Pete Domenici

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 Thursday, June 29, 2006, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on H.R. 5254, the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act. 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 John Peschke at (202) 224- 4797, Shannon Ewan at (202) 224-7555. Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Air Force MAJ Stephen Purdy be granted the privilege of the floor during the debate on this amendment.

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 Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 10:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nomination of: Marc Spitzer, of Arizona, to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the term expiring June 30, 2011, vice Nora Mead Brownell, resigned. For further information, please contact Judy Pensabene of the Committee staff.

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 Tuesday, June 27, 2006, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony relating to implementation of the Energy Policy Act provisions on enhancing oil and gas production on Federal lands in the Rocky Mountain Region. 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. subcommittee on water and power

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like 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 Thursday, June 22, 2006, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 2747, to enhance energy efficiency and conserve oil and natural gas, 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 John Peschke at (202) 224- 4797 or Shannon Ewan at (202) 224-7555.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will soon have been here 34 years. That is not very long compared to the man about whom I rise to say a few words. I understand this was the day. I was in my office and, having heard the eloquence that was spoken today to my good friend, Senator Byrd, I figured that I couldn't do him justice just coming down at this very moment, as I am. But everybody knows why we speak today when we attempt to honor him for his devotion to his colleagues, to the institution, to the Constitution, and to the United States of America. The distinguished Senator knows what each of us thinks of him. He knows, better than we each do, what we think of him. He could tell me what Pete Domenici thinks about Bob Byrd, and probably be close to right. And vice versa. He has occasionally spoken about what he thinks of me. I don't think he takes it lightly. I think what he says he means. He has been far too generous in what he has said. But I will choose, among all the things, for just a moment, to say what I think mostly about him, as I think about his time here and revere it. First, there is something about learning to appreciate what the Senate is as a place, as a house, as an institution. Woe be it any man or woman who is elected to this place and who serves for any length of time and doesn't feel it, doesn't understand it, doesn't quite grasp what a rare place this Senate is. It is hard to say why it is. One could talk about the men and women who made it like this. We could talk about the rules of the Senate that made it like this. We could talk about the two or three great qualities, the fact that you can offer amendments freely--which has been known as one of those real attributes of this place. You can come down here on an afternoon while something is being debated on health, and if you can get the floor you can offer an amendment about Iraq. Somehow or another, you get the feel of the place, the limitation on trying to get things done that this threat to filibuster offers, and how that plays, and the minority and majority and what it means in this place. You know at some point in time if you have ever had to make a decision on the floor of the Senate that was important just because it was important to the Senate, then Robert Byrd would be there to stand up and congratulate you. That is, if as chairman of the Budget Committee I had to get up and say to the Senate: I want to ad- monish you that if you do this or that you are challenging the rules of the Senate--if I would look around and expect some help, the walls would give me help. And it would be Robert Byrd saying: Listen carefully, if you are talking about the Senate. That is why I came here because, of all the qualities, I think he will best be known as a man of the Senate, as a man who understood the Senate--what made it great and different, unique. He is noted for his great ability to manifest so many great historic concepts, of modern times and ancient times, and today debate them, deliver them, state them from memory, and truly inform us what they mean. His understanding of freedom is legendary, what American freedom is. But today I chose to congratulate him for not letting up, in all his years--never letting up on the proposition that the Senate is a special place. He will go down in history because he has regularly, habitually, without hesitance informed us of what a special place the Senate is by virtue of what we have been given, what was bestowed upon us in the Constitution, how our Founding Fathers have accredited this place, what its rules have become through its leaders of the past, and how the halls just reek with all of that past and just keep making it the Senate. That is what he is; that is what he has done. He is the Senate. The longer he is here, the more he is that. I don't know how many years it took him to become it, to know it, to relish it as he has passed it on to each of us. Certainly, by the time I came in 1972, and I have been here 33 going on 34 years, he already was there and was preaching that to all of us. Some of us began to understand it to where we could stand up and say: Hey, don't forget, fellow Senators, this is the Senate. Let's not do an injustice to it. Let's not violate it. I won't state names, but I remember very young Senators who wouldn't think of talking that way. But 10 years later, that is the way they talked, that is the way they behaved. I venture to say each and every one who comes to my mind, if you ask them where they got that feeling, that rapture for this place, probably among the very few things they would mention, they would mention Robert C. Byrd. Congratulations for all the times spent in breaking all the records for the time, but most of all congratulations from me, to a Senate man, a man who makes the Senate what it is and likes to tell everybody else around what it is, and in particular likes to make sure Senators grow up and begin to relish it as he has, and never forgets what it is. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: Is it appropriate that I ask for 5 minutes as in morning business?

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 Monday, June 19, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard in the 2005 Energy Bill and the future potential of biofuels such as biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol, and E85. 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 John Peschke at (202) 224- 4797, or Shannon Ewan at (202) 224-7555. Subcommittee on National Parks

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 Monday, June 12, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding the implementation of Sections 641 through 645 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Next Generation Nuclear Plant Project within the Department of Energy. 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 Clint Williamson at (202) 224-7556 or Steve Waskiewicz at (202) 228-6195.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to express my dismay that my amendment No. 4022 to S. 2611 is not part of the bill the Senate will vote on. At first glance, the immigration bill we are considering takes into account that if we put more border patrol agents and immigration personnel on the border, other Federal agencies that deal with immigration will need more resources. The bill adds new Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice attorneys, public defenders, and immigration judges. But the bill fails to account for that fact that while immigration cases typically go before immigration judges, repeat offenders can be charged with felonies and tried in Federal district court. As part of this bill, we should have considered the increased federal criminal immigration caseload we will have as a result of increased border security and immigration enforcement, and we should have added new District judges to hear those cases. Specifically, my amendment would implement the recommendations of the 2005 Judicial Conference for U.S. district courts that have immigration caseloads totaling more than 50 percent of their total criminal filings. There are four districts that have such caseloads; unsurprisingly, all of them are on the Southwest border. Those courts' immigration caseloads vastly outweigh the immigration caseloads of northern border district courts that the 2005 Judicial Conference recommended new judgeships for. For example, in the Southern District of Texas there were 5,599 criminal filings in fiscal year 2004, and 3,688 of them were immigration cases. By comparison, the Western District of Washington had only 539 criminal filings, and only 78 of those were immigration cases. Similarly, in the District Court for Arizona there were 4,007 criminal filings in fiscal year 2004; 2,404 of them were immigration cases. But in Idaho, there were only 213 criminal filings, and only 71 of those were immigration cases. In fiscal year 2004, the Southern District of California had 3,400 criminal filings, and 2,206 of them were immigration cases. On the northern border, in the Western District of New York, there were only 497 criminal filings; only 35 of those were immigration cases. Lastly, in the District of New Mexico, there were 2,497 criminal filings in fiscal year 2004, and 1,502 of them were immigration cases. In the District of Minnesota, there were 431 criminal filings, and only 15 of them were immigration cases. With so many figures, the significance of those numbers may be lost, so let me sum those numbers up. In fiscal year 2004, my home state of New Mexico, which shares a border with Mexico, had 100 times more Federal criminal immigration cases than a state that shares a border with Canada. The Albuquerque Tribune wrote an article about this issue in March. That article, ``Judges See Ripple Effect of Policy on Immigration,'' said: 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 . . . 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, said Vazquez . . . The same problems are afflicting federal border courts in Arizona, California, and Texas. Mr. President, I will ask that this April 17, 2006 article be printed in the Record. I would also like to read portions of a letter written to me earlier this month by the New Mexico District's Chief Judge, Martha Vazquez. About the Senate's immigration bill, Judge Vazquez wrote: As with past legislation aimed at improving border security, this bill will significantly increase the number of felony immigration and drug cases in the federal courts in districts on the southwest border. The bill, in recognition of this fact, provides funding for at least 20 additional full-time Administrative Immigration Judges. The bill, however, inexplicably fails to provide funding for additional Article III judges despite the fact that Article III judges will be as burdened, if not more, by the increased caseload that will result from the bill's implementation . . . In fiscal year 1997, there were 240 immigration felony filings in the District of New Mexico. By fiscal year 2005, the number of immigration 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. Judge Vazquez was appointed to the Federal bench by President Clinton. Clearly this is not a partisan issue, as Judge Vazquez and I agree that the Senate's failure to address the needs of our border district courts in inexplicable. I will ask that this May 16, 2006, letter from Chief Judge Vazquez be printed in the Record. Lastly, I would like to quote an article written this week. On May 23, 2006, Reuters posted an article titled ``Bush Border Patrol Plan to Pressure Courts: Sources.'' That article 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, according to congressional and courts sources . . . 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. Clearly, there is already a crisis regarding our Southwest border district courts' immigration caseload. As we worked on S. 2611 to provide more resources to the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice, we should have also addressed the related needs of our U.S. district courts. Senators Kyl, Cornyn, and Hutchison understood that, and I thank them for their cosponsorship and strong support of my amendment. Unfortunately, our other colleagues were unwilling to recognize this problem or address this need. I was told that this amendment, with an annual cost of $11 million, was too expensive. But this bill authorizes billions of new spending for homeland security and judiciary resources. I was informed that every State needs new judges. But not every State has thousands of immigration cases filed each year. I am disheartened that the Senate did not act on amendment 4022. I am disappointed that my colleagues were unwilling to address the judicial crisis along the Southwest border. I am dismayed that this body is turning a blind eye towards the need of our U.S. district courts. As a result of such action, my State, and other States on the southwest border, will not be able to enforce the border security and immigration enforcement provisions in the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act because we will not have the necessary resources to prosecute immigration cases. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned materials be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to those men and women of the United States Armed Services who have given their lives to defend our Nation and the ideals it represents. Numerous times in the history of our Nation, the men and women of our Armed Forces have been called upon to defend the freedom we hold so dear. Sadly, many of those brave individuals never returned to the homes and families they selflessly left behind. Today, we honor their sacrifice and ensure that we as a nation will never forget the debt of gratitude that is owed them. New Mexicans have a long and notable history of military service. During the Spanish American War, New Mexico guardsmen served with Teddy Roosevelt and his Rough Riders at the Battle of San Juan Hill. New Mexicans of the 1st Infantry Regiment fought with the 40th Infantry Division in France after the U.S. entered the First World War. While participating in the Italian campaign of the Second World War, new Mexicans of the 104th Tank Destroyer battalion were awarded 8 Silver Stars, 60 Bronze Stars, and 135 Purple Hearts. Of course no one will forget the contribution Navajos from my home state made as ``code talkers'' or the bravery of the ``New Mexico Brigade'' in the Philippines during World War II. During the Vietnam War, the l88th Tactical Fighter Squadron of the New Mexico Air National Guard flew over 6,000 combat sorties and amassed over 630 medals and decorations before its release from Federal active duty in June 1969. These are just a few examples of the distinction with which New Mexicans have served our Nation. From the swamps of Cuba to the jungles of Vietnam and the deserts of Iraq, many New Mexicans have given their lives on behalf of America, and for these reasons on Memorial Day we honor these brave men and women. We must never forget the sacrifices of our solders, sailors, airmen and marines. I encourage New Mexicans and all Americans on this Memorial Day to take a moment to remember and honor the brave men and women who have fallen in our defense. I ask that New Mexicans think of them and their families, and give thanks that we are blessed with such heroic men and women. On this Memorial Day, let us not overlook the men and women of our armed forces who since September 11, 2001 have been called away from home to fight the Global War on Terror. Many of these individuals are National Guardsmen like the members of Task Force Phoenix serving in Afghanistan, the 1116th Transportation Company serving in Iraq and Task Force Cobra serving in Kuwait. I would like to thank them and all the men and women of our State who have returned from previous deployments overseas. Not only have they made their family and state proud, they have made their country proud as well. Today I would like to make special mention of those New Mexicans of the active and reserve military who have given their lives in Operation Iraqi Freedom and the Global War on Terror. They, like Americans of generations past, answered the call to defend this great Nation from those who would do it harm. In the spirit of the efforts put forth by such individuals, it is imperative America forever remain the land of the free and the home of the brave.

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, June 8, 2006 at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nomination of: Philip D. Moeller, of Washington, to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the term expiring June 30, 2010, vice Patrick Henry Wood III, resigned; and Jon Wellinghoff, of Nevada, to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the term expiring June 30, 2008, vice William Lloyd Massey, term expired. For further information, please contact Judy Pensabene of the Committee staff.

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 Thursday, June 1st, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. in the Grand Junction City Hall Auditorium located at 250 North 5th Street in Grand Junction, Colorado. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the implementation of the oil shale provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send 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 understand the time is now reserved for the Senator from New Mexico to speak on the pending matter; is that correct?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about border security and the immigration reform bill. I have some very strong views on this issue because my home State shares its southern border with Mexico. Every day I hear stories about the problems of lax border security, a cause for concern among my constituents. They tell me directly the problems this causes. I am convinced we must do more to secure our borders than we have been doing. However, I am very pleased we are making headway. I hope, in the not too distant future, the American people will see the fruits of that headway. I hope I can explain in my time allotted how we are going to do more and what we are doing. Border security and immigration enforcement should be top priorities in our debate this week. Whether they are top priorities will influence my vote on any border and immigration package considered in the Senate. The first step to secure our border is more border security funding. I believe Senator Judd Gregg, as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, understands this. Sometimes it has been difficult to let the American people hear what is going on, what he is doing in his subcommittee, what the Senate is doing when it follows his lead, and what happens when we finish work with the House on the bills that start out in his committee. He helped us provide $635 million for border security in fiscal year 2005 in an emergency supplemental appropriations bill. With his efforts, we provided more than $9 billion for border security and immigration enforcement in the fiscal year 2006 Homeland Security appropriations bill. He worked to include $1.9 billion for border security in the Senate fiscal year 2006 emergency supplemental appropriations bill. Add that up, and one can understand that Congress is finally responding to the gigantic needs of making our international borders secure. The fiscal year 2006 emergency supplemental funding I have alluded to includes such items as $100 million for sensors and surveillance technology; $120 million for new Border Patrol stations, checkpoints, and vehicle barriers; $80 million for Border Patrol vehicles; and $790 million for border security helicopters and other air assets. Believe it or not, until recently, while we have talked a great deal about the Border Patrol and what they must do, they had helicopters from the Vietnam era. We have finally decided to buy them a new fleet of helicopters. After all these years of talking, we are finally doing something. Also, we included $50 million for an upgraded CBP communications system. Many Americans must be wondering, what have we been doing all these years in all these appropriations bills when we have talked so much? The truth is, we have done little. But we are doing more now. Second, we need more border security provisions as part of border security and immigration reform legislation. Many security provisions in the current border and immigration bill are good, but they are not enough. I have filed three amendments to the bill which I will discuss shortly. I understand and think once Senators have heard these amendments and the managers have had a chance to review them, they may be accepted. Lastly, we should try to address what to do with the millions of undocumented workers in America today. In March, I joined with a bipartisan group of Senators to support what has been called the Hagel- Martinez compromise. I supported the compromise in hopes that it would allow a border security and immigration bill to move forward. I also supported it because, as I understand the bill, anyone who came to the United States illegally after January 7 of 2004 receives no special treatment; that is, those hundreds of thousands of people who have been running to the border or who have been taken to the border, who have purchased their way to the border in the last few months, will receive no special treatment. It is my understanding these individuals--that is, post-January 7, 2004 illegal entrants--would be subject to removal and deportation under existing immigration laws. The record needs to clearly reflect that. That means one group of people that Americans are wondering about will not receive any special privileges under this bill. They are sort of the Johnny-come-latelies who have run to the border thinking if they can get here quick enough they will be included in our immigration reform efforts. But it is my understanding that these individuals would be subject to removal and deportation under existing immigration law. I repeat that because I believe a number of Senators, on this side of the aisle at least, are indicating their support for this bill because they believe that is in the bill. As the most senior Senator representing a southwest border State, I would like to now discuss the amendments I have filed, which I believe make eminent sense and should be accepted by the Senate. The first is an amendment regarding Mexican cooperation. This amendment will require the Secretary of State to cooperate with Mexico to improve border security and to reduce border crime. The amendment is the result of a lot of hard work and is cosponsored by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, who is very familiar with the border problems and the problems with Mexico. I would like to read that amendment because a reading of it does more than I could do by trying to summarize it. This amendment has as its purpose: To improve coordination between the United States and Mexico regarding border security, criminal activity, circular migration, and for other purposes. (a) Cooperation Regarding Border Security.--The Secretary of State, in cooperation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and representatives of Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies that are involved in border security and immigration enforcement efforts, shall work with the appropriate officials from the Government of Mexico to improve coordination between the United States and Mexico regarding-- (1) improved border security along the international border between the United States and Mexico; (2) the reduction of human trafficking and smuggling between the United States and Mexico; (3) the reduction of drug traffic and smuggling between the United States and Mexico; (4) the reduction of gang membership in the United States and Mexico; (5) the reduction of violence against women in the United States and Mexico; and (6) the reduction of other violence and criminal activity. Next: (b) Cooperation Regarding Education On Immigration Laws.-- The Secretary of State, in cooperation with other appropriate Federal officials, shall work with the appropriate officials from the Government of Mexico to carry out activities to educate citizens and nationals of Mexico regarding eligibility for status as a non-immigrant under United States' law to ensure that the citizens and nationals are not exploited while working in the United States. (c) Cooperation Regarding Circular Migration.--The Secretary of State, in cooperation with the Secretary of Labor and other appropriate Federal officials, shall work with the appropriate officials from the Government of Mexico to improve coordination between the United States and Mexico to encourage circular migration, including assisting in the development of economic opportunities and providing job training for citizens and nationals in Mexico. (d) Annual Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit to Congress a report on the actions taken by the United States and Mexico under this section. I believe this amendment is absolutely necessary, and I am very pleased Senator Dodd has joined me in supporting the amendment. I hope this will become part of this bill. My amendment will require an annual report which I think will push the leaders of Mexico to do the kinds of things that Americans expect these two countries to do. If we do not work together, we will have chaos. But with an agreement to work together on these issues, annually the people of both countries should know what is going on in terms of cooperation in the areas I have just spoken to. Now, sources estimate that as much as 85 percent of apprehended illegal immigrants are from Mexico. So we must work with Mexico to address the security of our southern border and the number of illegal entries from Mexico. My amendment calls on the Secretary of State to work with Mexico to improve border security; reduce human smuggling, drug trafficking, violence against women, and to inform Mexican nationals of the benefits of U.S. immigration. I have just read the amendment in its entirety on each of these subjects. Mexico must do its part in this initiative. On Sunday, there was an Associated Press article titled ``Mexico Works to Bar Non-Natives from Jobs.'' That article says--and I quote-- Even as Mexico presses the United States to grant unrestricted citizenship to millions of undocumented Mexican migrants, its officials at times calling U.S. policies ``xenophobic,'' Mexico places daunting limitations on anyone born outside its territory. Mexico expects us to have much more humane, much more liberal, and much more constructive immigration policies in our Nation than it is willing to implement within its own borders. Can you imagine the uproar if we were to try to make our immigration policies anything like the policies of Mexico? In addition to changing its own immigration policies, Mexico has some other responsibilities, in my view. How many of its citizens, seeking economic sustenance, does Mexico expect us to take before it reforms its own economic policies? Estimates released over the weekend reveal that about 10 percent of the Mexican workforce now works not in its homeland but in the United States, and that 10 percent provides about 15 percent of the Mexican national income. We have an unusual, perhaps unique, situation along the border between the United States and Mexico. On no other border of this length in the world does such a disparity exist between the economic prowess and programs of the two nations sharing such a border. Here is America, the leading economy in the world, bordered for almost 2,000 miles by a nation that persists in economic policies that have failed to provide sufficient jobs or salaries for much of its people. No similar situation exists anywhere on the globe. So we have a unique challenge that is attendant to this unique situation. That challenge needs to be met not just by the United States, but by Mexico, too. They must join us in an effort to solve this challenge. Economic reform, greater emphasis on the private economy, and modernizing more of its facilities remain great challenges that Mexico must face. We are forced to tighten our borders not because we are a mean nation, but because the economy to the south of us is driving millions to our country's economy. I believe my amendment will provide for more cooperation between the United States and Mexico. As a result, I believe our border could be more secure. I have another amendment that has to do with Federal judges. I note the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, is on the Senate floor, and her state is impacted by this amendment. It has to do with the inadequate number of Federal judges that is going to result when this new law is put into effect. The U.S. district courts in the southwest are overly burdened with immigration caseloads. We must have additional judges, as recommended by the 2005 Judicial Conference. Let me explain. While immigration cases typically go before immigration judges, repeat offenders can be charged with felonies and tried in Federal district court. As a result, four of our district courts have immigration caseloads that total more than 50 percent of their total criminal filings. The fiscal year 2004 immigration caseload for the Southern District of Texas totaled 3,668 filings. This is more than 65 percent of the district's 5,599 criminal filings. The District Court for Arizona had 2,404 immigration filings, more than 59 percent of the district's 4,007 criminal filings. The Southern District of California had 2,206 immigration filings. That is more than 64 percent of its total 3,400 criminal filings. The district court for my home State of New Mexico had 1,502 immigration filings. That is more than 60 percent of its total of 2,497 criminal filings. I am glad we are improving border security and interior enforcement with this legislation. But, obviously, we must also provide the adequate machinery to go along with that, and that means enough Federal judges to handle the caseload that will be generated. In short, if we put more Border Patrol agents and immigration personnel on the southwestern border, we need to provide more resources to the other Federal agencies that also deal with immigration. The immigration bill recognizes this to some degree by calling for more DHS and DOJ attorneys, public defenders, and immigration judges. But we must add new district judges necessary to hear the cases of repeat immigration law violators. Failure to do that means we will create even more of an unworkable situation that already involves mass arraignments and sentencings. As we work on this bill to provide more resources to the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice, we must also address related needs, so I am proud to offer this amendment with Senators Kyl, Cornyn, and Hutchison. I also address a related need for more deputy marshals in an amendment. We have a dramatic shortage of deputy marshals to handle the increased caseload that will be associated with repeat immigration law violators. My third amendment, offered with Senators Bingaman, Kyl, Cornyn, and Hutchison, awaits consideration. It adds 50 new deputy marshals each year for 5 years. Lastly, I would just comment on a very important part of the bill, the land port-of-entry improvements sections. Those provisions are based on legislation I authored in the 108th Congress with Senator Dorgan and which 13 other border state Senators cosponsored. These provisions address the needs of our land ports of entry. I am grateful that the managers of the bill have adopted that legislation as part of their bill. These sections are critical because neither American border has undergone a comprehensive infrastructure overhaul since Senator DeConcini, a Senator from Arizona, and I put forth an effort to modernize the southwest border 20 years ago. We have done nothing comprehensive since 1986 on either the north or south international border. A great deal has changed since then, including the passage of legislation to improve security of our airports and seaports, following September 11, 2001. I appreciate Chairman Specter including my legislation to identify port-of-entry infrastructure and technology improvement projects, prioritize and implement these projects based on need, require a plan to assess the vulnerabilities of each of the ports of entry located on the northern and southern borders of our great Nation, implement a technology demonstration program to evaluate new ports of entry technologies, and provide training necessary for personnel who must implement these new technologies. I believe these provisions are essential for border security. I am glad and appreciative that they are in the bill. Mr. President, we must secure our international borders. I believe with Chairman Gregg's leadership on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee and strong border security provisions in this bill, we can do just that. I thank the Chair for the time granted me to express my views and to the Senators who have listened. Certainly, I hope what I have said will have an impact to some extent on this bill and that the amendments that have not yet been adopted, of which I have spoken, will, before we come to final closure, become part of this great effort to secure our borders, provide for an orderly transition for those who have come to our country illegally, and create orderly rules for future guest workers. This is important so the relationships between America and other countries can move forward, and so our country, which is going to need immigrants in the future, can look forward to that in an orderly manner based on a border that is secure and an agreement between the U.S. and Mexico that is going to be carried out and rendered operative. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 4087

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. What is the amendment?

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 Thursday, May 25, 2006, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding the outlook for growth of coal fired electric generation and whether sufficient supplies of coal will be available to supply electric generators on a timely basis both in the near term and in the future. 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 Kellie Donnelly, John Peschke, or Shannon Ewan. Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I commemorate the hard work and sacrifices made daily by law enforcement officers all across our great land. Many have lost their lives in the line of duty so that our families and communities may remain safe. We must never forget those who have given their lives to protect us all. The annual celebration of Peace Officers Memorial Day and National Police Week during the calendar week has its roots in Public Law 87- 726, which was signed into law on October 1, 1962 by President John F. Kennedy. Public Law 87-726 designated this day and week as a time for ``recognition of the service given by the men and women who, night and day, stand guard in our midst to protect us through enforcement of our laws.'' This law was later amended during the 103rd Congress as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in 1994 to order the United States flag on all Government buildings displayed at half-staff on May 15. Since the turn of the last century, more than 60 law enforcement officers have been killed in the line of duty in New Mexico. This year, among other activities, law enforcement officers from around the country honored the lives of three New Mexico police officers whose names were recently added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, D.C. One occurred a very long time ago, and the two others just last year. Officer Michael R. King and Officer Richard W. Smith, Jr., both of the Albuquerque Police Department, are two of the three officers being honored this year. Their deaths occurred on a day that has become ingrained in the hearts of most New Mexicans as one of the bloodiest and most tragic in recent times. Officers King and Smith, longtime veterans of the Albuquerque Police Department, were responding to a call on August 20, 2005 ordering the pickup of a mental health patient from Kaseman Hospital. When they arrived at the scene, Officers King and Smith had no way of knowing that the subject of their call, John Hyde would be implicated in the shooting deaths of three people earlier that day. During the pickup Officers King and Smith were gunned down in the street before their murderer fled on a motorcycle. It took a force of approximately 300 of their fellow officers to chase down and finally apprehend the man responsible for the deaths of these brave and respected police officers. The other officer honored this year was gunned down in Hope, New Mexico approximately 108 years ago. At the time, Eddy County Deputy Sheriff Bud Johnson had traveled to Hope in order to serve a warrant on one L.E. Pratt in regard to an infraction over water control. According to the Eddy County Sheriff's Department, Pratt shot and killed Bud Johnson with a shotgun when he was notified of the warrant. Deputy Sheriff Johnson died immediately. Deputy Johnson's death shows us that the dangers of police work have been present throughout the long history of our Nation. All too recently, citizens of New Mexico mourned the loss of Deputy James McGrane, Jr., who was killed on March 22, 2006 during a traffic stop in Tijeras, NM. While we remember those who have lost their lives, we also take solace in the fact that many others have been able to survive the dangers of duty. Officer John Garcia, Officer Josh Otzenberger, Sergeant Carol Oleksak, Deputy Shaun Sanchez, and Sheriff's pilot Chris Holland were all shot during the past two years while protecting our communities. We are thankful that most of them survived these close brushes with death and were able to return to duty. We should remember their dedication to protect and serve, and the tragic price they paid for that devotion. We must also remember the families of all fallen officers and the sacrifices they have incurred because of a deep-seated commitment to duty and public service. All of us from New Mexico owe a debt of gratitude to each and every officer who has lost their lives in the line of duty. To all who have paid the ultimate price and to those who continue to serve, may we forever be grateful and never take for granted what you do. You have my utmost admiration.

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 May 22, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding nuclear power provisions contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send 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 Clint Williamson or Steve Waskiewicz. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the National Research Council report, Managing Construction and Infrastructure in the 21st Century Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Report, Managing for Excellence: An Action Plan for the 21st Century. 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 or Steve Waskiewicz.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to support affordable, adequate and accessible health insurance. We have a bill before the Senate, S. 1955, the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization Affordability Act of 2006. Chairman Enzi has worked very hard on this bill for many months now and I believe that it will help small business people who are struggling to afford health insurance for themselves, their employees, and their families. I hope that the Senate will pass this bill because the time for Congress to take action on this issue is long overdue. Most people in the U.S. who have health insurance obtain it through their employer or through a family member's employer as a workplace benefit. Small employers however are far less likely than larger employers to provide health insurance to their workers. In my home state of New Mexico, I am embarrassed to say that almost 25 percent of the citizens do not have health care. This is the second highest rate of uninsured in the country. Furthermore, there are approximately 143,909 small businesses in New Mexico, and of these small businesses, only about 37 percent of firms with fewer than 50 employees offer health insurance. For much smaller firms with five or less employees, the numbers are even more staggering; fewer than 50 percent of firms offer health insurance. This is unacceptable. Working people deserve better. The current realities of the insurance market make it much more difficult for a small business people to secure quality, affordable insurance. I believe that by allowing small businesses to band together, as this bill does, that economy of scale will be created and small businesses will be able to leverage their larger purchasing power to lower their health care costs. This would hopefully enable more employers to afford such coverage and ideally reduce the number of small firm workers without health insurance. It is a real first step to providing more access in a market where small business is currently struggling. Over the past few weeks, I have heard from many advocacy groups who are concerned with the way in which this bill addresses State benefit mandates. I understand these concerns and agree that widely accepted critical protections for patients must be preserved in any legislation the Senate ultimately adopts. That is why I have joined together with Senators Snowe, Byrd, and Talent to offer an amendment that would require small business health plans to comply with the benefits adopted by a majority of States. This amendment says if 26 States mandate it, than a small business health plan must comply with it. This amendment is a good and workable compromise that alleviates one of my primary concerns with the small business health plan bill. This compromise will help ensure that millions of Americans will continue to receive health care coverage for most areas, including mammograms, diabetes care and mental illnesses. It is vitally important that we pass a bill that will bring health insurance to employees of small businesses who currently are not covered without consequently diminishing coverage already offered in other areas. This amendment should make it easier for us to do so. It is time for the Senate to take action on this issue. The House of Representatives has passed this type of legislation multiple times. The American people are tired of excuses and they are tired of the status quo. They want to see change for the better. I again thank my colleague, Senator Enzi, the chairman of the HELP Committee for his hard work on this important issue. I have long said that something needs to be done to address the problem of the uninsured, and I have also said that I support the idea of legislation aimed at helping small business. I sincerely hope that the Senate will pass a bill that will allow small businesses to afford insurance for their employees.

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 May 15, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony relating to implementation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005's electricity reliability provisions. 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 Kellie Donnelly at (202) 224- 9360 or Shannon Ewan at (202) 224-7555. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been rescheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing originally scheduled for Thursday, May 11, 2006 at 10 a.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building will now be held on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 at 10 a.m. in the same room. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding the status of the Yucca Mountain Repository Project within the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management at the Department of Energy. 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 Clint Williamson at (202) 224-7556 or Steve Waskiewicz at (202) 228-6195.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Nelson of Nebraska to introduce the National Integrated Drought Information System Act of 2006. I would like to thank Senator Ben Nelson; his strong leadership and hard work on this bill has been key in bringing us forward on this important issue. Drought is a unique emergency situation; it creeps in unlike other abrupt weather disasters. Without a national drought policy we constantly live not knowing what the next year will bring. Unfortunately, when we find ourselves facing a drought, towns often scramble to drill new water wells, fires often sweep across bone dry forests and farmers and ranchers are forced to watch their way of life blow away with the dust. This year, my home State of New Mexico is facing a very real threat of devastating drought, as our snow pack was far below average. We must be vigilant and prepare ourselves for quick action as this next drought cycle begins. Better planning on our part could limit some of the damage felt by drought. I submit that this bill is the exact tool needed for facilitating better planning. This Act establishes the National Integrated Drought Information System within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to improve national drought preparedness, information collection and analysis. This information system collects and integrates information on key indicators of drought in order to make usable, reliable and timely drought forecasts and assessments. This information will be disseminated to federal, state, tribal and local decision makers in order to better prepare them for the effects of drought. The impacts of drought are also very costly. According to NOAA, there have been 12 different drought events since 1980 that resulted in damages and costs exceeding $1 billion each. In 2000, severe drought in the South-Central and Southeastern states caused losses to agriculture and related industries of over $4 billion. Western wildfires that year totaled over $2 billion in damages. The Eastern drought in 1999 led to $1 billion in losses. These are just a few of the statistics. On April 18, 2006, the Texas Agriculture Experiment Station predicted a dramatic decrease in water flows and reservoir storage throughout New Mexico. Early predictions indicate that river water supply will be at 54 percent due primarily to receiving half our annual snow pack and above average temperatures in my state. Additionally, several of our reservoirs are at severely diminished capacity. Specifically, the Elephant Butte, El Vado and Caballo reservoirs will all be below 10 percent of capacity by Labor Day. Several New Mexico communities have already begun to institute water restrictions in preparation for what is predicted to be one of the worst years on record. As this drought persists, I want to ensure each New Mexican that I am committed to doing everything possible to make sure they have the tools and information they need to make the best decisions. While drought affects the economic and environmental well-being of the entire nation, the United States has lacked a cohesive strategy for dealing with serious drought emergencies. As many of you know, the impact of drought emerges gradually rather than suddenly, as is the case with other natural disasters. I am pleased to be following through on what I started in 1997. The bill that we are introducing today is the next step in implementing a national, cohesive drought policy. The bill recognizes that drought is a recurring phenomenon that causes serious economic and environmental loss and that a national drought policy is needed to ensure an integrated, coordinated strategy.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Nelson of Nebraska to introduce the National Integrated Drought Information System Act of 2006. I would like to thank Senator Ben Nelson; his strong leadership and hard work on this bill has been key in bringing us forward on this important issue. Drought is a unique emergency situation; it creeps in unlike other abrupt weather disasters. Without a national drought policy we constantly live not knowing what the next year will bring. Unfortunately, when we find ourselves facing a drought, towns often scramble to drill new water wells, fires often sweep across bone dry forests and farmers and ranchers are forced to watch their way of life blow away with the dust. This year, my home State of New Mexico is facing a very real threat of devastating drought, as our snow pack was far below average. We must be vigilant and prepare ourselves for quick action as this next drought cycle begins. Better planning on our part could limit some of the damage felt by drought. I submit that this bill is the exact tool needed for facilitating better planning. This Act establishes the National Integrated Drought Information System within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to improve national drought preparedness, information collection and analysis. This information system collects and integrates information on key indicators of drought in order to make usable, reliable and timely drought forecasts and assessments. This information will be disseminated to federal, state, tribal and local decision makers in order to better prepare them for the effects of drought. The impacts of drought are also very costly. According to NOAA, there have been 12 different drought events since 1980 that resulted in damages and costs exceeding $1 billion each. In 2000, severe drought in the South-Central and Southeastern states caused losses to agriculture and related industries of over $4 billion. Western wildfires that year totaled over $2 billion in damages. The Eastern drought in 1999 led to $1 billion in losses. These are just a few of the statistics. On April 18, 2006, the Texas Agriculture Experiment Station predicted a dramatic decrease in water flows and reservoir storage throughout New Mexico. Early predictions indicate that river water supply will be at 54 percent due primarily to receiving half our annual snow pack and above average temperatures in my state. Additionally, several of our reservoirs are at severely diminished capacity. Specifically, the Elephant Butte, El Vado and Caballo reservoirs will all be below 10 percent of capacity by Labor Day. Several New Mexico communities have already begun to institute water restrictions in preparation for what is predicted to be one of the worst years on record. As this drought persists, I want to ensure each New Mexican that I am committed to doing everything possible to make sure they have the tools and information they need to make the best decisions. While drought affects the economic and environmental well-being of the entire nation, the United States has lacked a cohesive strategy for dealing with serious drought emergencies. As many of you know, the impact of drought emerges gradually rather than suddenly, as is the case with other natural disasters. I am pleased to be following through on what I started in 1997. The bill that we are introducing today is the next step in implementing a national, cohesive drought policy. The bill recognizes that drought is a recurring phenomenon that causes serious economic and environmental loss and that a national drought policy is needed to ensure an integrated, coordinated strategy.