it done without it. That is where I started, right, I ask the Senator from Louisiana? I reported a bill out, found out we probably would get nothing. I am not sure of that, but probably the country would get nothing, the coastal States would get nothing, the Treasury would get nothing, the coastal repair would get nothing. And we would be right back here telling the public: We can't do anything. So when the coastal States and the Senator from Florida started negotiating with us about the coastal States and about Florida's linear protections, distance protections, I had to move from no coastal revenues. I am very pleased with the way it turned out because I believe over the long run we have by at least 10, maybe 20 years, accelerated the timeframe for coastal exploration. I am not saying forever because I think sooner or later reality had to set in. I think we are just pushing reality here and pushing hard, saying: OK, we are going to share, but we are going to get the resources. We might be ready soon to have hearings in the committee, have other bills, move in other directions. But for right now, this is the best bill to clear the Senate. We have this terrible 60-vote threshold in this place. You are aware of that. It is no longer a majoritarian place. There are 60 votes for everything. You ask for a motion for a pin to drop, and somebody says: I am going to filibuster. Right? You have to have 60 votes. Appointment of conferees is filibustered now. Somebody like Senator Byrd will say: Senator Domenici, don't think that is new. That was around forever. Of course, it was. But it wasn't used very much. But you know that is being used now. A motion to appoint conferees on a bill is now an acceptable measure on which to have a filibuster. The point is, this is no turkey shoot, passing a bill in the Senate. You don't just have to sharpen up and hit one; you have to get 60 votes. That is why it is so important you know how to put it together. That is why we did this. That is why some people, looking down on this bill, wondering how far can you go--you know where that is coming from--how far we can go and still get something passed--have to understand, the 60-vote threshold probably, if we make it tonight, and even if we break it, the point is, it is fragile. You fool around with it and change it and you could go back down to 59, 58, and be dead again. So if you want some energy for America, not big time, not like a whole new country has been invented, we still have a lot of coast left, a lot of other places left, but this is a big one. If you want this, you have to remember, you have to get 60 votes. We have got to get 60 votes here tonight. We have got to get 60 votes later on. And we better not be thinking too far ahead of our nose or we will find out we don't have the votes. So I want to close by reminding everybody that the price of natural gas increased by a record amount. The public can note that. They might be thinking: Why didn't you do something about it? We want to tell them we are trying tonight to do something about it. We have a ways to go, right? We have to get it passed, and we have to get it past the House. But we are trying to do something about this report that says the price went up the highest amount. We are trying to do something about it. We don't guarantee anything, but we guarantee you that we are going to help if we add 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to the inventory of natural gas for Americans from this piece of real estate off the coast of Florida, off the coast of Louisiana that belongs to the people, that had a moratorium on it, that had a death wish on it: You can't do anything with it. We are taking that off, and that is why it is important. It is also important that everybody knows it is not easy to do because in the Senate you need 60 votes. No, you don't, people told me the other day. What is the matter with you, Senator? Fifty-one votes will do that. I said: Well, we changed business in the Senate. Almost everything is a filibuster. I just explained that to you. This bill was filibustered. No question. So we have this fancy-named thing called cloture. That means a request that the filibuster be restrained. We are going to vote on that. Do you want to throw out the filibuster tonight? That is what the vote is going to be about. But that is the 60 votes. People should know that, and they should know that about our bill, whomever it is. This is tough sledding. Don't be thinking that we could change it helter-skelter. And if they are wondering why we have been tough on amendments, just remember with us, who knows what amendments would do to this bill. It is a good bill like it is. Sorry to fellow Senators who want to offer amendments for a week. I am sorry. I wish you could preside, Mr. President, over wonderful debates, about 20 amendments or 30 on this bill. I hope we don't have to because I hope we close it up with the cloture vote, a couple of hours after that, maybe tomorrow, vote on final passage, send this bill to conference, and then take a little while with the House and have this same message to them: 60-vote problem in the Senate. Can't send them any old thing or we will get nothing. I think my friend from Louisiana knows that. She is here. She knows what I am going through. I mean, she can comment on that. She does. It is not easy to get this through, if you are worrying about adding things to it or changing it. I see the Senator would like to speak.

Mr. DOMENICI. Of course.

Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator is absolutely correct. I have been referring to the Chair and the Presiding Officer in one way because it was the Senator from Florida, talking to him as the Senator from Florida. He has taken a seat as a Senator. Another Senator from the committee, Senator Lamar Alexander, has taken the Presiding Officer's seat. (Mr. ALEXANDER assumed the Chair.)

Mr. DOMENICI. The question fits right in with all four. Lamar Alexander is on the Committee of Energy and Natural Resources, as is the Senator from Florida. A big participant is the Senator from Tennessee. I am looking at the Senator who took on the issue of natural gas, the Senator from Tennessee. We knew we could not do this on that bill, so we put it off. We did 10 or 15 major things that are still having an impact on America--everything from seeing to it that all possibilities for the alternative of shale being turned into oil be given a chance. It might happen. We promoted coal to gas, coal to liquid. The only thing keeping that from happening is the uncertainty of investment because the price of $70 is not certain. If we can address that issue, we will fix that, too. Ethanol came out of that bill. The whole idea of hybrid automobiles came out of that bill. Scores of that are in the area of conservation, which were promoted even before I was chairman; they are on that bill and are done. So this is a followup for some supply. That is why it is important that we get it done. I thank the Senator for the question. There are many other things we could list. I thank the Senate for yielding me additional time. I yield the floor.