Floor Statements

Mr. President, late last night we voted on amendment No. 1151 offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe. The disposition of this amendment can be seen in the Record under rollcall vote No. 198. I was allowed to speak for 1 minute prior to this rollcall vote; however, I wish to extend my remarks in order to fully explain my stance on this important issue.

Let me begin by stating emphatically that I fully support English as the official language of the United States. However, I cannot vote in favor of an amendment that would eliminate rights that currently are reserved for my constituents under the New Mexico Constitution. We must be cautious before we act and it is the devil in the details of the amendment that was placed before the Senate, which would chill and infringe on the constitutional rights of our diverse citizenship and would stand in direct contradiction to the constitution of my home State of New Mexico that makes this amendment overreaching.

Most people do not know that Congress delayed New Mexico's admission to statehood until speakers of English became the majority of the State. To underline the point, the New Mexico Enabling Act required that the public schools be conducted in English and that ``ability to read, write, speak and understand English without an interpreter . . . be a necessary qualification for all state officers and members of the state legislature.'' However, in 1911 the U.S. Supreme Court found that Congress could not place such conditions on newly admitted States and removed the English language restriction from the New Mexico Enabling Act.

Thereafter, New Mexico adopted its State Constitution which contains important guarantees of the rights of Spanish speakers, including the right to vote, hold office, and sit on juries. Specifically, the New Mexico Constitution states ``[t]he right of any citizen of the state to vote, hold office or sit upon juries, shall never be restricted, abridged or impaired on account of religion, race, language or color, or inability to speak, read or write the English or Spanish languages except as may be otherwise provided in this constitution . . .''

Moreover, the New Mexico Constitution requires public school teachers to be trained in both English and Spanish to ensure that Spanish- speaking students are properly taught the English language. Coupled with this constitutional provision is another constitutional right that ensures children of Spanish descent are entitled to a public education.

This amendment would not amend the New Mexico Constitution. I mentioned this only to point out another New Mexico constitutional provision that requires all ballots that would amend the New Mexico Constitution be printed in both English and Spanish. The Spanish influence in my home State dates so far back that for the first 20 years of New Mexico's statehood, all laws passed by the State legislature were required to be printed in both English and Spanish.

I am always interested to hear others discuss their family histories, some of which date back at least 200 years in this country. However, I think that there is a misconception that the adoption of an official language is strictly in response to illegal immigrants. That is not true. The declaration of an official language directly impacts the history, customs, and traditions of our American families. The family histories that can be heard throughout New Mexico date back over 400 years. These are not illegal immigrants; these are the first inhabitants of the land that is now called New Mexico.

Mr. President, while I fully support English as the official language of the United States, I will not support a proposal that would cast in doubt the laws and rights afforded to all of the citizens of New Mexico.

Mr. President, I wish to discuss why I voted against cloture this morning on S. 1348, the border security and immigration reform bill currently being debated by the Senate.

As a border State Senator, I know first hand the need to secure our international borders because every day I hear from constituents who must deal with illegal entries into our country. We have a crisis on our borders and the status quo is not acceptable. I support many of the provisions in S. 1348 because we must address this border crisis. However, I was forced to vote no on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 1348 because Democrats are refusing to allow votes on amendments to the legislation on the Senate floor.

More than 300 amendments have been filed to this bill. Only about 10 percent of those amendments have been dealt with. Clearly the Senate, which is known for its deliberative nature, has not had an adequate opportunity to improve upon this bill on the floor. What's more, this bill did not go through the committee process and so there was no opportunity to improve the bill there.

I was here in 1977 and 1978 when the Senate debated the Natural Gas Policy Act. That debate went on for weeks and hundreds of amendments were considered. There is no reason to avoid that process in this situation. The issues of border security and immigration are some of the most important issues facing America today, and those issues deserve full and fair debate.

The Democrats' refusal to allow votes on amendments means that my amendments, which are very important to New Mexico, the southwest border, and the Nation, cannot be considered. Those amendments would have provided two more Federal judges in New Mexico to deal with immigration cases, ensured that small businesses have access to temporary workers they need, provided more personnel for Federal land agencies that must help secure Federal land on the international border, allowed New Mexico to reap the economic benefits of Mexican nationals coming legally to the United States for a short period of time for tourism and travel, called for Mexico's cooperation on border security and border crime, addressed the lack of law enforcement radio coverage on remote parts of the international border, strengthened and improved the Border Patrol Academy at Artesia, NM, and called for coordination between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense on aerial surveillance efforts along the border.

My amendments are based on needs that are imperative to border security, and many of them were suggested specifically by New Mexicans to help New Mexico. I would like to discuss a few of those amendments in more detail.

First, I have heard from many Federal judges from the District of New

Mexico and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals about the crisis New Mexico faces from an overloaded immigration docket. Seventy-one percent of Federal criminal cases filed in New Mexico are immigration cases. This is the highest percentage of immigration cases anywhere in the United States, and New Mexico needs more judges to handle that caseload. Unfortunately, I was not allowed to address this crisis by offering an amendment to S. 1348 that would have provided New Mexico with two new Federal judges.

Second, I have heard from New Mexico small businesses about their need for temporary workers in the food processing, construction, oil and gas, and restaurant industries. These small businesses were concerned that they would not have access to the temporary workers they need under S. 1348 as it is written, so I offered an amendment to set aside a number of temporary worker visas to only be used by small businesses. Unfortunately, I was not allowed to address New Mexico small businesses' needs.

Third, some of the land on New Mexico's international border is Federal land. The Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and Park Service are working with the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, to secure these lands, but these Federal land agencies need more personnel to work on these issues. I offered an amendment to provide this personnel, but that amendment has not been considered.

Fourth, remote parts of the New Mexico/Mexico border do not have radio coverage, which prevents DHS and law enforcement from communicating. I have filed an amendment that would enhance radio communications capabilities in these areas, but this amendment has not been considered.

Fifth, New Mexico is at an economic disadvantage over neighboring border states because there are no border towns in New Mexico that Mexican nationals can access when they legally enter the U.S. on a laser visa. This is because such nationals can only travel 25 miles into New Mexico. I have filed an amendment to expand the limit laser visa holders can travel into New Mexico so that laser visa holders can legally visit Las Cruces and other towns near the New Mexico/Mexico border. Unfortunately, this amendment, which would bring economic benefits to southern New Mexico, has not been considered.

The refusal of Democrats to allow consideration of these and my other amendments is nothing short of irresponsible behavior towards the security of America and the needs of New Mexico, and I cannot support cloture on S. 1348 without assurances that these measures will be considered.

Additionally, many of the provisions that I have supported in S. 1348 have been amended to the point that the bill no longer has its initial impact. For example, the temporary worker program that is critical to so many industries in my State does not meet those industries' needs. Further, the bill as amended calls into question some laws and customs of my home State.

Because of Democrats' refusal to consider important amendments to this bill, we will not see any of the comprehensive border security improvements that New Mexico and other border States desperately need, and I could not be more disappointed.

I support efforts to address border security and immigration reform legislation, and I applaud Senators Kyl, Kennedy, Specter, Salazar, Martinez, Graham, and others who have worked long and hard on this bill. However, I cannot support cloture on the bill at this time.

Mr. President, I came to the floor tonight for a few moments to talk about the significance of the bill that is before us and the work that has been done by Senators and a couple of Cabinet members and great staff.

The American people have been telling us for many years that we are confronted with a problem that is apt to destroy our land, destroy our country, destroy our values, and that problem is that we have an inability to control our borders. We have illegal immigrants who come across our borders by the thousands who are, for the most part, interested in jobs. But after some of them get here and their jobs are procured, there are other things they bring with them or do here that make the American people very worried about our future.

I, for one, as a Senator of long standing, grow more worried every year as to whether we will ever be able to control our borders and thus control who comes in and who goes out so that we know who they are. We have heard the American people tell us this is our biggest responsibility; that if we don't secure our borders, something bad is going to happen to our country. We have heard them tell us of the horror stories that happen when some of these immigrants come here without authority, without the law on their side; they sneak in, in the dark of the night, or however they have been able to come, and then they form gangs. We have heard about how they have scared our people, hurt them, killed them, and how they fight amongst each other. Of course, I am not talking about all of them. I am saying the American people see this and say to us, can't you ever control our borders?

I want to say I think a terrific job has been done with this bill. It is not finished--there are a few more amendments that need to be considered and some time taken to review the final bill--but I believe the bipartisan group that wrote this bill under the leadership of Senator Jon Kyl on the Republican side and Senator Ted Kennedy on the other side, working with their best staff for months, and then both day and night for the last 2 months, have put together a piece of legislation that shows how you can work out practical differences if in fact your goal is significant and you forget about politics, you forget about party, and you begin to write a law you can be proud of.

I think we are close to that. I don't think you get there very often. Rarely do you get the opportunity to be part of such a law as a Senator. So for those who are going to vote against this bill, tonight they are saying to themselves, I think I am going to vote against it, I ask you and urge you to think of when you are going to be given an opportunity to vote on a bill, a piece of legislation that is more important than this. If we don't do it now, with your vote, when will we do it?

If for some reason this bill fails, those who cause it to fail have to ask themselves, when will we get a bill we can rely on, that we can trust, which is put together by good, practical people who resolved issues in a practical manner by working on the issues that are now confronting us, which are that our borders are wide open and we have no control over what is happening.

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

I am certain if, after we pass legislation such as this, we provide the resources that are needed--and that is very important, and I think we are providing a means and a manner for resources to go to the border in this bill--and, secondly, if we annually make sure the resources and manpower are there to implement this law--because it will require much by way of manpower, much by way of technology--if we give this law that, we will return to say this was a historic event. Indeed, we will have done something good for America and good for our children. Something good for the families of existing immigrants, good for immigrants who are coming in the future and their families, who will also be permitted. We will also look for merit in those who are coming to help America, which is competing in a very difficult world.

I am very proud to be on the side of those who are trying to maintain the measure intact, or practically intact, because you can't do much better than was done by this hard-working bipartisan group. The more you try to change it, the more you risk losing it. When you end up thinking what did you lose it for, you end up really wondering whether you did right for your country.

I urge that we move as fast as we can, giving Senators an opportunity, those who need it, and, yes, saying we are going to pass it soon--I don't know about tomorrow or the next day but certainly send to our leader a message that if you will give us an opportunity to call up a few more amendments, it will get accomplished.

I look forward to more debate, more amendments.

Mr. MENENDEZ addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. President, I wish to congratulate Los Alamos National Laboratory for its part in completing the 100th genome sequence. Like the Human Genome Project, this achievement serves as a constant reminder of the possibilities before us and a step forward in scientific knowledge. The scientists of Los Alamos National Lab constantly achieve excellence through their various endeavors, and I am proud of their contribution to this vast project. This well-deserved recognition highlights their continuing dedication to serving this country through research in health and environment-related fields.

Los Alamos National Laboratory has championed the advancement of national security for over 60 years. In the tumultuous times of World War II, it stood as our Nation's front line in acquiring a superior tool with which we could be certain that freedom would prevail. However, once its mission was complete it continued to pursue the advancement of American security and research. What began as an installation solely focused on the creation of an atomic bomb has developed into a diverse and advanced institution dedicated to securing our nuclear ordinance, combating the effectiveness of weapons of mass destruction, and addressing many problems in areas such as energy and health.

Los Alamos National Laboratory serves as one of five national laboratories working with the Department of Energy to sequence genomes. Labeled the Joint Genome Institute, this group of research institutions first helped to complete the Human Genome Project, which has since been called one of the greatest scientific advances of our time. The benefits of this outstanding achievement are many. For example, we can now match organ donors and recipients with less uncertainty and even diagnose disease more efficiently.

Over the years, the mission of the Genome Project has oriented itself towards other vital interests. The Joint Genome Institute is now targeting specific animals and microbes with traits that, if harnessed, could aid in areas such as biotechnology, alternative fuels, and the environment. For example, the organism just completed has shown potential in aiding the cleanup of uranium-contaminated areas. This application would greatly benefit Los Alamos itself, which has several radioactive wastesites.

In the past, I have strongly supported the research of Los Alamos National Laboratory and the advancement of the Genome Project and have helped each of them secure defense and biotechnology funding. In return, their research has yielded important advances in areas such as health, energy, and the environment. Furthermore, the continuing excellence of Los Alamos National Laboratory has led to the creation of many jobs in the northern New Mexico region. Los Alamos continues to succeed in its purpose of national service, and I am pleased to offer my support and congratulations for their contribution to the 100th mark in the Genome Project.

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

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

Madam President, I first note the presence on the floor of the distinguished Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi. I note also present in the Senate is a beautiful bouquet of flowers on the desk that was occupied by the other Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Craig Thomas.

I want to say to Senator Enzi, first, we will all have an opportunity in the next few days and weeks to speak about the Senator who was your colleague who left us last night, and we all will have an opportunity to speak with you and see you on more occasions than this to express to you our heartfelt sorrow for the loss of your colleague.

You will suffer a lot of things that will be downers during your life in the Senate--and because we all live our lives, things happen, go up and go down--but I am quite sure you will not have an opportunity to suffer any more severe a loss than the loss of your colleague who was at the same time a cowboy, a marine, a Senator, a father, and, clearly, a husband.

He had a wife named Susan. Everybody who knows her loves her. My wife loves her. I called my wife early this morning, after I heard, and I was so pleased she answered the phone herself because I thought: Where will I get her? We may get caught up in the maze of today and maybe I will not be able to talk to her until tomorrow, or maybe Nancy will not be able to talk to me. But, sure enough, it was at 8:30 this morning I was able to talk to her.

Her first words, after knowing who I was, were words coming out of her mouth saying: He did a good job for Wyoming, didn't he? I said: You bet. Then: I am sure, not knowing the rest of his life, he must have done a good job in a lot of other areas. Probably he was a good husband--to which there was no answer because that was not intended as a question. He obviously was a wonderful man. Quiet, sort of unassuming, but he was a very involved Senator, especially when it came to Wyoming.

Very early on, as he worked his way from the House, where he replaced Dick Cheney, over to the Senate, where he had been elected, he decided he would work for his State. You did not hear of him a lot on national news because he was busy doing what he thought was best for him as a Senator, and that was, representing that great State of Wyoming. What a State that is, and what a Senator they had.

From my standpoint, I served with him on two committees. The one I know the most and remember the most is the one we served the longest on: Energy and Natural Resources, which the occupant of the chair has served on with us. But when it came to this man, he frequently worked with Democrats on serious issues because he wanted to get things done.

If there is one thing I noticed as we worked together, shoulder to shoulder on this committee, it was that he was impatient because he did not understand when we wasted time and he did not understand why we were doing some certain things. He would ask: Why don't we get on with what we are supposed to do? What are we talking about this for? This is not policy. We are talking about a bunch of little things we ought not be involved in. I think I remember that more than anything else: Can't we get on with it?

I remember he was burdened with the fact there is a substance in his State called trona. The other Senator from Wyoming might know about it. He must know about it. Apparently, they were having competition in the world, and he thought the royalties were too high. I don't know. Anybody who served on the committee must have heard the word ``trona'' because he was all over that issue, wanting to get somebody to listen to him about the unfairness of it and to help solve it.

I did not get to serve with him on the Finance Committee and other committees he served on, but it would be my guess he was the same way on all of them, that he showed up when he should and did his job as best he could, and that when the chips were down, you could count on him. When the chips were down, he did what he said. He voted the way he would tell you. He worked the way a dedicated person works.

For me and my wife, on this day, shortly after his death, I want to say in the Senate that Wyoming sent us a true man. I do not know whether it was the marines who made him a man or what it was, but he was truly different. He was tough minded. He was quiet. But he was impatient, and he wanted to get good things done.

I am positive his relatives and his great State will never forget him. He will be remembered by them, just as we remember him. He will leave them, and they will have a big void, without a question, because a giant part of their lives leaves. That goes for Wyoming, and that goes for his wife Susan and their children. I think there are four of them. I did not get to meet them. But if they are like their mother and father, they could not help but be great.

With that, I say goodbye to the Senator, and I extend my sorrows to his wonderful wife, and, hopefully, I will be part of whatever ceremony there is for us to send him on his way.

May God bless his family and him, and may whatever he aspired to get done, get done by others who follow him because he set such a wonderful basis to get those things completed for his State.

I thank the Senate and I thank the junior Senator from Wyoming for the kind man he is. I will be seeing him, and I say to the Senator, if I can help you during these times, please call on me. I am available.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Alabama for expediting his remarks. I did not get to hear all the speeches this afternoon, including the speech of my good friend Senator Salazar from my neighboring State of Colorado or even all of the speech made today by my very good friend from another of my adjoining States, Arizona, Senator Kyl. But I heard a little bit of both of their remarks.

I came to the floor after hearing some of the speech of Senator Kyl to tell him how I analyzed his work on this bill.

Senator Kyl, I have known you ever since you have been in the Senate. As luck would have it, I can call you my junior. That is only because New Mexicans sent me up here a few years before Arizonans sent you. In no other respect would the use of that word be appropriate because you are a terrific Senator. It would have been a shame if you would have lost this opportunity, with your talent and your ability to convince people, to get the United States of America a new immigration bill.

I say to my junior friend from the State of Colorado, the same goes for you as far as your work on this bill. The same goes for Senator Kennedy and the other Senators who were in the group who worked together on this bill. But since the two of you are here, I will use you as an example of all of those who decided they had enough and they were going to work until they had a bill.

Let me say that we are not elected to the Senate to handle easy problems, nor are we elected to the Senate to let other people handle problems and then argue that they didn't do it right, so we can be on the defensive all the time and argue against anybody who is trying to do something for the country. We were not elected for that. It happens that we have parties, so most of the time we choose up sides on bills and amendments.

Let me suggest to the American people who do not understand it--and I don't say that in any pejorative sense--something good has transpired in the Senate with this bill. One of the worst problems we have is an immigration system that does not work. If there is anybody in the United States who believes the borders of this great, marvelous country are being policed so we can determine who comes in and who goes out-- more significantly who comes in, of course--if they think we can do that, then they are living in another world. They are not talking about their home country because we have little border control yet. We know it in the State of Arizona, my State's neighbor, by just going out and looking. We know it in New Mexico because our Border Patrol agents tell us all the time that thousands of illegal immigrants have come across and thousands more are coming across and we can't stop them. That is because we do not have a comprehensive system, so we get them, they are sent home, and they come back. We arrest them inside the country, we tell them to come to court in 2 or 3 days, they never show up, and we never find them again.

The truth is, this great country has about reached a point where we have lost total control of our borders as to citizenry, occupancy, who raises their children here and what influence they have over our society. We have come very close to living under no border or immigration law.

For anybody who says to the Senate or to a Senator, either a media person or citizen, ``we do not want this bill because we don't like this or that piece of it,'' let me ask them the question, Do you like what we have? Is that not the right question to ask, Senator? Do you like what we have? If you don't like what we are trying to do after months of work, do you really know what you are advocating for when you tell us don't do it and fax our offices and call us long distance? What you are asking us to do is do nothing.

We don't have anything effective. If you want us to not pass a law, you want us to do nothing and you want to leave us with nothing. You want to leave the people of the country open as to who can come to the U.S., how many can come, what they can do when they get here and what kind of opportunity we give them. Right now we do not know who they are, where they come from, or why we are doing what we are doing. That is exactly where we are today.

I say to Senators who will come here in the next few days and say: I looked at this bill with my staff, and they told me I had to have an amendment--I urge you be very serious about amendments. I know, better than most, you can make an argument that a few Senators, no matter how well motivated or how good they are, when they get together for months upon months and write a bill, they have not given everybody a chance, in the institution called the Senate, to participate. But I suggest if those people--led by Senator

Kennedy, Senator Kyl, Senator Specter and others--if they have produced something that is substantially better than our current laws, do you think there is anything else that is apt to make it through the Congress if this bill dies? Are we really going to go through this effort again next year? I think we are going to have to wait until there is a whole new group of Senators before we write another bill. So before you insist you are going to offer an amendment, even if it kills this bill, so you can exercise your senatorial rights, then I urge you give some serious thought to the proposition: Just so you can say you offered an amendment, do you want to kill a bill which is dramatically better than the laws we are living with, without question? Do you want to kill a bill about which many people who have analyzed it carefully say that if we provide sufficient resources, sufficient manpower, the strength we need and the law enforcement we need, it has a chance of securing our borders so people cannot come in unless they are supposed to?

What we are living under has no chance of providing the security we need. The laws cannot be enforced. The laws are not currently, with court interpretations and the like, endowed with the capacity to be enforced. The current law of the land cannot be enforced in a way that will sustain our borders. That is just not possible. So don't wish for us nothing. Don't say: Enforce our current law. There is no good law to be enforced. We have a bushel basket full of loopholes and of opportunities for people to obfuscate and get out of trouble through rules and regulations, so much so that our Border Patrol is so frustrated that they have been for years crying out to us to give them help. When they say help, they always say: Change the law. Fix the law so we can do what you want us to do. This is our chance to do that.

I went home for recess like most Senators. I did not travel overseas; I went home. I spoke at three editorial boards in three cities, and I then spoke to a couple of groups, such as the Hispano Chamber in Albuquerque, about 50 to 100 men or women were there. When I had time to answer questions on this bill and to explain its principal provisions, nobody stood up to challenge me, to say that it was bad, except one person who insisted that I was defining amnesty wrong. I ended up in an argument. Maybe I should not have done that, saying ``it doesn't matter whether it is amnesty, here are the words describing what the bill does. Is there something wrong with this accumulation of words we put in the bill that says when somebody can stay here if they have worked for at least 13 years and then they apply for citizenship? Is there anything wrong with those words? If there is not, then we shouldn't worry about amnesty, whether we define it that way or not.''

I believe there is no general amnesty in this bill. The minimum time you must be here to become a citizen is 13 years under 2 different cards, a Z card and a green card. You must spend 13 years being a good resident--not counting how much time you spent here before getting a Z card--and paying fines along the way for violating the law, having to know sufficient English and sufficient civics. Is that amnesty? I thought amnesty was more like a gift. There is no gift here. You have to work and you have to learn and you have to pass an exam and you have to pay fines.

And the first thing undocumented workers have to do is get up from where they are, half incognito, and turn themselves in and have enough trust that the Federal Government is going to treat you right. That is the first thing the bill is going to do after securing the border. A lot of people are going to wonder about that. You are going to find out. We are going to put plenty of resources into that, going out and asking them to turn themselves in. Is that right? That is one of the first actions in this bill. Go to where they hide out, because they are illegal aliens, and ask them to come forward. They are not going to be illegal anymore. They are going to get a legal work card.

I worked on the immigration bill last year. It was not nearly as good as this bill. I have not worked as long as those who have worked the longest this year. I have worked long enough to be sure I have something here that I can tell my constituents is much better than what we have now. In fact, this bill has a real chance of controlling the borders. Once we have it passed, if we do not throw up our hands and abandon it but keep with it and enforce it and put the money into the equipment needed to do the work required, if we do all those things when we have this bill finished--and we are going to have to do that-- we will have legislation we can be proud of. If we do that, I will be glad to say, in this year, in this month, I worked on and helped pass a bill in spite of many people being against it in the media--we passed something good for the American people from a set of facts that were difficult, from laws we had to amend, which had many special interests that made them difficult to change.

I will be saying in that month, this month, this year: We got it done. I will be very happy and very proud in the meantime, for those who are working on the bill--I have a lot of other things on other committees--but I stand ready to be of help wherever I can during the week. You can put me down as one who is ready to help.

Thank you very much.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, each year, our Nation observes a holiday to honor the brave men and women who have given their lives in service to this country. New Mexicans have a strong tradition of serving in the Armed Forces, and sadly a great many have given their lives in defense of our Nation. Americans from every state and all generations have served bravely and on Memorial Day we remember their sacrifice.

It is with particular poignancy that this Memorial Day, we reflect on the sacrifice so many New Mexicans have made while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. I hope New Mexicans will think of these individuals and their families and on this Memorial Day I would like to share one of their stories, that of Marine Corps LCpl Christopher S. Adlesperger of Albuquerque.

In late 2004, Lance Corporal Adlesperger, and his unit were deployed in Fallujah and involved in some of the fiercest fighting of the war. On one particular mission, Adlesperger and his squad were ordered to storm an insurgent-occupied building. While moving forward Adlesperger's squad began to receive heavy insurgent fire and several members of his squad were wounded and the rest were pinned down. Adlesperger took action and secured a path for the injured marines to be evacuated. Despite the fact that he was also wounded, Adlesperger continued the assault on the building. Adlesperger is credited with eliminating several insurgents and playing a pivotal role in the successful assault.

Tragically, 1 month later, 20-year-old Christopher Adlesperger, was fatally shot while on patrol in the Anbar province west of Bahgdad.

This brave young soldier was one of the first New Mexicans to give his life in the Iraq war and on April 13, 2007, Adlesperger was posthumously awarded the Navy Cross for valor.

Today, as we honor all the brave men and women who have fought and given their lives to defend this Nation throughout its history, I hope New Mexicans will also pray for the safe return of those still serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Dorgan, to introduce a bill to reauthorize and expand two very important public health programs created by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997; The Special Diabetes Program for Indians and the Special Funding Program for Type I Diabetes Research. I want to thank my colleagues, Senator Inouye, Senator Baucus, Senator Collins, Senator Lincoln, Senator Hatch, and Senator Bingaman for joining us as original cosponsors of this bill. This type of bipartisan support clearly shows that addressing this disease and its consequences is an important health priority for our Nation.

Diabetes is one of the most serious and devastating health problems of our time. The American Diabetes Association estimates that 20.8 million Americans have diabetes; more than 7 percent of our population. The number of U.S. adults with diagnosed diabetes has increased by more than 60 percent since 1991 and is projected to more than double by 2050. It ranks as the sixth leading cause of death in America. This has serious national implications; it is overwhelming health systems in the states and the Nation.

Although diabetes occurs in people of all ethnicities, the diabetes epidemic is particularly acute in our Native American populations. Among some tribes, as many as 50 percent of the adult population have the disease. That is why during the negotiations on the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, I helped craft an agreement to finance diabetes programs of the Indian Health Service and help raise the profile of tribal health programs. The Special Diabetes Program for Indians began with funding of $30 million annually for 5 years and was later expanded to $150 million a year. This funding has been used widely in Indian country, including among the Navajo Nation and the 19 Pueblos in New Mexico.

Federally supported treatment and prevention programs are showing real results in the Native American populations. The current funding has established almost 400 new diabetes treatment and prevention programs in Native communities. It has helped to provide critical resources such as medications and therapies, clinical exams, screenings, and resources to prevent complications. It has provided primary prevention activities such as physical fitness programs, medical nutrition therapy, wellness activities, and programs that target children and youth. The experiences of these programs have provided many important lessons learned that will benefit other minority communities and all people affected by diabetes.

Despite all the positive results we have seen from these efforts, there is still much more work to be done. I have traveled extensively on the Navajo reservation and other parts of Indian country and seen those who still need help. I have visited the dialysis centers and met with those who are suffering from the effects of this disease. Due to the prevalence of this problem, it will take years for us to achieve our ultimate goal of reducing and eliminating diabetes and its complications. But, unless Congress reauthorizes and expands this program, the funding for these efforts and activities will end next year. We can't let that happen. The Special Diabetes Program for Indians has made an enormous and substantial impact on the problem of diabetes in Indian communities. The loss of funding now would be devastating. We must continue to focus specific resources to address the epidemic of diabetes in the Native American communities. That is why the bill we are introducing today will reauthorize the Special Diabetes Program for Indians for an additional 5 years and increase the funding from $150 million to $200 million each year. This will provide a billion dollars over the next 5 years for this program, $250 million more than we are currently authorized to spend. Reauthorization of this vital program will help save lives. It is the right thing to do and it is a smart investment of our health care dollars.

In addition to the reauthorization of the Special Diabetes Program for Indians, this bill will also reauthorize another important tool in our battle against diabetes, the Special Funding Program for Type I Diabetes Research. Like the Indian program, this program is set to expire next year, and this bill will provide an authorization for an additional 5 years and increase the funding from $150 million to $200 million each year.

The Type I Diabetes research program which was also created in 1997 Balanced Budget Act has allowed the Federal Government to make dramatic advances in research and treatment since its inception. This funding has helped support research into the identification of genes that increase susceptibility to diabetes. It has helped with the development of therapies that have helped slow the progression and in some cases even reverse the progression of this disease. And it has helped develop tools and methods that help people manage the disease long term.

Again though, there is still much more work to be done. Continued investment in this program will help to maintain support for research that is truly helping those who are living with diabetes and help prevent the onset of diabetes in others. The Federal investment in research has produced tangible

results that I believe justify its continued support. Diabetes is taking too heavy a toll on too many Americans and their families. Continued funding is vital to the continuation of our fight against diabetes.

The prevention and treatment of diabetes has improved greatly over the past decade and I believe it is in large part due to the funding and research accomplished through these two programs. Complications of diabetes can be prevented and the costs of this disease to our society can be contained. Research, early detection and treatment, however, are the keys. I hope that Congress will join together to reauthorize these programs and also provide to them the increase in funding that they need to keep making advances.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Dorgan, to introduce a bill to reauthorize and expand two very important public health programs created by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997; The Special Diabetes Program for Indians and the Special Funding Program for Type I Diabetes Research. I want to thank my colleagues, Senator Inouye, Senator Baucus, Senator Collins, Senator Lincoln, Senator Hatch, and Senator Bingaman for joining us as original cosponsors of this bill. This type of bipartisan support clearly shows that addressing this disease and its consequences is an important health priority for our Nation.

Diabetes is one of the most serious and devastating health problems of our time. The American Diabetes Association estimates that 20.8 million Americans have diabetes; more than 7 percent of our population. The number of U.S. adults with diagnosed diabetes has increased by more than 60 percent since 1991 and is projected to more than double by 2050. It ranks as the sixth leading cause of death in America. This has serious national implications; it is overwhelming health systems in the states and the Nation.

Although diabetes occurs in people of all ethnicities, the diabetes epidemic is particularly acute in our Native American populations. Among some tribes, as many as 50 percent of the adult population have the disease. That is why during the negotiations on the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, I helped craft an agreement to finance diabetes programs of the Indian Health Service and help raise the profile of tribal health programs. The Special Diabetes Program for Indians began with funding of $30 million annually for 5 years and was later expanded to $150 million a year. This funding has been used widely in Indian country, including among the Navajo Nation and the 19 Pueblos in New Mexico.

Federally supported treatment and prevention programs are showing real results in the Native American populations. The current funding has established almost 400 new diabetes treatment and prevention programs in Native communities. It has helped to provide critical resources such as medications and therapies, clinical exams, screenings, and resources to prevent complications. It has provided primary prevention activities such as physical fitness programs, medical nutrition therapy, wellness activities, and programs that target children and youth. The experiences of these programs have provided many important lessons learned that will benefit other minority communities and all people affected by diabetes.

Despite all the positive results we have seen from these efforts, there is still much more work to be done. I have traveled extensively on the Navajo reservation and other parts of Indian country and seen those who still need help. I have visited the dialysis centers and met with those who are suffering from the effects of this disease. Due to the prevalence of this problem, it will take years for us to achieve our ultimate goal of reducing and eliminating diabetes and its complications. But, unless Congress reauthorizes and expands this program, the funding for these efforts and activities will end next year. We can't let that happen. The Special Diabetes Program for Indians has made an enormous and substantial impact on the problem of diabetes in Indian communities. The loss of funding now would be devastating. We must continue to focus specific resources to address the epidemic of diabetes in the Native American communities. That is why the bill we are introducing today will reauthorize the Special Diabetes Program for Indians for an additional 5 years and increase the funding from $150 million to $200 million each year. This will provide a billion dollars over the next 5 years for this program, $250 million more than we are currently authorized to spend. Reauthorization of this vital program will help save lives. It is the right thing to do and it is a smart investment of our health care dollars.

In addition to the reauthorization of the Special Diabetes Program for Indians, this bill will also reauthorize another important tool in our battle against diabetes, the Special Funding Program for Type I Diabetes Research. Like the Indian program, this program is set to expire next year, and this bill will provide an authorization for an additional 5 years and increase the funding from $150 million to $200 million each year.

The Type I Diabetes research program which was also created in 1997 Balanced Budget Act has allowed the Federal Government to make dramatic advances in research and treatment since its inception. This funding has helped support research into the identification of genes that increase susceptibility to diabetes. It has helped with the development of therapies that have helped slow the progression and in some cases even reverse the progression of this disease. And it has helped develop tools and methods that help people manage the disease long term.

Again though, there is still much more work to be done. Continued investment in this program will help to maintain support for research that is truly helping those who are living with diabetes and help prevent the onset of diabetes in others. The Federal investment in research has produced tangible

results that I believe justify its continued support. Diabetes is taking too heavy a toll on too many Americans and their families. Continued funding is vital to the continuation of our fight against diabetes.

The prevention and treatment of diabetes has improved greatly over the past decade and I believe it is in large part due to the funding and research accomplished through these two programs. Complications of diabetes can be prevented and the costs of this disease to our society can be contained. Research, early detection and treatment, however, are the keys. I hope that Congress will join together to reauthorize these programs and also provide to them the increase in funding that they need to keep making advances.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that I believe will place the Department of Energy's nuclear waste program back on

track. I am joined by Senator Craig and others to introduce the Nuclear Waste Access to Yucca Bill, or Nu-Way Bill, which I believe will help to resolve the issue of nuclear waste once and for all.

As we all know, the history of the Yucca Mountain project has been rocky at best. The Yucca Mountain project has a very long pedigree, starting back to the late 1950s when the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, reported to the Atomic Energy Commission that burying radioactive high-level waste in geologic formations should receive consideration. NAS stated that ``radioactive waste can be disposed of safely in a variety of ways and at a large number of sites in the United States.''

In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act after a solid consensus had been reached around the major elements of the approach broadly outlined by President Carter. When President Reagan signed it into law the following January, he called the Act ``a milestone for progress and the ability of our democratic system to resolve a sophisticated and divisive issue.''

The Congress was quite optimistic then, so optimistic that we told the Department of Energy, DOE, to enter into contracts with utilities to begin taking nuclear waste off their hands by 1998 in return for the payment of fees. Well, obviously that didn't happen, but the United States government continues to collect the fee at 1mil/KWH electricity generated by nuclear plants. What did happen was that the utilities began to sue DOE for failing to meet its contractual obligation to remove spent nuclear fuel from storage at commercial reactor sites. DOE has been negotiating with various reactor owners since 1999 over the missed deadline for settlement agreements. The first agreement was reached in July 2000 which allowed DOE to pay PECO Energy Co. up to $80 million in nuclear waste fee revenues during the subsequent 10 years. However, other utilities sued DOE to block the settlement, contending that nuclear waste fees may be used only for the DOE Waste Program and not as compensation for missing the disposal deadline. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit agreed that any compensation would have to come from general revenue or other sources than the waste fund.

Today, commercial spent nuclear fuel continues to be stored at plant sites, and DOE is facing more than $6 billion in judgments for failure to dispose the spent nuclear fuel. As for the nuclear waste fund, we now have more than $19 billion of the ratepayer's money in principal and interest.

In addition to civilian spent nuclear fuel, the Department of Energy stores about 2,500 metric tons of defense waste, which includes unreprocessed spent nuclear fuel from its plutonium production reactors, naval propulsion reactors, and research reactors at Hanford, Savannah River, and the Idaho National Laboratory.

While moving more slowly than planned, DOE's nuclear waste program has made progress toward making the goal of a permanent geologic repository for nuclear waste a reality. Originally, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act required DOE to characterize more than one site for two repositories. As the most promising site considered, the Yucca Mountain site was selected by DOE to be the first site to be characterized. In 1987, the act was amended and the Congress directed DOE to focus its siting effort on Yucca Mountain alone and terminated the second repository program.

On February 14, 2002, after carrying out the required ``appropriate site characterization activities'' at Yucca Mountain to determine its suitability, the President recommended Yucca Mountain to Congress as being ``qualified for application for a construction authorization for a repository.''

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act provided the Governor of Nevada the opportunity to object to the site selection and to submit to Congress the reasons. On April 8, 2002, the Governor of Nevada exercised this authority and submitted his notice of disapproval and statement of reasons. Under the terms of the Act, the Governor's notice had the effect of terminating further consideration of the Yucca Mountain site until both Houses of Congress passed and the President signed into law a joint resolution approving the site.

The State veto provisions of the act accomplished their intent, which was to afford Congress another opportunity to review and determine if the objection was sufficient to terminate the program. Based on expert opinion, both Houses concluded that the objection was not sufficient, and that the Yucca Mountain site is geologically suitable for development of the repository. In the national interest, Congress approved the Yucca Mountain site, and instructed DOE to file a license application for the repository with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC. The decision has been made. All the scientific work performed to date supports the decision.

With the siting decision made, it will now be up to the EPA to issue general standards and for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license the facility by evaluating the scientific data and determining whether the repository will permanently, and safely, isolate nuclear waste.

Yucca Mountain is the cornerstone of our national comprehensive spent nuclear fuel management strategy for this country. Let me be clear: We need Yucca Mountain. We must make this program work. I believe the bill introduced today will do that.

This bill will remove unintended legal barriers that will allow DOE to meet its obligation to accept and store spent nuclear fuel as soon as possible, without prejudging the outcome of the NRC's repository licensing decision.

The bill I am introducing today authorizes DOE to permanently withdraw 147,000 acres of Federal land from public use currently controlled by the Bureau of Land Management, the Air Force, and the Nevada Test Site, to satisfy a license condition of the NRC.

This legislation will repeal the arbitrary 70,000 metric ton statutory limit on emplacement of radioactive material at Yucca Mountain. The cap was imposed when Congress was considering two rounds of repositories. I believe that the capacity of the mountain should be determined by scientific and technical analysis, and not by political compromises.

Today, the major facility at the Yucca Mountain site is an ``exploratory studies facility'' with a 25-foot-diameter, 5-mile long, tunnel with ramps leading to the surface. This legislation will allow the DOE to begin construction of needed infrastructure for the repository and surface storage facilities as soon as they complete an environmental impact statement that evaluates these activities.

The ``Nu-Way'' bill also begins to consolidate the defense nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel from defense activities at the Yucca Mountain site. The bill requires DOE to file for a permit to build a surface receipt and storage facility at the Nevada Test Site at the same time it files its license application for a repository at Yucca Mountain.

As soon as the department receives the permit for the surface receipt and storage facility from the NRC, it may begin moving defense fuel and waste to the Nevada Test Site. We are not giving DOE any new authority to move spent fuel. DOE currently has authority to transport and consolidate defense waste at DOE facilities, with the sole exception of Yucca Mountain site. The spent nuclear fuel from our Navy and defense activities that kept us safe during the Cold War should be consolidated and stored securely at the Nevada Test Site. The defense waste is currently stored temporarily in Hanford, Idaho and Savannah River sites.

This legislation further provides that only after the NRC issues a construction permit for Yucca Mountain, may the Department of Energy begin moving civilian spent fuel to the Nevada Test Site. This legislation also lays the foundation to integrate Yucca Mountain Repository Program and Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, GNEP, by providing that before civilian spent nuclear fuel is shipped to Yucca Mountain, the Secretary of Energy must determine if it can be recycled within a reasonable time. I might add that the current plans for GNEP do not include recycling all 55,000 metric tons of civilian spent fuel that has already been generated. This proposal will would avoid moving waste to Yucca Mountain Site that should be shipped instead to a GNEP facility.

In the long run, this measure provides DOE with the authorities needed to execute the Yucca Mountain project for long term emplacement and for the

GNEP program to reduce the volume and toxicity of the material to be placed in the repository, thereby eliminating the need for a second waste repository.

This bill will also withdraw land for a rail route Yucca, a vital transportation component. There is also a provision that provides that appropriations from the nuclear waste fund will not count against the allocations for discretionary spending. DOE will have access to the full funds in the nuclear waste fund, moneys collected from electricity rate payers, our constituents, specifically for developing and constructing the waste repository.

To address the liability problem created by Congress when DOE could not remove spent nuclear fuel from the reactor sites, this legislation will authorize DOE to revise the standard contract to accept waste from new nuclear reactors at a more reasonable schedule. By doing all of these things, this bill will establish a comprehensive program that will provide confidence that our Nation's nuclear waste will be managed safely both for current and future reactors.

The issue of Yucca Mountain has been addressed repeatedly by Congress and Presidents. The legislation I am introducing today will not circumvent any environmental standards or regulations, nor will it preempt any State or local government rights.

Despite the great advances that we have made in this Nation on nuclear energy, we are still faced with challenges. EIA estimates that even with a projected increase in nuclear capacity and generation in large, the nuclear share of total electricity is estimated to fall from 19 percent in 2005 to 15 percent in 2030. This is because our energy needs will be great over the next 25 years. For energy security reasons, economic reasons and environmental reasons, we must make nuclear energy a larger part of our mix. To meet the challenge of reducing carbon emissions in order to address climate change, we need nuclear energy. And, if we need nuclear energy, we need Yucca Mountain.

Solving nuclear waste is in the national interest. We can solve this problem and I hope we can move forward together in a new way.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Obama to introduce the Veterans' Mental Health Outreach and Access Act. This bill will require the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs to establish a program for the provision of readjustment and mental health services to veterans who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, with a particular emphasis on those soldiers who served in the National Guard and Reserves.

Operation Enduring Freedom, OEF, and Operation Iraqi Freedom, OIF, are unique in their extensive use of National Guard and Reserve troops and their reliance on repetitive deployments. More than 1,500 National Guard and Reservists from New Mexico have been deployed in support of OIF and OEF. Several hundred of these soldiers have been deployed multiple times. This is a new era for our National Guard and for the Reserve. The role of these organizations in defending our national security has significantly increased. Guard and Reserve members are seeing significant combat action and we know that a number of these soldiers will return with mental and physical wounds suffered in these wars, including post traumatic stress disorder, depression, brain injuries and other traumatic illnesses.

Virtually all returning veterans and their families will face readjustment problems. These soldiers and their families deserve the best care and treatment possible, but where do our National Guard and Reserve soldiers fit into the military and veterans' systems of care? These ``citizen-soldiers'' are not returning to military bases, but rather to communities that are frequently remote from VA medical centers and clinics.

We're quick to urge that VA provide veterans needed treatment for service-related mental health problems, but we also need to do more to remove the barriers such as travel and distance that oftentimes will prevent a veteran from seeking and continuing treatment. The Domenici- Obama bill calls on the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop a national program to reach vets who can't or won't seek VA care. It requires the Secretary to mount a national program to train a cadre of returning servicemembers for positions as peer outreach workers and peer-support specialists. In any remote area of the country in which the VA determines there is inadequate access to a VA medical center, the bill directs the Secretary of the VA to contract with community mental health centers and other qualified entities to provide peer outreach and support services, readjustment counseling and mental health services. However, any resulting contracts would require centers to first train and adhere to the VA's expertise and standards of care in mental health. It also will require any contract-provider to hire a trained peer specialist as well as have its clinicians participate in a training program to be certain they'll provide ``culturally competent'' services.

This bill also gives needed attention to the toll these military operations have on the mental health needs of our veterans' families. These deployments are causing great stress for the spouses and children of these soldiers. Yet despite the recognition of the mental health needs of the family members of the returning veterans, current law limits the ability of the VA to work with these family members. This bill will expand access to mental health services for the immediate family of the veteran so that they may help the veteran recover in the case of injury or illness incurred during deployment. It will also help expand access to services so that the family can better help the veteran adjust back to civilian life, and also help the readjustment of the family to the return of the veteran.

Lastly, this bill will extend the eligibility for health care services from the Department of Veterans Affairs for veterans who served in combat from 2 years to 5 years. Two years is often insufficient time for symptoms related to PTSD and other mental illness to manifest. In many cases, it takes years for symptoms to present themselves, and the difficulty is often compounded by the fact that many servicemembers do not immediately seek the care that they need. Five years provides a more adequate window to address these risks.

Outreach and access to treatment are essential to prevent readjustment problems for our returning veterans and their families. Left untreated, mental disorders like PTSD and depression can become chronic and debilitating. We need systems in place to ensure that OEF/ OIF veterans who are returning to their homes have access to the services they need. It is my hope that this legislation will help close the gaps we currently have in our service delivery systems and provide help to those who have experienced mental health problems as a result of their service to their country.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that I believe will place the Department of Energy's nuclear waste program back on

track. I am joined by Senator Craig and others to introduce the Nuclear Waste Access to Yucca Bill, or Nu-Way Bill, which I believe will help to resolve the issue of nuclear waste once and for all.

As we all know, the history of the Yucca Mountain project has been rocky at best. The Yucca Mountain project has a very long pedigree, starting back to the late 1950s when the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, reported to the Atomic Energy Commission that burying radioactive high-level waste in geologic formations should receive consideration. NAS stated that ``radioactive waste can be disposed of safely in a variety of ways and at a large number of sites in the United States.''

In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act after a solid consensus had been reached around the major elements of the approach broadly outlined by President Carter. When President Reagan signed it into law the following January, he called the Act ``a milestone for progress and the ability of our democratic system to resolve a sophisticated and divisive issue.''

The Congress was quite optimistic then, so optimistic that we told the Department of Energy, DOE, to enter into contracts with utilities to begin taking nuclear waste off their hands by 1998 in return for the payment of fees. Well, obviously that didn't happen, but the United States government continues to collect the fee at 1mil/KWH electricity generated by nuclear plants. What did happen was that the utilities began to sue DOE for failing to meet its contractual obligation to remove spent nuclear fuel from storage at commercial reactor sites. DOE has been negotiating with various reactor owners since 1999 over the missed deadline for settlement agreements. The first agreement was reached in July 2000 which allowed DOE to pay PECO Energy Co. up to $80 million in nuclear waste fee revenues during the subsequent 10 years. However, other utilities sued DOE to block the settlement, contending that nuclear waste fees may be used only for the DOE Waste Program and not as compensation for missing the disposal deadline. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit agreed that any compensation would have to come from general revenue or other sources than the waste fund.

Today, commercial spent nuclear fuel continues to be stored at plant sites, and DOE is facing more than $6 billion in judgments for failure to dispose the spent nuclear fuel. As for the nuclear waste fund, we now have more than $19 billion of the ratepayer's money in principal and interest.

In addition to civilian spent nuclear fuel, the Department of Energy stores about 2,500 metric tons of defense waste, which includes unreprocessed spent nuclear fuel from its plutonium production reactors, naval propulsion reactors, and research reactors at Hanford, Savannah River, and the Idaho National Laboratory.

While moving more slowly than planned, DOE's nuclear waste program has made progress toward making the goal of a permanent geologic repository for nuclear waste a reality. Originally, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act required DOE to characterize more than one site for two repositories. As the most promising site considered, the Yucca Mountain site was selected by DOE to be the first site to be characterized. In 1987, the act was amended and the Congress directed DOE to focus its siting effort on Yucca Mountain alone and terminated the second repository program.

On February 14, 2002, after carrying out the required ``appropriate site characterization activities'' at Yucca Mountain to determine its suitability, the President recommended Yucca Mountain to Congress as being ``qualified for application for a construction authorization for a repository.''

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act provided the Governor of Nevada the opportunity to object to the site selection and to submit to Congress the reasons. On April 8, 2002, the Governor of Nevada exercised this authority and submitted his notice of disapproval and statement of reasons. Under the terms of the Act, the Governor's notice had the effect of terminating further consideration of the Yucca Mountain site until both Houses of Congress passed and the President signed into law a joint resolution approving the site.

The State veto provisions of the act accomplished their intent, which was to afford Congress another opportunity to review and determine if the objection was sufficient to terminate the program. Based on expert opinion, both Houses concluded that the objection was not sufficient, and that the Yucca Mountain site is geologically suitable for development of the repository. In the national interest, Congress approved the Yucca Mountain site, and instructed DOE to file a license application for the repository with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC. The decision has been made. All the scientific work performed to date supports the decision.

With the siting decision made, it will now be up to the EPA to issue general standards and for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license the facility by evaluating the scientific data and determining whether the repository will permanently, and safely, isolate nuclear waste.

Yucca Mountain is the cornerstone of our national comprehensive spent nuclear fuel management strategy for this country. Let me be clear: We need Yucca Mountain. We must make this program work. I believe the bill introduced today will do that.

This bill will remove unintended legal barriers that will allow DOE to meet its obligation to accept and store spent nuclear fuel as soon as possible, without prejudging the outcome of the NRC's repository licensing decision.

The bill I am introducing today authorizes DOE to permanently withdraw 147,000 acres of Federal land from public use currently controlled by the Bureau of Land Management, the Air Force, and the Nevada Test Site, to satisfy a license condition of the NRC.

This legislation will repeal the arbitrary 70,000 metric ton statutory limit on emplacement of radioactive material at Yucca Mountain. The cap was imposed when Congress was considering two rounds of repositories. I believe that the capacity of the mountain should be determined by scientific and technical analysis, and not by political compromises.

Today, the major facility at the Yucca Mountain site is an ``exploratory studies facility'' with a 25-foot-diameter, 5-mile long, tunnel with ramps leading to the surface. This legislation will allow the DOE to begin construction of needed infrastructure for the repository and surface storage facilities as soon as they complete an environmental impact statement that evaluates these activities.

The ``Nu-Way'' bill also begins to consolidate the defense nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel from defense activities at the Yucca Mountain site. The bill requires DOE to file for a permit to build a surface receipt and storage facility at the Nevada Test Site at the same time it files its license application for a repository at Yucca Mountain.

As soon as the department receives the permit for the surface receipt and storage facility from the NRC, it may begin moving defense fuel and waste to the Nevada Test Site. We are not giving DOE any new authority to move spent fuel. DOE currently has authority to transport and consolidate defense waste at DOE facilities, with the sole exception of Yucca Mountain site. The spent nuclear fuel from our Navy and defense activities that kept us safe during the Cold War should be consolidated and stored securely at the Nevada Test Site. The defense waste is currently stored temporarily in Hanford, Idaho and Savannah River sites.

This legislation further provides that only after the NRC issues a construction permit for Yucca Mountain, may the Department of Energy begin moving civilian spent fuel to the Nevada Test Site. This legislation also lays the foundation to integrate Yucca Mountain Repository Program and Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, GNEP, by providing that before civilian spent nuclear fuel is shipped to Yucca Mountain, the Secretary of Energy must determine if it can be recycled within a reasonable time. I might add that the current plans for GNEP do not include recycling all 55,000 metric tons of civilian spent fuel that has already been generated. This proposal will would avoid moving waste to Yucca Mountain Site that should be shipped instead to a GNEP facility.

In the long run, this measure provides DOE with the authorities needed to execute the Yucca Mountain project for long term emplacement and for the

GNEP program to reduce the volume and toxicity of the material to be placed in the repository, thereby eliminating the need for a second waste repository.

This bill will also withdraw land for a rail route Yucca, a vital transportation component. There is also a provision that provides that appropriations from the nuclear waste fund will not count against the allocations for discretionary spending. DOE will have access to the full funds in the nuclear waste fund, moneys collected from electricity rate payers, our constituents, specifically for developing and constructing the waste repository.

To address the liability problem created by Congress when DOE could not remove spent nuclear fuel from the reactor sites, this legislation will authorize DOE to revise the standard contract to accept waste from new nuclear reactors at a more reasonable schedule. By doing all of these things, this bill will establish a comprehensive program that will provide confidence that our Nation's nuclear waste will be managed safely both for current and future reactors.

The issue of Yucca Mountain has been addressed repeatedly by Congress and Presidents. The legislation I am introducing today will not circumvent any environmental standards or regulations, nor will it preempt any State or local government rights.

Despite the great advances that we have made in this Nation on nuclear energy, we are still faced with challenges. EIA estimates that even with a projected increase in nuclear capacity and generation in large, the nuclear share of total electricity is estimated to fall from 19 percent in 2005 to 15 percent in 2030. This is because our energy needs will be great over the next 25 years. For energy security reasons, economic reasons and environmental reasons, we must make nuclear energy a larger part of our mix. To meet the challenge of reducing carbon emissions in order to address climate change, we need nuclear energy. And, if we need nuclear energy, we need Yucca Mountain.

Solving nuclear waste is in the national interest. We can solve this problem and I hope we can move forward together in a new way.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Obama to introduce the Veterans' Mental Health Outreach and Access Act. This bill will require the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs to establish a program for the provision of readjustment and mental health services to veterans who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, with a particular emphasis on those soldiers who served in the National Guard and Reserves.

Operation Enduring Freedom, OEF, and Operation Iraqi Freedom, OIF, are unique in their extensive use of National Guard and Reserve troops and their reliance on repetitive deployments. More than 1,500 National Guard and Reservists from New Mexico have been deployed in support of OIF and OEF. Several hundred of these soldiers have been deployed multiple times. This is a new era for our National Guard and for the Reserve. The role of these organizations in defending our national security has significantly increased. Guard and Reserve members are seeing significant combat action and we know that a number of these soldiers will return with mental and physical wounds suffered in these wars, including post traumatic stress disorder, depression, brain injuries and other traumatic illnesses.

Virtually all returning veterans and their families will face readjustment problems. These soldiers and their families deserve the best care and treatment possible, but where do our National Guard and Reserve soldiers fit into the military and veterans' systems of care? These ``citizen-soldiers'' are not returning to military bases, but rather to communities that are frequently remote from VA medical centers and clinics.

We're quick to urge that VA provide veterans needed treatment for service-related mental health problems, but we also need to do more to remove the barriers such as travel and distance that oftentimes will prevent a veteran from seeking and continuing treatment. The Domenici- Obama bill calls on the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop a national program to reach vets who can't or won't seek VA care. It requires the Secretary to mount a national program to train a cadre of returning servicemembers for positions as peer outreach workers and peer-support specialists. In any remote area of the country in which the VA determines there is inadequate access to a VA medical center, the bill directs the Secretary of the VA to contract with community mental health centers and other qualified entities to provide peer outreach and support services, readjustment counseling and mental health services. However, any resulting contracts would require centers to first train and adhere to the VA's expertise and standards of care in mental health. It also will require any contract-provider to hire a trained peer specialist as well as have its clinicians participate in a training program to be certain they'll provide ``culturally competent'' services.

This bill also gives needed attention to the toll these military operations have on the mental health needs of our veterans' families. These deployments are causing great stress for the spouses and children of these soldiers. Yet despite the recognition of the mental health needs of the family members of the returning veterans, current law limits the ability of the VA to work with these family members. This bill will expand access to mental health services for the immediate family of the veteran so that they may help the veteran recover in the case of injury or illness incurred during deployment. It will also help expand access to services so that the family can better help the veteran adjust back to civilian life, and also help the readjustment of the family to the return of the veteran.

Lastly, this bill will extend the eligibility for health care services from the Department of Veterans Affairs for veterans who served in combat from 2 years to 5 years. Two years is often insufficient time for symptoms related to PTSD and other mental illness to manifest. In many cases, it takes years for symptoms to present themselves, and the difficulty is often compounded by the fact that many servicemembers do not immediately seek the care that they need. Five years provides a more adequate window to address these risks.

Outreach and access to treatment are essential to prevent readjustment problems for our returning veterans and their families. Left untreated, mental disorders like PTSD and depression can become chronic and debilitating. We need systems in place to ensure that OEF/ OIF veterans who are returning to their homes have access to the services they need. It is my hope that this legislation will help close the gaps we currently have in our service delivery systems and provide help to those who have experienced mental health problems as a result of their service to their country.

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

Mr. President, may I ask how much time we have on our side?

And on the other side?

Mr. President, I yield myself the 11\1/2\ minutes we have remaining.

Mr. President, might I first say how good it is to see the Senator from Colorado in the chair as debate on this first crucial vote on this bill winds down. Because while sitting in the chair and presiding is a functional part of the Senate's normal operation, in this debate, for the Senator from Colorado and this Senator from New Mexico, it means a little more than that. My neighboring Senator, the new Senator from Colorado, has indeed spent a great deal of time and effort and applied some very good common sense, when others were not applying it, to this bill. He has done more than his share to see to it that we arrived here today at this point and can move ahead with a very difficult bill, with some very difficult propositions being put forth, and I commend him for that.

Let me say to those who are listening, I still want, at some point before we close debate, probably within the next 5 or 6 or 8 days, to talk to the Senate about my family and the whole history of how we got here--how we survived the immigration laws, which were very complicated 50 or so years ago when I was a little kid. They were so complicated that my mother was arrested by the Federal Government because they said she was not a citizen. She was arrested right in front of all of us children, only to find out there were some technical problems with her efforts to become a citizen. We had to sit there and watch her march off, as some people talk about happening to them today.

But today I want to talk about where we are with a complicated bill and what should happen tonight. First, many Members worked hard and long with two Cabinet members to weave together a very interesting bill to manage illegal aliens and aliens who want to come to this country to get ahead, as my folks did when they got on a boat and went to France and ended up in Albuquerque from the little town of Lucca in northern Italy. They came and followed the laws of that day. Others want the same thing.

The important thing to know is that relevant laws, and what has happened to immigrants, and how those laws have been applied to those people, is in shambles. Americans know that. Every day they tell us about something happening on the border, and then they remind us of those things because they are very upset and angry citizens. And what they are upset about is that we have a body of laws but those laws aren't being enforced because we are right up alongside some countries that are poor and whose people want to work and make more money than they can make at home by getting over here and getting a job.

Everybody should understand that the big problem here is the problem of economics. People from Mexico and other countries in or near this continent want to make a living and they can't make a living at home. Things are in disarray because that big force, that economic force, drives these people who have families they want to send money to, who are trying to get away from starvation. That is pushing everything into the ground and pushing people from what they should do to what they are doing, and lo and behold, there is a huge illegal immigration problem everywhere you turn.

In putting the pieces together, those who wrote the bill we have before us decided that, among all of the pieces, we needed to have a legalized temporary worker piece to this American fabric of a bill that will control guest workers henceforth. When we are finished, we will have a law that works against and in favor of, depending upon who you are and what you are doing, and will regulate the law applying to guest workers and undocumented aliens.

There is no question, according to those who worked so hard on this bill, that we need a temporary worker component in the bill. So they put it in there. It is a 2-year program. You get a special card, and you can work for 2 years as a temporary worker and then you must go home for a year. This is a temporary worker permit. It is different from anything else in the bill. Those who worked so hard to piece the bill together so that it would work said: Among the things we have, let's

make sure we have a temporary worker permit.

This is not for agricultural workers only, and anybody who thinks it is does not know what is happening in America. The illegal aliens are working in all kinds of jobs. It would shock you to know what industries. If this bill works and these undocumented workers turn themselves in, we are going to have a great big shock in America when we find out who these individuals are, what they do, where they work and how they make a living. When those 10 to 12 million Americans show up and agree that they want to take a chance on America, that will be one phase of this bill. But even after that is finished, we will decide tonight whether there will be room for the next 50 years, or until we change it, for new people to come here and take a place as temporary workers in the United States, as described and defined, for 2 years, and then they must go home. They must stay home a year and then come back. Do we want that?

Those who have worked hard on this bill say a resounding: Yes, we do. We need it. It is part of the entire panorama of the pieces of the bill, and taken all together, we ought to vote aye and this part of the bill ought to stay intact. That will be the first indication tonight that we understand that those who worked hard to put this bill together deserve our confidence regarding this very important piece of legislation for temporary workers.

I hope everybody who is interested in a good law will keep this piece in the bill tonight when they vote. With that, I understand there are others who might want to speak on our side. I had the remaining time because no one was here, but since Senator Specter is here, I am going to yield. Whatever that does for him, I am glad to do it. I yield back any time I have.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, will the Senator yield?

I wanted to ask unanimous consent that the time from now until the vote be allotted to the Senator from Florida and to the senior Senator from New Mexico and that there is no time remaining on the Democrat side, unless Senator Kennedy wants some of my time.

So I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time be allotted to the two of us and, if necessary, we can allot time to somebody else.

I thank the Senator for yielding and thank him for all the hard work he has put into this bill.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Florida for his dedicated work on this bill and for his efforts heretofore a couple of years ago, when he worked very hard on this issue. We didn't have success, but maybe this bill, in spite of all the early talk against it, may succeed. Maybe with some amendments and some work it may become the new law with reference to illegal aliens for the United States of America. It is good enough for America. It is sufficiently clear for America. It will clear up the status of the 10 to 12 million undocumented aliens who live here. It will clear that problem up. Everywhere you look, we have let the problems of illegal aliens grow out of all proportions.

It is a hard job to put a bill like this together. It is not easy. It is one of the most difficult jobs you can have to put legislation together to try to fix the last 15 years of letting our laws be ignored. We have not cared about them, letting the borders become porous, letting millions of people in illegally, which has caused all kinds of problems. But I can tell you, if you look at this bill carefully and you don't look at it with any preconceived ideas or ideology, but look at it and ask: What are the practical problems and what are the practical solutions here? I submit that it comes close to solving these problems in the very best way possible.

I am sorry I already heard this morning Senators talking for a very long period of time about why they are against this bill. In the end, I listened and, after listening, I concluded that most of them had it wrong. I don't like to say that about my fellow Senators, but they had it wrong on the major issues, which they said made up their mind to be against the bill.

Let me tell you what is going to happen under this bill. Before anything else in this bill is used or implemented, our borders must be secure. Let me repeat: whatever you hear from Senators that this bill is going to do, none of those provisions are going to be implemented unless and until we have secured the border. I don't know how we can say it any clearer. Senator Kennedy and Senator Jon Kyl from Arizona, the leaders on each side on this issue with Senator Specter, maybe what you are going to have to do is pull the text of this bill that secures the border and distribute it to the Senators so they will have it right in front of them to see that there is a border security part of this bill. It is there. It says, before you can implement the other provisions of this bill, the border will be made secure.

It doesn't stop there. It tells you what a secure border is. It says 18,000 Border Patrol agents must be hired. We are well on a path of getting them hired and trained. We can do this because we finally, for the last 3 years, we have been funding. We have been hiring thousands of them. But the bill says none of the bill's other provisions shall go into effect until the border is made secure.

Then it says that secure means 370 miles of border fencing must be built. The Department of Homeland Security is committed to building 370 miles by December 31, 2008. We are being honest. We didn't have to say that date. We didn't have to talk about it. But we cannot get fencing built any sooner. So that period of time is going to have to be used before we do other things in the bill. The bill cannot change anybody's status this year because those provisions are dormant until the border is made secure. They are dormant.

It also says 200 miles of vehicular barriers must be in place. It says 70 radar and camera towers must be on the southern border. It says four unmanned aerial vehicles must be in operation we have to leave undocumented aliens apprehended on the border in detention facilities to wait until they are deported. Right now if you don't have a place for them, the judges release them. That has been one of our problems. The bill has 27,500 detention beds to end the ``catch and release program'', which we are aware of, those of us who represent the border. You have to have all that done before the bill becomes operative.

So if any one of those is not done, it is just like not having an immigration reform bill; isn't that correct?

People say you are going to do immigration reform before the border is secured. How are we going to do that when the law says you throw the rest of the bill away until we have secured the border, and then it tells you what border security is? That has been worked on day and night. That has been done to try to calm so many thousands of people who have been indoctrinated to believe that the only thing we should do is make the border secure. So all they are going to ask you when you go home is: Did you secure the border, Senator? And, Senator, I heard from such and such that you didn't secure the border.

Senators ought to carry around a piece of paper that has this border security provision on it, and you ought to take it out and read it to your constituents. They deserve the truth. They want the truth. We are not trying to do anything to hide what we did. We are trying to make sure they know it.

I mentioned the name of a Senator from Arizona. He is not here, but Jon Kyl will be here tomorrow, so all the Americans out there will understand that Jon Kyl was one of the Republican who spent literally hundreds upon hundreds of hours as a dedicated

leader on this issue, with Senator Kennedy on the other side. Senator Kennedy will acknowledge--if he hasn't already--that without Jon Kyl we could not have this proposal. People should know that Senator Kyl knew this was the chance of a lifetime for this great country. You could not get everything you wanted because there are other people playing. If you have 10 Senators working on it, and they are Democrats and Republicans and they each believe one thing or another, you have to come to a practical compromise.

That is what it means to be a Senator who writes the law well. He works with his fellow Senators to come up with what they can use and do in a practical manner. That is what happened with this bill. It is practical, yet it is doable; and it is not only doable, it is right.

If America accomplishes this bill in its totality, we will have made one of the largest changes for the better for the United States, and I don't think there is any doubt about that. It is tough, and it is going to be hard.

I wish to talk about another provision, and then if Senator Specter is back and wants time, I will yield to him.

This bill is difficult because everybody wants to know two things about this bill. There are other pieces, but there are two major questions. One is, did you secure the border, and I just talked about that because I am just like every other Senator. My telephone is ringing and most people want to know: Did you secure the border? Or they tell you that you did not secure the border and you have to be sure that you set them straight and they understand that you did secure the border.

The money has been rolling in every year to secure the border, and it will be coming in again this year to get this work finished because if it can't get finished, the other provisions cannot be carried out. One of those other provisions is a brand new effort on the part of this great country to take 10 to 12 million aliens who live in our country, who live kind of as hideouts--they are everywhere and they are nowhere. Some live running from one place to another. Others have found a way with illegal cards to find their way into society. They are your neighbors with their kids going to school just like yours. We have decided, because the country has asked us to, that we have to do something about that 10 to 12 million people.

For those who are interested, just ask your Senators about the bill as it is written, ask what we are going to do. We are going to tell those illegal aliens who are here working: If you want to take advantage of this law, you have to come forward and turn yourself in, and the United States will then begin to work with you on a path toward giving you a document that you can carry with you, that you can use to obtain work, and you will be legal 4 years at a time.

The bill also says after 8 years of that process, you will have an opportunity to choose, if you want, to move in the direction of becoming a citizen. But you still have at least 5 years to wait, and you must return to your home country and file your application. You must pay another fine. You must learn English. That is the first time we have had that provision. And you must learn U.S. civics.

All of that must happen: 8 years of work, make a choice to pursue citizenship, wait at least 5 more years for a total of 13 years, and then if you can pass the citizenship test, you can become a citizen if you so choose. You can choose another route and you don't have to become a citizen or ultimately you can go home. There might be many people who will do that. We don't know.

Before I turn the time over to Senator Specter--and I don't have time--but my friends, a couple of Senators have heard me talk before about my family, average people who got involved with the laws of our land as immigrants.

Madam President, how much time would Senator Specter like?

It looks like we have 6 minutes. Is that what it is?

I will take 4 minutes telling about my family, and Senator Specter can have the rest.

I will be pleased to yield.

Reserving the right to object.

Madam President, I would normally not object, but I understand the leaders have set the time at 5:30 p.m. for the vote, and this request will extend the time. I don't think I have the authority to extend the time for a vote. Madam President, I ask Senator Kennedy, am I thinking right? I wasn't here when we agreed to take this up.

It is at 5:30 p.m. we are going to vote.

I have to object.

That is fine. If the Senator from New Jersey has permission, he can come back and do that.

Madam President, I wish to tell about both my parents who came to this country as aliens, but I don't believe in 3 or 4 minutes that I can do that adequately. So I will try to find another time in the next 5 or 6 days to tell you, Americans, who are listening, that you have a Senator whose parents were both born in a foreign country, whose parents came here as youngsters.

It is a very interesting story because on my mother's side, she married my father after consultation with a lawyer about citizenship requirements. They were told that my mother was a citizen once they got married because my father was a citizen. He became a citizen because he served in the First World War. He came over right at the turn of the century and was drafted into the First World War.

It turned out that the lawyer gave them wrong advice, and my mother was not a citizen. She raised her children here and lived here as a perfect model citizen.

Then one day during the Second World War, she was arrested by several men who came in black cars to the back door while we four children were playing with marbles, or whatever we did. In came the people, the agents that work for the U.S., saying this lady was an illegal alien and she should be arrested.

Of course, that was a shock, needless to say. My father came hurrying home from work and, guess what, the lawyer who had given him advice, my dad brought him along. He went over to his office and got him and said: You got us in this trouble, maybe you ought to come over and get us out.

Sure enough, the lawyer was very upset. By evening, my poor mother was released because she had a good lawyer. A lot of people don't have that, and we know what happens to them under our laws.

Next, I will tell you about my father and what happened to him. That will be the next episode, shall we say. For now, I yield the remainder of the time that we have to Senator Specter.

I don't want to go ahead of Senator Wyden. I will take 15 to 20 minutes. Senator Wyden ought to go, if it is his turn, and I will come after him.

Let's take that.

Madam President, I gather that I am next under the time agreement, and that I have up to 15 minutes; is that correct?

Indeed.

Madam President, I thank the chairman very much, and let me say to the distinguished chairman that some of those budgets had some extraordinarily good things in them, some were just--well, you just had to do what you had to do.

I can remember how long and hard we worked and worried about giving drugs to our senior citizens as part of Medicare. Anybody that is interested in whether a budget act has any force should go back and look at how that happened. We did it with a reconciliation instruction. We started with $400 million--I think we ended up with about $500 million or $600 million before we finished it--and that is where we reconciled and said you can only use it for this. It was an experiment as to whether it would work because there is nothing in the law that says you can do that. When you do the right thing--things that people are otherwise frightened to do--they will let a budget act do things they would not otherwise let happen. It wouldn't be part of the expectation when you read the fine lines in the Budget Act.

The Senator has done some of that here. He has extended it, and I commend him for it. I don't like it, but that is what we are here for, to agree and disagree. I don't like the budget as the Senator has prepared it, but I give him great credit for getting it done. It is a most difficult job. Senator Conrad also had a House that had just changed, and that was very hard for him to figure out with whom he was working and what they wanted and how they wanted to negotiate. So I really think it was probably as onerous and difficult as any, but the Senator is here, and you are a hero when you can finish a budget.

People don't stay here and applaud afterward, but it is something very extraordinary to get it done and be able to say we are through tonight. So I commend him for that.

Having said that, Madam President, I want to start with a little editorial piece that was found in the Wall Street Journal a couple of days ago. It is called ``April Revenue Shower,'' and in it, it says:

Here's the ``surge'' you aren't reading about: The

continuing flood of tax revenue into the Federal Treasury.

Tax receipts for April were $70 billion above the same month

in 2006, and April 24 marked the single biggest day of tax

collections in U.S. history, at $48,700 billion, according to

the latest Treasury report.

It goes on to compare other months and to further document the validity of the April shower of revenue coming to the Government.

If I were on the other side and writing a budget, I would be very frightened to read about April showers and see how much April showers, if continued into the next 2 or 3 years, would do to correct and rectify the deficit of the United States and take care of the biggest problem we have, which is deficit spending each year. In just a few years, 2 years, if these April shower rates of revenue continue, we will be approaching a balanced budget in the United States. I, for one, would like to have seen us stay closer to the budget that brought us those April showers than to change dramatically away from those budget concepts that got us those April showers for so many months.

We all know it wasn't just 1 month, it was many months. If you look back, we have had many months of strong economic performance in this economy, and that strong performance brought with it showers of revenues to the Treasury of the United States beyond anything we expected. We never put down as an estimate during the last two or three budgets anything close to the revenues that came spewing into the Treasury because things were going right.

That leads me to the conclusion that we ought to be careful when things are going right. We ought to be careful about changing big concepts within that budget for fear that it may stop going right and April showers may turn into something far different. Instead of showers, it may turn into hailstorms. It may turn into blizzards, instead of nice, friendly showers that are yielding tax dollars and revenues to the American Treasury.

From my standpoint, this budget goes the wrong way. This budget I have seen, the estimates I have been shown, say this budget before us would increase taxes by $736 billion. These tax increases include all marginal rates except the 10-percent bracket, capital gains rates, dividend rates, and the alternative minimum tax and education tax relief.

As we understand from those who do the estimating, in my State--so it must be in all States--93,000 New Mexico investors, including senior citizens, would pay more because of an increase in capital gains rates and dividend rates in this budget. Right off, I believe we ought to be careful with that. Maybe it is the capital gains and the dividends, which were major changes in policies, that might have had more to do with sustaining the budget and bringing those April showers that didn't just occur in April but occurred in May, June, July, and August, those large revenue chunks that were coming to the Federal Government which were not expected.

I submit it is extremely easy to balance a budget and show a surplus when you utilize one of the largest tax increases in our country's history. Obviously, when you have a budget such as we had, where you had tax cuts and they were multiyear, and then you stop them, you can say you didn't increase any taxes. But the impact on the taxpayer will be felt as a tax increase because if they were expecting what they had last year, and it goes up because you did not continue with the cut, then they obviously look around to see who raised their taxes. Obviously, if you stop the tax cuts, then you get increases and the public should know where they come from. It is obvious they will come from this budget, carrying it out.

Once again, let me call to the attention of the Senate that according to this Wall Street Journal editorial, in April alone the U.S. Government collected $70 billion in tax receipts more than the same month last year for the current fiscal year taxes. Tax receipts are 11.3 percent, or $153 billion from last year. I am not sure if most people are aware of the fact that on April 24, 2007, the United States collected a record-setting $48 billion in taxes. I am sure the people do not know. There is no reason they should. But we ought to tell them on a day like this that they did. Tax receipts went up enormously, as I have indicated, and as this editorial indicates. That means if changes in policies in this budget are such that they change the winds that brought these showers the Wall Street Journal is talking about, then you will stop getting the showers of dollars that are there and you will get something that will be bad for the American people: The economy will go down instead of up and the kinds of things that yield good April showers filled with revenues will stop being the order of the day.

I think we should worry and look long and hard at these numbers before we consider making changes to the budget policy. Because of these record tax revenues, the budget deficit could be slashed in more than half from this year to the same time next year. The deficit could be reduced to $150 billion this year, which equates to approximately 1 percent of gross domestic product.

I believe our current budget policy is paying off. The next 18 to 24 months the deficit could be caused to disappear if we do not vary off the course. This is one point in time where the status quo may be the better alternative.

However, under the budget we are considering if budget surpluses do not materialize, the so-called ``trigger'' will stop the extension of any tax relief and we will see firsthand the largest tax hike in American history.

We are not doing enough to ensure economic stability to the bulk of the Nation.

This budget will result in the expiration of the tax breaks that we gave to the middle class, causing an enormous tax burden to be placed on these families.

One can clearly see that on a national level, the middle class stands to lose the most under this proposal.

In my home state of New Mexico, the impact of repealing the current tax relief would be felt widely by the middle class.

Added to these concerns is that fact that this budget does not thoroughly address the alternative minimum tax.

Providing a patch for the AMT only leaves us in the position of correcting this problem in the future.

Absent legislative action, the middle class will bear the brunt of the AMT, which will affect significantly more taxpayers.

The reverberations of this inaction will be seen all over the country and will be especially evident in a state like New Mexico.

Coupled with the nonexistent tax relief, this budget fails to address the 800 pound gorilla in the room, otherwise known as entitlement spending.

After 2010, spending related to the aging of the baby-boom generation will begin to raise the growth rate of total outlays.

The annual growth rate of Social Security spending is expected to increase from about 4.5 percent in 2008 to 6.5 percent by 2017.

In addition, because the cost of health care is likely to continue rising rapidly, spending for Medicare and Medicaid is projected to grow even faster--in the range of 7 or 8 percent annually. Total outlays for Medicare and Medicaid are projected to more than double by 2017, increasing by 124 percent, while nominal GDP is projected to grow only 63 percent.

The budget currently under consideration does not offer solutions, much less even address, entitlement spending or reform.

I do not support this budget in its current form because it increases taxes and it does not offer any meaningful solution for entitlement spending.

I yield the floor.