Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish today to bring attention to the progress being made by the National Nuclear Security Administration, NNSA, on the front of global nuclear non-proliferation. Yesterday the NNSA announced that 176 pounds of highly enriched uranium, HEU, had been secured from the Nuclear Research Institute in Rez, Czech Republic and safely returned to Russia. With the cooperation of several countries, this nuclear fuel has been secured and returned to its country of origin, reducing the risk of it falling into the wrong hands.

Nuclear nonproliferation programs such as the NNSA's Global Threat Reduction Initiative, GTRI, are some of the most important tools we have to curb the threat of nuclear material being acquired by those who wish to do us harm. With the addition of this most recent shipment, the GTRI program has returned over 1300 pounds of HEU to Russia from civilian sites worldwide. I applaud the work being done through the GTRI, and I look forward to the day when we no longer have to be concerned with the possibility of an illicit acquisition of nuclear fuel.

Reserving the right to object, Madam President----

Madam President, I wanted to ask the Senator for whom the 30 minutes is being reserved, and the managers, if they would grant me 6 minutes before they start to inform the Senate about the status of a project that I think is vital and they should know about.

Madam President, first, I regret I had to ask for time in the middle of debate on such a serious subject. I will talk about an issue that is not related.

It looks to me as if the Senate, once again, will be forced to consider a tax package we know is likely to be vetoed. We considered an energy tax increase in June on the Senate floor, and the Senate rejected it. We considered an energy tax increase on the Senate floor last Friday, and the Senate rejected it. Now we will be forced again to consider what I understand is a $21 billion tax increase that is likely to be vetoed. I hope that, once again, the Senate will reject it.

But while we delay in playing these games, we jeopardize the passage of the CAFE standards and a real increase in much-needed renewable fuel standards should be able to be put to work, and we will be reshaping the flawed amendment that was sent to us by the House on that score.

I urge the majority to reconsider this attempt to force another vote on taxes, and that provision we have been told by the President will be vetoed.

I cannot answer the question why is it going to be vetoed, why can't we do it another way, why can't we negotiate, why can't we have part of the taxes. All I know is the President says: If you send me this tax bill, no matter how good it is, with $21 billion in taxes, it is dead; I will veto it.

I wish to tell my colleagues, I have been in this Senate for 36 years, and for 20 years of it, we have been trying to change the CAFE standards on automobile fleets in the United States. Increasing the CAFE standards to 35 miles by 2020 will be the biggest conservation initiative for transportation fuels in years.

Additionally, increasing the renewable fuel standard will bring thousands of jobs to rural America and help reduce our increasing dependence on foreign oil.

All this good work will be put at risk by the inclusion of the $21 billion tax increase. I urge my colleagues on the other side to stand back from this risky decision and let us pass a bill and send it to the House that does not include these taxes, and we will get one of the most important amendments we could ever do for saving transportation fuel.

Let me start over: The most important area where we abuse the use of fuel--that is, fuel that comes from crude oil--is in the transportation system. What we are trying to do is to modify the CAFE standards to force the production of higher mileage cars in the fleets of America.

We are told by the best expert in the world, who testified before one of the committees, there is nothing else we can do that will increase our savings of crude oil and diesel than this particular provision of CAFE modification.

I say to everyone, the fact is, you think you need taxes, you know you want taxes, you say when are you going to get these taxes, and you say they ought to be on this bill. I say to you: If you put them on this bill, you don't get the taxes and you don't get the big energy savings part of this bill. What do you say? You are going to do it anyway? What are you going to do it for? We might as well throw the bill in the basket here. We don't have to fool around and waste time. Put it in the basket and throw it away, because if you insist on putting the $21 billion on and sending it back to the House so they can play games, they will keep the $21 billion and then the President will say: I told you not to do it. Here it is. Goodbye.

I urge that the best opportunity to get major energy-saving legislation is with CAFE standards modification, and with it this other provision which will give us ethanol 2, which will be for rural America to begin producing not by corn but other than corn, producing ethanol for transportation fuel.

I believe I cannot say it any better. It is wasted time and effort to pass a bill with $21 billion worth of taxes. We will not get either the taxes, which will lose, and we will not get the energy savings portion.

I thank my colleagues for giving me an opportunity to speak to the Senate. I hope those proposing this legislation will understand it cannot be done. I cannot fix it. I cannot help it. It is the President. Who will get him to change his mind? He will not do it. I have asked him. He will not do it.

Mr. President, is an amendment in order or do I have to move to set aside an amendment in order to offer one?

I ask unanimous consent that it be set aside so that I may proceed with a different amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to call up amendment No. 3614.

Mr. President, I think there are a number of people who want to cosponsor this amendment, but I will handle those later--except for the two Senators who are here; I ask that they be original cosponsors at this time, as well as the distinguished Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig.

Mr. President, I will try to be as brief as I can. A couple of weeks back there was much talk about the need to keep only relevant amendments in order on this farm bill. While there was much left to interpretation of what exactly ``relevant amendments'' mean, there can be no question that the Senate should debate and vote on my amendment.

This farm bill is called the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007. I cannot think of an amendment more relevant to the economic security of the American farmer and energy security of the American people than an amendment to increase the renewable fuels standard. Since we passed the first ever renewable fuels standard in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, of which I was proud to be the floor manager and the leader, we have seen a surge in ethanol jobs and a surge in the construction of plants.

In 2006 alone the U.S. ethanol industry supported the creation of 160,000 new jobs while producing 5 billion gallons of ethanol. These are American farm jobs which help produce American fuels and help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We are not aware of this happening because we have a gigantic country. As for 160,000 new jobs and 5 billion gallons of ethanol being added to the American workplace, that is happening because of the gigantic disparity that has occurred in the cost of oil now versus a year and a half or two ago. That is why there is so much activity in foreign countries where we have seen a whole country saying: We are going to build a brand-new country from top up full of hotels and motels, banks, and the like. That is oil money. That is the disparity between the price of oil they are charging us now and what it was worth sometime ago, and all that left over is going into the hands of those who produce crude oil and sell it to us. We might as well understand that is not helping America.

People say: Well, it isn't hurting us yet. They still have--they are buying up our bonds. Well, I believe it is hurting us. I believe it is part of the crisis--problem with the dollar--not crisis yet. It is also part of the problem with the gross domestic product of the United States in that it is not going to be as buoyant in the future because so much of our basic wealth is going out of our country, and the price of oil that we are paying to whatever country produces it and sends it to us.

Now, what my amendment does is changes--sets an annual requirement for the amount of renewable fuels used in motor vehicles, homes, and boilers. It will require that our Nation use 8.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels in 2008 and progressively increasing to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Now, you understand wherever we use the words ``renewable fuel,'' that means something else other than the crude oil that I have just been talking about. It means it is getting produced here or under our control.

Beginning in 2016, an increasing portion of renewable fuel must be advanced biofuels. Beginning in 2016, increased cellulosic ethanol-- advanced biofuels include cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, and other fuels derived from unconventional biomass feedstocks, like sorghum. The required amount of advanced biofuels begins at 3 billion gallons in 2016 and increases to 21 billion gallons by 2022.

Advanced biofuels do not have many of the challenges that conventional ethanol does. The inclusion of advanced biofuels strikes a balance that will allow America to begin diversifying our fuel supply, both in the short term and the long term. That is why when supporting these same provisions in the Energy bill, the Renewable Fuels Association said they ``strike the right chord, `` noting that ``such an investment in our Nation's energy future promises to spur the creation of new, good-paying jobs'' across our land.

The amendment I seek to offer and that I have offered consists of the very same provisions that passed the Senate in June during consideration of the Energy bill--the then-Energy bill. That was not the Energy Policy Act. It was the next major bill. Some may ask, then: Why do I seek to offer the amendment on the farm bill? My answer is threefold.

One, it is clear that the Energy bill has slowed down, largely because the House has passed two major provisions--a tax increase and a renewable portfolio standard--that are untenable to many in the Senate, and they have slowed the bill down. They have brought forth a discussion from the President of the United States that is unequivocal; that if those two provisions are in the bill, he will veto the bill. That is the renewable portfolio standard and the tax increases that are in the House bill. They are not only untenable to the Senate, we ought to make the point over and over that they are untenable to the President.

So what good is it to have that bill and say we are going to do it or else? What is the ``or else?'' We are going to do nothing. We are going to pass something that will never become the law. I wish we could do something different so we would not have to adopt this Domenici amendment because it will be adopted on the other bill where it already lies and languishes.

Second, the House Energy bill in many respects weakens the renewable fuels standard in the Senate Energy bill. Besides, if the Senate makes progress on passing the Energy bill and getting it signed into law, there would be nothing to prevent a conference from simply removing this then unnecessary provision.

Third, this amendment is relevant to the farm bill and necessary now to reinvigorate an ethanol industry that is looking to Congress to extend this mandate as soon as possible.

Mr. President, in one sense, we have been a victim of our own success. Thanks to the 2005 Energy bill, rural America has answered the call for increased ethanol production. In fact, we have now exceeded the original mandated fuel in our fuel mix. For example, in 2006, the ethanol standard was 4 billion gallons. I think the two Senators on the floor played an active role in that and are fully aware of that. In fact, our domestic production of ethanol is 5 billion, far exceeding the billions of gallons we directed. We can do more, a lot more, and the American farmer is looking for Congress to do more.

Over the last year, the price of ethanol dropped nearly 40 percent. The reason for this is simple economics. We have an increased supply and diminished demand in the marketplace. As a result, the construction of new plants has been delayed, meaning new job growth has been diminished and rural communities are looking to us to take action. We cannot wait for the Energy bill while rural communities are losing their opportunities. This amendment is not simply just relevant to the farm bill, it is necessary.

I ask my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment. I further ask our leadership go to work today, which I am sure they will, and tomorrow on the Energy bill that went to the House. It was sent back to us not as a bill but rather as a message, and it does not do justice to the biofuels for energy. They ought to fix that and, at the same time, take the taxes out and take the 15-percent electricity mandate for alternative fuels.

I ask sincerely that our distinguished leader take the lead in that and see that gets done quickly.

I yield the floor and thank the Senators for letting me proceed.

Mr. President, I might say, first, to my side of the aisle, and any of those who are on our side, if you want to speak, just let me know. I have no reason to need all the time. If any of you would like to speak, I will be glad to yield.

With that out of the way, let me say it wasn't many months ago when this Senator believed, as a bill passed the U.S. Senate and went its way to the House, that because of some very courageous Senators we had finally reached a point where we could tame that voracious lion that was eating up all the oil that we could import in transportation, in automobiles, trucks, diesel trucks, and the like. We know that was the biggest guzzler of imported fuel oil that America had.

A committee on which I did not serve--nor did my chairman, Senator Bingaman serve on, although we were putting a bill together--the Committee on Commerce, headed by Senator Inouye and the ranking member, Senator Stevens, with Senators such as Trent Lott on it--they had a lot of courage. They decided to put on our bill as part of an energy bill the first major change in the fleet automobile standards for the United States. What courage that took and how happy many of us were that committee had finally done that.

Couple that with what had been done in the other committees in the Senate, including that which was done by the Energy Committee itself, and we put together a very exciting bill. It went to the U.S. House of Representatives as a bill that contained the provision I just spoke of. It contained a very large provision, a major provision--what I would call the ethanol 2 provision to save ethanol for the future, so it would not continue to have trouble, and then build on the next 15 years a major gigantic bill for further ethanol to be produced from other than corn. That bill was a giant bill, and it went to the House with some other small pieces. But no taxes were in that bill, and the proposal that we would mandate all of the States to have 15 percent of their electricity produced from alternative fuels was not in the bill.

It went to the House and there it sat. Senator Bingaman and I thought we were negotiating with the House over the months under a proposal that said the two of us represent the Senate, and we will sit down with the House Members and see, since we cannot have a conference--there was no way to get a conference on our bills because of objection in the Senate--we would sit down together and produce a bill based upon the bill that had left the Senate and clearly some of the things that had been done in the House. It was pretty clear we could get a great bill out of that and would have the same basic format that I just described.

After talking it through and getting to the point where we were ready to go, the House decided to go its own way and leave us standing. Then they used our bill which we had sent them, that was built around an Inouye bill--they used that to put together a bill that came through the House yesterday and is before us today.

The first thing that went awry is a Senator like myself, 35 years in the Senate--I had never been dealt with this way ever before in my time in the Senate, where I was asked to do something by a committee, we were in the process of doing it, and then a committee backs out and uses the work that was done by the working group, including this Senator, to produce a new bill.

That new bill is before us today, and it contains taxes which the President says he will veto--and he sent us the message. The message is here: If those taxes are on this bill when it arrives at his desk, all our work will have been for naught. If the provision for mandatory electric alternatives, the 15 percent mandated across the land, or 15 minus 4, as it sometimes is used--the President said if that is in there he will veto the bill. So we could waste our time or we could do something meaningful. Today we are starting down a

path, trying to do something meaningful.

We worked very hard to see if we can't gather up more than 40 Senators who will vote with us so we will not impose cloture on this message. I say to my fellow Senators, please understand, there is no bill before us. It is a message, and there is a very big difference between a bill and a message. I had almost forgotten about it because I don't think I managed a message very many times in 35 years. But a message has a lot of nuances to it that are different: the number of amendments, the frequency that you can have amendments, and a whole lot of things.

Senators will wake up next week and find that many amendments they would try to offer are shut out because of the number of amendments you can offer because of the rules that apply to messages. I want them all to understand I am not promising anybody they can get amendments in if they win this vote today on my side. We will have to follow the rules and see what we can do. But we stand this close to getting the most important Energy bill, from the standpoint of conservation of crude oil products--gasoline, for instance, and diesel fuel--we stand just the distance between Senator Bingaman and me away from getting that kind of bill.

What we must do is not fly in the face of reality. Reality says you cannot put taxes on this bill. The Senate already defeated the taxes that were on this bill. We all remember that day. We voted and took the taxes out of the Energy bill that Senator Bingaman and I were operating under. The taxes went.

In addition, we did not put on that bill what is now being called the alternative energy tax or some such thing. What it means is the electric utilities across the land out in the future are going to have to use 15 percent alternative fuel to coal. That is tough. That is a tough one to do. If that is on the bill, because it is harmful to the economy, a one-shoe-fits-all philosophy should not work, will not work. The President of the United States, through his operatives, has told us he will veto the bill.

Senators, I hope you vote with us and do not impose cloture. Then I hope the majority leader and the minority leader and Senator Bingaman and Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens and myself, and whoever otherwise properly fits, will sit down together and work this out as to how we modify this bill that is before us--which is not a good bill now, but it can be turned into a great bill with some work--could be sent back to the House, and in no time we could tell the American people we have finally done something extraordinary for them.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, this doesn't mark the end of this bill. This marks the beginning of completing a process in the Senate so we will have a bill that can be signed and that will be an excellent bill for the American people. That means we have to go to work in trying to fix some of the problems the House bill has generated for us.

First of all, we are talking about ethanol II, the successor to the ethanol bill we passed, which includes a very hopeful future for wheat and the kinds of things that are going to go into the thing that follows ethanol. We cannot accomplish them, it seems to us, with what they have in this bill. We have to look at that and see what we can do to fix it. In addition, we have to do something about both taxes and the mandatory 15 percent that is required for electric generation in this bill. We have to look at that and others.

I hope this sends a signal so Senator Bingaman and I--he as chairman and I as ranking member--can work with everybody who has concerns and put together an amendment we can offer that sends this bill back to the House, corrected and fixed, where it can become law and where it is more to the accomplishment of what we expected when we passed the bill in the Senate.

I note the presence of Senator Bingaman. I hope he concurs. Our staffs ought to go to work and have something by Monday, I hope.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to speak for a moment in remembrance of the 66th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor and pay tribute to all the Americans who lost their lives that day.

On December 7, 1941, our Nation was brutally attacked at Pearl Harbor, and over 2,400 Americans were killed. Though surprised and overwhelmed by wave after wave of Japanese planes, the members of our armed forces valiantly defended their ships, the naval base and the surrounding army air fields.

I believe Pearl Harbor will all always hold a prominent place in the history of the United States, not only for the destruction that day which triggered our entry into the Second World War, but as a shining example of American heroism and courage in the face of adversity. I know Americans will never forget the American servicemen and women who were at Pearl Harbor 66 years ago today.

One of those servicemen was John Anderson of Roswell, NM. John had only recently been assigned to the USS Arizona along with his twin brother Jake when the Japanese attacked on December 7. Though burned himself, John worked to rescue other survivors from the badly damaged and sinking Arizona until the small boat he and other servicemen were using to pull drowning men from the water of the harbor was also sunk. Terribly, 1,177 sailors from the Arizona, including John's brother Jake, did not survive.

John went on to serve 35 years in the Navy, marry his wife, Karolyn, have three sons and later become the long time weatherman for KBIM-TV in Roswell. I would like to thank John for his brave service and would like to personally honor all the New Mexicans like Jake Anderson who fought and lost their lives that day.

Pearl Harbor, of course, was just the beginning of several long years of war during which millions of Americans would answer the call of duty. I would like to take this opportunity to mention the service and sacrifice of two such groups of individuals.

One of these groups is the Navajo Code Talkers, many of whom were from my home State. The Code Talkers were marines who used their native language to quickly transmit messages

across the battlefields of the Pacific Theater and served in every Marine division from 1942 to the end of the war. Though the Japanese were able to break many American codes during the war, they were never able to decipher the system used by the Code Talkers. Their contribution to victory cannot be underestimated. There is no doubt that their efforts saved countless American lives, and it has even been said that without the Code Talkers the battle of Iwo Jima could not have been won.

I would also like to talk about the soldiers of the 200th and 515th Coastal Artillery units of the New Mexico National Guard, also known as the New Mexico Brigade, who soon after the attack on Pearl Harbor played a prominent and heroic role in the fierce fighting in the Philippines. For 4 months the men of the New Mexico Brigade helped hold off the Japanese only to be defeated by disease, starvation and a lack of ammunition. Sadly, the survivors of the Battle of Bataan from the New Mexico Brigade were subjected to the horrors and atrocities of the 65 mile ``Death March,'' as well as years of hardship and forced labor in Japanese prisoner of war camps. Tragically, of the 1,800 men of the New Mexico Brigade more than 900 never returned home.

In closing, I hope New Mexicans will take a moment to honor the individuals who fought so gallantly 66 years ago today as well as all those who served throughout the Second World War, and remember those who paid the ultimate price for our Nation.

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

What is the regular order?

Ten minutes of debate left, 5 on each side?

If Senators are not here to use it, they can yield it back so we can vote, can't they?

Oh, sorry. I was in the same position. I wanted to go, they have to come. We have to yield to them.

Mr. President, I just want to say that I have no objection. I wish to comment on the Energy bill. It has been a long time getting here, and it still is not finished. There are provisions of that Energy bill that, if passed, will be superb for the people of this country. It is too bad the bill is laden now with two provisions that we did not have in our bill, that we did not contemplate. We will have to work our way and see what happens. They are serious. They are serious enough to cause the President to veto the bill. I am hopeful we will be able to find our way to get those two provisions out--the tax provision and the provision with reference to mandatory 15-percent alternative energy fuels in our States. Those two are very difficult. If we keep any of them in, our work is going to be for naught.

So I hope everybody understands the situation. It will be an excellent bill without those provisions, and there may be a few other cleanup provisions we need in the House bill. We will work on them in the next few days.

I thank the leaders.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to recognize MAJ Thomas A. Rogers, Jr. of the U.S. Air Force for the exceptional work he rendered this past year while serving as a legislative fellow on my staff. Major Rogers is completing his Capitol Hill fellowship this month, and it is my hope that he has benefited as much from this experience as have I from having him on my staff.

In 1995, after his graduation from the Washington University Law School in St. Louis, Major Rogers received his commission in the U.S. Air Force. Since that time Major Rogers has served at base legal offices from Korea to Germany, as an area defense counsel, as the deputy chief, plans and requirements, Air Force Legal Information Services, and as an instructor at the Air Force Judge Advocate General School. Major Rogers has also deployed to Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan in

support of the global war on terror. Major Rogers has received numerous awards and commendations during his service including the Bronze Star and the Air Force Meritorious Service Medal. He was also honored in 2005 as the 20th Air Force Outstanding Young Judge Advocate.

Mr. President, I want to give my heartfelt thank you to Thom for his service. His eagerness to tackle issues which were new to him and to advance the goals I have set for my staff on behalf of both the men and women of the Armed Forces and the citizens of New Mexico were truly commendable. I have no doubt that as Thom continues his military career, he will achieve great things for both the U.S. Air Force and his country, and I wish him the very best of luck in all his future endeavors.

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

Mr. President, how much time remains?

I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. President, I rise late in the debate because I know it is an important issue, and I find myself wanting to say to the people of Peru that this Senator who comes from the State of New Mexico, where almost half our people speak Spanish--a commonality between our two countries--would expect that I show the appropriate concern for the people whom this treaty will benefit. That is why I am here. It is entirely proper that the United States show more concern and more consideration and have more relationships of mutual benefit with the countries of Central and South America, without a doubt.

I would like to have a few words from this Senator spread on the record to show that with what I have said, I concur. With this treaty, be it not the best because those who look at it from the standpoint of the best find fault here and there, it is as good as we are going to get and we ought to approve it. My vote will show up in favor, and that will be because I understand it. I understand what it means, and I am for the principles and the expected effect of this treaty.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today's Washington Post Science section contains an excellent summary on the work America is doing to develop the fastest computers in the world and the benefits to all of us from such computers.

The headline on the story, ``Faster Computers Accelerate Pace of Discovery,'' captures today and hints at tomorrow for science, using computers that have processing speeds of more than a thousand trillion calculations per second. That speed is known as a petaflop, in computer science speak.

I am proud that the first petaflop computer in the world is likely to be at Los Alamos National Laboratory in my home State of New Mexico. Working in conjunction with IBM, LANL's ``Roadrunner'' computer holds out the promise of immense advances in almost every aspect of scientific inquiry.

In the area of nuclear weapons, for example, computing power increases are critical. Two decades ago, this Nation decided to stop underground testing of nuclear weapons. Yet the necessity of certifying the reliability and performance of our nuclear stockpile remains. How could we do away with underground testing and still have the three weapons lab directors certify to the President that our weapons were safe and reliable. We decided to adopt a program called Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship. Essentially, we decided to simulate a nuclear weapons explosion using computer power. Clearly, America needed more computing power when we made this decision. ``Roadrunner'' is an important step toward making sure that our nuclear stockpile will work if ever needed.

One of the most interesting uses of this enormous computer power is modeling climate change. It is ironic that many of those who oppose additional funding for the national laboratories want a more aggressive stance on the question of climate change and ways to ameliorate it, are the same people who support a House-passed Energy and Water Appropriations bill that would reject more funding for ``Roadrunner.''

Mr. President, we are in the middle of negotiations on the Energy and Water appropriations bill right now. Adoption of the House-passed bill will not only set back our work on computing power and climate change but will be a disaster for certification of the reliability of our nuclear weapons. I hope that all Members of Congress will read today's article in the Washington Post to get an idea of what is at stake as we set policy in the future.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I celebrate the 100th birthday of Las Cruces, NM. Being the second largest city in New Mexico, Las Cruces has a lot to be proud of and a lot to celebrate.

Before New Mexico became a State, Las Cruces was making its mark on the world. When it was founded in 1907 as a small railroad town, no one could have foreseen what a major metropolitan area it would become in the southern part of my State. Being sheltered by the Organ Mountains to the east, and the Rio Grande River on the west, Las Cruces boasts 350 days of sunshine a year making it one of AARP's Top 5 Places To Retire. The city also has continued to receive the title of Best Small Metro Area for Business Careers from the Forbes/Milken Institute.

Las Cruces, English translation is ``the crosses,'' is home to the second largest university in New Mexico, New Mexico State University, with a student population of 26,000. NMSU continues to grow and improve upon the various programs and degrees they offer. This university is vital to the strength of Las Cruces. The Dona Ana Community College is located here as well. Their student population is over 4,000 strong. Las Cruces also hosts the nationally acclaimed annual Whole Enchilada Festival. The festival attracts over 40,000 visitors each year. Because of this annual event, Las Cruces holds the Guinness Book of World Records for the world's largest flat enchilada.

Las Cruces has seen a giant explosion in population over the last decade. They have grown from just over 74,000 residents in 2000 to around 87,000 residents in 2006. And the boom in population shows no signs of stopping in the near future. Small and large industries continue to see this budding town as a great place to do business. While it is hard to point to just one industry that has caused the extreme growth, Las Cruces continues to do what it does best, be consistent in its offerings.

To celebrate their 100th birthday, Las Cruces has planned to serve a piece of cake to every resident. They might also make the Guinness Book of World Records for the largest sheet cake after the celebration! The city is planning on cutting this cake at the culmination of an all-day festival at the Downtown Mall. The festival will include live entertainment all day with various acts to include a mariachi band, craft fair, and theatre performances at the Rio Grande Theatre.

Las Cruces has so much to be proud of, and I congratulate them on their 100th birthday. May they celebrate many more. Que Viva Las Cruces muchos mas anos!

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes on the override.

I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senate.

I came here to just spread the Record with a couple of minutes of my observations about the WRDA bill and to suggest that the President of the United States made a mistake. This bill should not have been vetoed. This bill is totally an authorizing bill.

Now, I don't want to say he made a mistake and then talk technical language that nobody understands, but in the Congress, we have a way of spending money. We have a way of spending money called appropriations, and we have a way of spending money that is an entitlement, such as Social Security or veterans' pensions, and then we have another way where we just authorize a program to be funded later, if at all--to be funded later, maybe--and that is an authorization bill.

This WRDA bill is the result of a 7-year effort on the part of the committee of jurisdiction to put together a composite of all of the public works projects from around the country so that when somebody seeks to get them funded, they can say they have been authorized by the Congress. However, that doesn't mean they will ever get funded. If we don't have enough money, the programs that are included in WRDA won't get funded, and if they get funded, there will be an opportunity for a President to veto a bill that contains the money, the expenditures.

So as I see it--now I am speaking to the President of the United States, not my friend in the chair--Mr. President: You should have talked to some of us who have been here and who would have told you that no matter what numbers you put down on this bill, we don't spend any money unless and until we appropriate it, and we may never appropriate it. Many bills are authorized and the Congress never gets around to saying we have enough money to pay for them.

So I am going to vote to override the President so we will have this authorizing bill called WRDA on the books for those projects that from time to time Members will say to the Appropriations Committee: It is time to spend money for this and it is time to spend money for that, or the appropriators may say: We don't have enough money for any of it.

For instance, in my State of New Mexico, there is a provision for a park along the Rio Grande River where we have a greenbelt of sorts, and it will be a rather startling park for the city of Albuquerque if it is ever done. But it may never get done. It is just authorized by the WRDA bill after years of work. My office worked very hard on that program for a long time, and we were fortunate to get it in this bill, and maybe someday we will get to fund it.

So I say to the President of the United States: I assume you understand you will get overridden on this bill, and I would assume rather handsomely. Many of us would listen to you if you are talking about spending too much money, but this one is not that; it isn't spending too much money because it doesn't spend any money. It may never spend any money. But when it does, those will be the opportunities for vetoes or for people to argue that you are spending too much.

I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senate for listening.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President. I would like to take a moment to commemorate Veterans Day and honor all those who have served, fought, and sacrificed for our country and the freedom all Americans enjoy.

We as a nation should never forget the debt we owe to the generations of Americans who have served as soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. From the First and Second World Wars, to Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf war, millions of Americans have answered the call of duty to preserve the freedom we all hold so dear. This is also true for our service men and women who are right now doing an amazing job in Iraq and the war on terror and throughout the world.

Sadly, many Americans have paid the ultimate price and have given their lives for our country. No praise can be too great for the courage, valor, and patriotism of these men and women, and their sacrifice will never be forgotten.

I think it is also important to remember the service of veterans to our country has never ended with their departure from the Armed Forces. They have enriched every community in which they reside with their strength of character, hard work, and devotion to family. For this we must also be grateful.

On this Veterans Day, I hope New Mexicans will honor all the veterans of our great Nation, but I would like them to think particularly about our service men and women who are right this moment in harm's way. They, like all veterans, have left behind the comfort of home, family, and friends to defend our country and its countless blessings. For this, many have paid an immense price, emotionally and physically. I know our thoughts and prayers are with these outstanding individuals.

Again, I would like to thank all those who have served past and present to preserve and protect our great Nation.

No objection. How many minutes? Two?

No objection.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I am to be followed by Senator Thune, who has 15 minutes, is that correct?

I ask unanimous consent that it be the case.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to discuss the process under which we consider this bill that has been set forth by the majority leader earlier. I also want to discuss a critical issue facing our farmers. I do not want to belabor the point that has been made by our distinguished Republican leader, Senator McConnell, and by Senator Gregg about the importance of an open amendment process, but I do want to add some context, if I might.

I understand it is the majority's prerogative to fill the amendment tree, and it has been done by leaders of both parties in the past. However, I wanted to go on record about the potential serious danger of this process. Earlier, the majority leader stated that only amendments that are relevant to the farm bill will be allowed to be offered and voted on.

Well, I cannot think of any amendment more relevant to the economic security of the American farmer than an amendment to increase the renewable fuel standard. I am very hopeful the amendment will meet the test the leader has made for amendments. I don't know yet whether it will, but I think before I am finished and before other speakers are heard, it should be quite obvious that there is no amendment that could be offered that is more important to rural America and the farmers than this one.

Since we passed the first ever renewable fuels standard in the Energy Policy Act of 2005--and the occupant of the chair was a member of the committee that wrote it--bipartisan--and played a very vital role in a number of its provisions--since that Energy Policy Act, we have seen a surge in ethanol jobs and a surge in the construction of ethanol plants. I think we all know that. In 2006 alone, the ethanol industry supported the creation of 160,000 new jobs, while producing 5 billion gallons of ethanol. These are American farm jobs which help produce American fuels and help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It seems to me the relevance of ethanol is asked and answered.

My bipartisan amendment would set annual requirements for the amount of renewable fuels used in motor vehicles, homes, and boilers. It would require that our Nation use 8.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels in 2008 and progressively increase to 36 billion gallons by 2022.

My amendment will help the ethanol industry right now by doubling the current ethanol mandate from 7.5 billion gallons in 2009 to 15 billion gallons by 2015. That will ensure that America will be using the additional ethanol that farmers are producing.

Beginning in 2016, an increasing portion of the renewable fuels must be advanced biofuels. Advanced biofuels include cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, and other fuels derived from unconventional biomass feedstocks such as sorghum. The required amount of advanced biofuels begins at 3 billion gallons in 2016 and increases to 21 billion by 2022.

I want to depart from my text and talk a minute with the Presiding Officer and any other Senators who are listening. This amendment is part of the so-called Senate Energy bill passed in June. It has three major parts, and this is one part of it. This is one that has a lot to do with ethanol, but it was part of the Energy bill we passed and took a lot of pride in. Since then, the House passed a bill. The House passed two bills on energy. Their bills were, for all intents and purposes, completely different than the Senate's bill. We have been totally unsuccessful in moving anything in the direction of getting either our bill or their bill moving toward a bicameral solution in conference or by agreement between the two Houses through appropriate people. That is not occurring. There is lots of talk but no action. Pretty soon we will be giving the excuse for doing nothing for the ethanol prices--we will be saying, wait another month and we will get this agreement with the House. The Senate-passed bill will somehow get negotiated out with the House, with somebody, somehow, sometime, even though they don't have any provision in their bill that is like the one I am talking about.

This amendment is in our bill--the bill of the Senate--that we worked so hard on. It is the one the President talked about in his State of the Union Address, as the occupant of the chair might remember. Cellulosic was what everybody talked about: In about 2 years we break that R&D requirement and we are ready to go with the most critical new fuel--cellulosic. Now we sit and say, let's not do anything. I am kind of prejudging what some will say tomorrow when this amendment, which will be filed at the desk and which is nothing more than the Energy bill that was passed with all of the amendments that were adopted, that was subtitle B, the biofuels for energy security and transportation as part of the Energy bill--it is now an amendment I am asking to be attached to the farm bill. I think it should meet the leader's test where he said it has to be something that is strongly related to agriculture or he isn't going to consider it. Considering things such as perhaps the Lugar bill, which is highly touted as a substitute--it won't pass, but it will be permitted to be offered as an amendment, I assume.

This amendment is very important. We could get out of here in December and not have an agreement with the House on this energy bill. I repeat: They don't have this provision in their bill. They are going to have to accept a whole new approach. Energy security and transportation through biofuels is part of the three components of the bill, of the big bill we are talking about. We would have to find some way for the House to accommodate all three of the big sections, because they have none of them. They don't have this one. They don't have CAFE, on which our fellow committee members on Commerce worked very hard. They don't have CAFE in theirs. They don't have this provision, and they don't have the very large provision we have in ours with reference to maintenance and security, reducing the costs of various fuel products. So it is not going to be easy to get that. It would be very easy--if the majority leader agrees tomorrow, it would be very easy to adopt this amendment and, eventually, if the agriculture bill passes and goes right over to the House, and they have no alternative--they have to go to conference with a farm bill that is going to be very popular and it is going to have this provision on it, and it is very popular. As my colleagues know, if it were freestanding and didn't have any of the problems of: Does it belong on this bill, which I think is an irrelevant statement--we shouldn't be talking about that--it belongs on this bill, we are going to make up a rule if we don't let it come on here. It fits; it is germane;

it is relevant. Any words we have used historically for amendments, it is that.

Now, beginning in 2016, an increasing portion of renewable fuels must be advanced biofuels, which must include cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, and other fuels derived from unconventional biomass feedstocks, such as sorghum. The required amount of advanced biofuels begins at 3 billion gallons in 2016 and increases to 21 billion by 2022.

Advanced biofuels do not have many of the challenges that conventional ethanol does. The inclusion of advanced biofuels strikes a balance that will allow America to begin diversifying our fuel supply in a very short term and in the long term.

That is why, when supporting these same provisions in the Energy bill, the Renewable Fuels Association said that they ``strike the right chord''--that is what this does--noting that ``such an investment in our Nation's energy future promises to spur the creation of new, good- paying jobs across the country.''

This amendment consists of the very same provisions passed by the Senate in June as we considered the Energy bill. Some may ask, then, why do I seek to offer this amendment to the farm bill? I have already told you my answer. Repeating, first, the Energy bill is languishing largely because the House has very different provisions, and we have no way of going to conference. We are not in conference. We are negotiating in some way. People are talking. Committees are talking, but nothing is agreed upon by anyone as to the process or procedure. Certainly, we have to have that bipartisan. It will not pass if it comes here from the House and doesn't have some Republican input. I assume it will come from people such as me, as ranking member of one of the committees, or maybe Senator Stevens, who would have to be part of it if it were to have a real chance.

The second reason is this amendment is relevant to the farm bill. It is necessary now to reinvigorate the ethanol industry, and that industry and everything that makes it up is looking to Congress to extend this mandate as soon as possible.

In one sense, we have been a victim of our own success. Thanks to the 2005 Energy bill, rural America has answered the call for increased ethanol production. In fact, we have now exceeded the original mandated amount in our fuel mix. For example, in 2006, the ethanol standard was 4 billion gallons and, in fact, our domestic production of ethanol was 5 billion gallons. We can do more and the American farmer is looking for Congress to do more.

Over the last year, the price of ethanol has dropped nearly 40 percent. The reason for this is simple economics. We have an increased supply and diminished demand in the marketplace. As a result the construction of new plants has been delayed meaning new job growth has been diminished and rural communities are looking to us to take action. We cannot wait for a languishing energy bill while rural communities are losing their opportunities. This amendment is not simply relevant to the farm bill, Mr. President. It is necessary.

This matter will come back. It will be filed sometime tomorrow, or the next day, depending on when the leader will talk to me on the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senator Kennedy, Senator Leahy, and Senator Specter to introduce the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007. This bill will reauthorize and improve several programs intended to provide Federal support for collaborations between criminal justice and mental health systems.

It is estimated that approximately 16 percent of adult U.S. jail and prison inmates suffer from mental illness and the numbers are even higher in the juvenile justice system. Many of these individuals are not violent or habitual criminals. Most have been charged or convicted of nonviolent crimes that are a direct consequence of not having received needed treatment and supportive services for their mental illness.

The presence of defendants with mental illnesses in the criminal justice system imposes substantial costs on that system and can cause significant harm to defendants. In response to this problem, a number of communities around the country are implementing mental health courts, a specialty-court model that utilizes a separate docket, coupled with regular judicial supervision, to respond to individuals with mental illnesses who come in contact with the justice system.

This past spring, I visited the courtroom of Judge Michael Vigil in the First Judicial Court of Santa Fe, NM. Judge Vigil operates a mental health court that helps individuals who have been involved in nonviolent crimes that do not involve weapons and who have been diagnosed with a mental illness. It is a 14-month program that attempts to keep defendants with mental illness out of jail. The court meets every Friday for about an hour. Defendants are required to attend individually designed therapy sessions, take their medications, and submit to random drug tests and breathalyzer tests. The appearances before Judge Vigil are akin to ``check-ups'' to make sure the defendant is on course, taking his or her medications, and that the defendant is in good health. If a participant violates the rules, they are sanctioned. If the violations are serious enough, the defendant can be removed from the program and sentenced to jail.

The day I visited Judge Vigil's court, I witnessed a participant graduate from the program. I spoke with the defendant and his mother after the hearing. They told me how this program

had helped turn his life around. Participation in this program had kept him out of jail and more importantly helped him access treatment, housing, and other critical supports. By addressing the mental illness that contributed to his criminal act, this man received the services he needed to hopefully prevent him from repeating his crime or committing a more serious crime. Furthermore, the program helped reduce the burden on the judicial system allowing for resources to be focused on violent criminals.

Many communities are not prepared to meet the comprehensive treatment and needs of individuals with mental illness when they enter the criminal justice system. The bill we are introducing today is intended to help provide resources to help States and counties design and implement collaborative efforts between criminal justice and mental health structures. The bill will reauthorize the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction grant program and reauthorize the Mental Health Courts Program. It will create a new grant program to help law enforcement identify and respond to incidents involving persons with mental illness and it will fund a study and report on the prevalence of mentally ill offenders in the criminal justice system. All of these reforms will help to address this problem from both a public safety and a public health point of view. This will help save taxpayers money, improve public safety, and link individuals with the treatment they need to become productive members of their community.

Certainly, not every crime committed by an individual diagnosed with a mental illness is attributable to their illness or to the failure of public mental health. Mental health courts are not a panacea for addressing the needs of the growing number of people with mental illnesses who come in contact with the criminal justice system. But they should be one part of the solution. Evidence has shown that in communities where mental health and criminal justice interests work collaboratively on solutions it can make a significant impact in fostering recovery, improving treatment outcomes and decreasing recidivism.

I want to thank my good friends for working with me on this very important issue. I appreciate their commitment to advancing these important programs and I look forward to working with them to pass this legislation this Congress.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

There geing no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows.