Floor Statements

I wonder if the distinguished Senator will yield?

Mr. President, I will ask that it be taken off the bill, not off his time.

Very briefly, I wish to say to the Senator that he has made an eloquent presentation and he has certainly shown people that he understands what the National Science Foundation is supposed to do and what it does. But there is no question that it does two things at least and, in most cases, more. It does research, but it also does education. That is enumerated in the year we are in and enumerated in the outyears. That, along with other activities, including research that the Senator is worried about, is enumerated and protected by an actual appropriation; that is, the thing that worries him is the one that should worry all of us, and that is the adequacy and assurance of research and that it will not be gobbled up or picked at as time changes.

It seems to me we did it right here because we earmarked, in a sense, all the different areas and put the two worrying him the most--both of these are there. Both research and education are there. It seems to me that is what we want to do. I don't know how you could do it any other way and we be able to tell the Senators who helped us put this together that they are protected for science research and for education. That is really what we are trying to do because they worked hard on it. They thought this was an area of importance. We agreed with them. It turns out, as Senator Bingaman said just two moments ago, it is true, this bill is beginning to sound right because it is saying we were really hurting on basic science, and this is an area, the National Science Foundation, an instrumentation of our Government, which has been doing very well and we want to give them a lot of extra money if we want to do this, a bill like this, for our country.

I thank the Senator for the time.

Mr. President, I just want to second that motion as to what Senator Bingaman just said and ask Senators on my side of the aisle to take a look, as soon as you can, with your staffs at this bill and tell us whether you have amendments. If we are going to finish at a time certain, we do not want everybody to come down at 4 o'clock and complain. We have a lot of time, but it will be useless if Senators do not bring their amendments down. We know there are some floating around, but we certainly do not have an adequate understanding of how many Senators have. It would be helpful if Senators would send us a message that they have amendments and what they amount to. We will work with Senators so we can get them done quickly.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Bingaman.

Mr. President, I don't want much time. How much time does the Senator have?

Mr. President, I hope I don't use over 3 minutes. Maybe the Chair can notify me at 3 minutes.

I rise to indicate that I don't think we should adopt this amendment. Frankly, some of the provisions in this act are only authorized through 2011. Now we come along and authorize them for that long, meaning we are going to probably work at redoing them, but we have hanging over our heads a sunset that came into existence just a couple of years after we put the bill into play.

Here is the problem: If you want to go to a sunset approach to minimizing our Government, then why in the world would you start with one of the best pieces of legislation we have adopted? This is good law. This is going to be doing great things. If you want to have a sunset provision, pick a bunch of these things you know aren't any good and sunset them, not sunset a bill that has some force and effect that carries on much broader and has the chance of doing some real good.

This one in the end will be extremely mischievous at the most, and some people will claim that it did great things. The truth is, this bill needs more than the time allowed by this amendment because it is new ground, new approaches to putting more brain power into the brains of America's students as they go through school. You can't do that in a short period of time.

This is the wrong bill, the wrong time to sunset, and it won't do any good. Therefore, it should not be adopted. I thank the Senator for yielding me 3 minutes.

Would the Senator yield for 30 seconds to the Senator from New Mexico?

I intend to vote for your NOAA amendment, and I compliment you on what it does. I do think you have some merit in the other amendments, including the last one. It is just very hard to do that kind of thing now on this bill.

I think you have raised some real points about that big program. We ought to be careful when we have a $2 billion program, and we are not. It is not getting out there to small and independent businesses that have to go and seek private assistance, and you have made good points. It is just hard to do it on this bill.

The NOAA amendment, I am telling you in advance, I am for you.

Madam President, I wish to commend the managers of the bill for continuing here on the floor the remarkable cooperative effort that characterized the development of this legislation by the three Senate committees. That said, I want to note that I think we need to give further consideration to the funding pattern for basic research within the Department of Energy in Section 2006. We have responded to the Augustine Report's call for increasing our commitment to basic research in the physical sciences by doubling funding over the next decade, but we need to make sure that those funds are distributed over the years in a manner that will maximize the effectiveness of those programs. I suggest that we need to increase and accelerate funding for these basic research programs. I request that the managers agree to work with me to accomplish that as this bill works its way through conference.

I thank my colleagues for their willingness to work with me on this issue, and I am hopeful that the conference report we ultimately consider will have the best funding scenario we can provide for these basic research programs.

Authorization of the Atp Program

Madam President, fellow Senators, I have been involved in the last 2 years in two major legislative efforts; both of them have been bipartisan, extremely bipartisan. I don't know how far that will carry us, but it certainly is a good feeling. It is different to know that Senators on both sides of the aisle support the effort you are making when you work hard for something like we did for this one.

The brain power of our youth is the salvation of our country. It is the source of innovation and the source of our economic power. It is failing because we are not educating our children properly. That is the heart of the recommendation given to us. It is the heart of what they gave us as their recommendations, the great American leaders who volunteered, and we were able to keep most of it regardless of how difficult the committee jurisdictions are. Three major committees getting together to fix this is pretty good work.

I thank everyone. There are more that I want to thank one on one. I will thank them later. But it has been a great effort. I thoroughly enjoyed it after these many years of being a Senator. The last couple of years have been absolutely terrific when you can get a couple of major bills done with both sides of the aisle.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I will be very brief because so much has been said, I do not think I should repeat it. I think all of the people who deserve to be thanked have been thanked. I thank Senator Bingaman for being so gracious to all of those who worked on this legislation. I say to Senator Bingaman, you always do, and you made sure the Record reflects each of their names, including those of my staff. We all thank you for that act of courtesy.

I just want to say, we all knew when we started we were addressing a very big problem. I am sure each of us from time to time has wondered whether what we were doing was going to have as big an effect as we hoped on our children in their ability to improve their brainpower, as we help teachers who teach them be better teachers of the hard subjects of math and science and the like.

I am sure many times we wondered whether this was the right avenue and approach. But once we got into it, it was apparent we had not been led astray, that the leaders who put it together for us--and there is not a large group of them, but they are very talented, and they are very American--sought nothing but to give us the best recommendations for our country. That was a wonderful group in the Academies. Of course, their chairman, the former CEO of Lockheed Martin, just did a marvelous job.

I am very hopeful, now that we have done this, we will get the money appropriated. I pledge here tonight I will do everything I can--and I hope we will muster more help as we go through appropriations--to see that we give this legislative thrust a chance. If you want a shell, you will get a shell. If you do not want to pay for these programs, you will not help your kids, because there is nothing mysterious about this. There is a huge amount of work that has to be done by people and institutions that have to be paid.

This bill says how we are going to pay for it, but it is an authorizing bill. I told the Senate that, and I proved it, there is nothing we could do in terms of the Budget Act for those who wanted to stop it, because it does not spend money. It authorizes a series of new ideas as the program for the country. The program is immobile without the resources that are stated. As we look at it carefully, we might even see we did not put enough in certain areas. I am certainly going to go to conference and work on the Appropriations Committee with the full idea that we must fully fund this bill for the next 3 or 4 years if we are going to get what we want for our young people and the teachers and parents who so anxiously wait for something good and positive.

This day has been a long time coming. For over a year, we have been working to pass a bill that will give America the brain power needed to compete in the global marketplace.

This is a process that began in the Energy Committee, with a request to the National Academy of Sciences to put together a report that told us what needed to be done to help America compete. That report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' led by former Lockheed CEO Norm Augustine, serves as the basis for the legislation we just passed.

Last year, the Energy Committee moved forward with legislation that utilizes the Department of Energy and its national labs to train our teachers and rekindle interest in math and science. We called that bill the PACE--Protecting America's Competitive Edge.

At the end of last session, and again this year, we were able to partner with our leaders, Senator Reid and Senator McConnell, and our colleagues on the Commerce and HELP Committees, to put together the comprehensive America COMPETES Act.

Less than 6 percent of high school seniors have plans to study engineering, but 50 percent of our current U.S. science and engineering workforce is approaching retirement age.

By bringing our national labs into the classroom, we can begin to address this problem.

Since the Augustine report emphasizes the need for a renewed focus on basic science and research, this bill authorizes doubling the funding for DOE's Office of Science.

I look forward to working with the House in conference to pass a strong, bipartisan bill that will allow America to rise above the gathering storm and compete once again.

With that, Madam President, once again, I thank Senator Bingaman. It has been a pleasure to get another bipartisan bill through with you. If we keep doing this, they are going to be mentioning the Senator from New Mexico so much--mentioning you and then me--they are going to think the whole place is full of Senators from New Mexico. We do not have to worry about that. We will take what we can get and do the best we can with it.

I say to the Senator, thank you, Lamar, for coming to me and asking: Could I push this with you all? It was a pleasure--and under my chairmanship--to push it with you and for you. It came out very well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Bingaman to introduce a bill of importance to the economic development of our Southwest border States, the Laser Visa Extension Act of 2007.

The United States and Mexico have had special travel rules for Mexican nationals who visit our country for short periods of time since 1953. These visitors can come into our country with a document known as a ``laser visa'' or ``border crossing card'', which is an alternative to a passport and must be obtained from the U.S. government. In the 1990s, the rule was that anyone who held such a document could travel up to 25 miles from the Mexico/U.S. border.

In 1999, Arizona and the Border Trade Alliance mounted a successful campaign to extend the mileage limit in Arizona to 75 miles because there is no large town within 25 miles of the Arizona/Mexico border, so Arizona wasn't getting the economic benefits of these travelers.

Similarly, there is no large town within 25 miles of the New Mexico/ Mexico border, so my constituents do not get the economic benefits of laser visa travelers. This disparity needs to be corrected. Moreover, all four Southwest border States should see the same benefits of laser visa travelers.

Therefore, the bill I am introducing today extends the distance laser visa holders can travel into the United States to 100 miles, regardless of which State they are in. Such an extension will allow more towns in all four of our Southwest border States to reap the economic benefits of short-term visitors to our country who hold a travel document issued by our Federal Government.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Bingaman to introduce a bill of importance to the economic development of our Southwest border States, the Laser Visa Extension Act of 2007.

The United States and Mexico have had special travel rules for Mexican nationals who visit our country for short periods of time since 1953. These visitors can come into our country with a document known as a ``laser visa'' or ``border crossing card'', which is an alternative to a passport and must be obtained from the U.S. government. In the 1990s, the rule was that anyone who held such a document could travel up to 25 miles from the Mexico/U.S. border.

In 1999, Arizona and the Border Trade Alliance mounted a successful campaign to extend the mileage limit in Arizona to 75 miles because there is no large town within 25 miles of the Arizona/Mexico border, so Arizona wasn't getting the economic benefits of these travelers.

Similarly, there is no large town within 25 miles of the New Mexico/ Mexico border, so my constituents do not get the economic benefits of laser visa travelers. This disparity needs to be corrected. Moreover, all four Southwest border States should see the same benefits of laser visa travelers.

Therefore, the bill I am introducing today extends the distance laser visa holders can travel into the United States to 100 miles, regardless of which State they are in. Such an extension will allow more towns in all four of our Southwest border States to reap the economic benefits of short-term visitors to our country who hold a travel document issued by our Federal Government.

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

Mr. President, I understand my junior colleague has a request before I proceed.

I thank Senator Bingaman.

Mr. President, I am not sure I will take the whole 15, although I have been speaking on this issue for a long enough time that one would think I might have spoken out, but I haven't. I am very excited about the bill, and so I am afraid I will use every 1 of the 15 minutes because there is a lot I want to say.

First of all, let me say that I have the greatest respect for those who oppose this bill, such as the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, chairman of the Budget Committee in the past, who has spoken eloquently about the problems of Social Security and spoken his piece today about this bill.

On the other hand, for myself, I want to say that the time has come for a new bill to get passed, and I want it to be bipartisan and I want Republicans to join Democrats on the bill that I believe we will look back on and say it was the biggest, most significant, most important piece of legislation that we have ever passed, that added to the brain power of the American people, and particularly added to the brain power of the young people coming along who are going to try to keep us the most productive Nation on Earth by getting educated properly.

We are trying to pass this bill after having been told by the best of Americans who took a look at our country, who looked at our laws, and then recommended that we do 20 things. They were all recommendations aimed at the proposal that we were going backward; that we were in reverse gear as far as giving our young people the education they deserve in the areas of math, science, physics, engineering, and the like.

We were advised by the very best Americans. They did this as a gratuity. They weren't paid. They used their time to tell us what was going wrong and what could be fixed in terms of brain power development among our people. They said, essentially, our biggest problem is, after grade 4 and through grade 12 our young people are not getting educated in math, science, physics, and the like by teachers who are educators in those subjects; that huge percentages of the teachers don't even know the subject matter. Yet they are required to teach because they do not have anybody else. So they teach math even if they haven't studied math. They told us we should fix that. This bill will fix that, we hope.

They told us a number of other things. They said put them into law and try to get these things passed, and over the next 5 to 10 years you will see a big difference. The National Science Foundation should receive much more money for the hard science research projects; that the budget of the Department of Energy, which has a science fund, should get more money for the science that it does in the great laboratories of the United States; and to help bring up the education for those youngsters we are talking about by giving them exciting opportunities in the summer months and elsewise, and give the teachers those times to get educated so they can pass on much more

brain power and excitement about these subjects to our young people.

Now, there is no doubt what is in this bill could be done better if one person, or two, who were knowledgeable and fair were doing it and following the recommendations of those who told us to do so. But we can't do that here. We have to go to committees eventually and ask Senators who have vested interests. So we don't have a perfectly drawn bill in comparison to the 20 ideas propounded by the National Academy and the special bill that was produced by the ex-president of Lockheed Martin, Norm Augustine. Now, that part is so. It is true it is a good bill in that regard. So we have to argue about some other points that come in, such as we should not pass any new legislation so long as we have a deficit.

One Senator, a Senator from Oklahoma, has an amendment. I have great respect for him. He says it is the sense of the Senate that the Congress has a moral obligation to offset the cost of new government programs and initiatives. First of all, let me suggest to the distinguished Senator that this bill does not spend money. If it spent money, it would be subject to a point of order under the budget and would fall because it is new spending. Nobody has raised that. Even the great, distinguished, former chairman of the Budget Committee has not done that. He did not stand up and say this bill falls under the Budget Act because it spends money. Why didn't he? Because it doesn't spend money.

There still has to be another act before this spends money. It has to be appropriated. And any authorization bill is the same way. It does not spend money. It does not need approval of the Budget Committee because it doesn't spend money. However, when we try to spend the money, then we better have it in the budget or it will fall under a point of order. That is the truth, and there is nothing moral or immoral about it.

The truth is, when the Senator says we have to offset the cost of government programs and initiatives, and that we have an obligation to our citizens to do so, certainly he ought to recognize we shouldn't have to do it when there is no money being spent because if that is the case, then we are just talking about words. They have no effect. We are talking about words. These words are talking about programs that don't spend money, and the Senator is trying to suggest that since they might spend the money, we ought to do something about it in advance. We would never pass anything around here if we added another requirement to legislation that before it is ever a spending bill it once again clear some new hurdle.

If the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma would like to do that, he ought to go after the Budget Act of the United States and provide that there is a way to raise a point of order against authorizing legislation. We already have enough, but if he wants to do more, more budget points of order, he could put that in there and have a nice debate and see what the Senate thinks of adding that provision to the Budget Act on an authorization.

My good friend, the Senator from New Hampshire, talked about a lot of things that we could be doing that would help our country become a more competitive country, which is what this is all about: putting more brain power in our young people, helping them get more excited about the good things that prepare them innovatively in order to create great things. He spoke of a number of things he would do and could do outside this bill. I agree with him. In fact, I could rewrite a bill we just finished on energy. And if everybody were with me, I could add five or six things to it--even though it is only a year and a half old--that would help with our energy independence. But we have to do things we are asked to do around here, and we have to do them the best we can.

This bill will cost $60 billion, if we decide to spend it, over the next 4 years--if we decide to spend it. Of that, $16 billion represents new programs that are not currently in existence. Now, if anybody can truly, with a really straight face, tell the American people that is what is going to break America--this $16 billion that isn't even spent, that we might spend--it is really going to harm America's economic future, then I don't know what to tell them about what is happening to our budget naturally, about how much is spent for Social Security and other things that just come as a natural matter because of the way the laws are written and that they spend freely on their own.

I want to close by saying to those who oppose the bill, I believe the time has come to pass this bill. It is new, to some extent, and the newness is what is good about it. I believe the time has come to take a chance on some new ways to educate our young people and see if we can't get more brain power developing in the young people of our country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I am not going to take any time. In fact, I just want to do something I very rarely do, but it seems appropriate based on the arguments I have made this day. So I am going to ask for a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair. My parliamentary inquiry is, would this bill, with any of the amendments that have been adopted so far, be subject to a point of order under the Budget Act of the United States?

I thank the Chair.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, might I say to the Senator from Oklahoma, I have watched you in your concern for spending, and I appreciate what you are trying to do to cut spending in the Senate.

But let me say to the Senate, this afternoon I asked the Chair for a point of order. I asked whether this bill would violate the Budget Act. After looking at the bill and coming back, I was advised it does not violate the Budget Act. The reason it does not is because there is no spending in it. If it were spending money, it would be violating the budget because it is not in the budget, and we passed a budget.

Having said that, if we are not spending money, then why should we chastise ourselves about spending money and suggesting that we have to offset something when, as a matter of fact, there is nothing to offset because there is no spending? If we get into this game that authorizing is spending, then we will have a fourth tier of Government. Instead of a budget appropriations and direct spending, we will have people bringing up a new way to attack it on every kind of authorizing bill. I don't think we need that. We need to get on with business every now and then. This is one time.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that authorizes the Federal judgeships recommended by the 2007 Judicial Conference for our U.S. District Courts that are overloaded with immigration cases.

For a year, I have been telling the Senate about the crisis on our Southwest border involving judges who are overwhelmed by the sheer number of immigration cases that are filed in their courts.

New caseload numbers have recently become available, and it is clear that this problem is not going away--Congress must act to fix it. Federal Court Management Statistics available at www.uscourts.gov reveal that for the 12-month period ending September 30, 2006, four District Courts each had more than one thousand criminal immigration filings. Not surprisingly, all of these Districts share a border with Mexico.

In fiscal year 2006, the Southern District of Texas had 3,679 immigration cases, the Western District of Texas had 2,324 immigration cases, the District of New Mexico had 1,940 immigration cases, and the District of Arizona had 1,924 immigration filings. In each of these Districts, immigration filings make up more than forty-nine percent of all of the District's criminal filings. No other District Court recommended for new judgeships had more than 314 immigration filings. In fact, the four Districts mentioned above account for more than 60 percent of all immigration filings in fiscal year 2006.

The legislation I am introducing today authorizes the ten new Federal judgeships recommended by the Judicial Conference for these four U.S. Districts, where immigration filings total more than forty-nine percent of all Federal criminal filings.

Based on these caseloads, we should already have given these Districts new judgeships. But to increase border security and immigration enforcement efforts, as we have over the past few years, without equipping these courts to handle the even larger immigration caseloads that they will face as a result of immigration enforcement efforts would amount to willful negligence on the part of Congress.

It is imperative to equip our Federal agencies with the assets they need to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws, including the Federal District courts that try repeat immigration law violators who are charged with Federal felonies.

The New Mexico District Chief Judge, Martha Vazquez, wrote me a letter in May of 2006 about the situation her District faces. Judge Vazquez wrote:

As it is, the burden on Article III Judges in this District

is considerable. This District ranks first among all

districts in criminal filings per judgeship: 405 criminal

filings compared to the national average of 87. As in all

federal districts along the southwest border, the majority of

cases filed in this District relate to immigration offenses

under United States Code, Title 8 and drug offenses arising

under Title 21. Immigration and drug cases account for

eighty-five percent of the caseload in the District of New

Mexico. . . . In fiscal year 1997, there were 240 immigration

felony filings in the District of New Mexico. By fiscal year

2005, the number of immigration felony filings increased to

1,826, which is an increase of 661 percent.

The Albuquerque Tribune has also documented the burden on our Southwest border District Courts. An April 17, 2006 article entitled ``Judges See Ripple Effect of Policy on Immigration,'' stated:

U.S. District Chief Judge Martha Vazquez of Santa Fe

oversees a court that faces a rising caseload from illegal

border crossings and related crime. And help from Washington

is by no means certain. . . . From Sept. 30, 1999 to Sept.

30, 2004 (the end of the fiscal year), the caseload in the

New Mexico federal district court increased 57.5 percent,

from 2,804 to 4,416. In the 2004 fiscal year alone, 2,126

felony cases were heard, almost half of all cases in the

entire 10th Circuit, which includes Colorado, Kansas,

Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. Most typical immigration cases go

before an immigration judge, and the subjects are deported.

But people deported once and caught crossing illegally again

can be charged with a felony. And that brings the

defendant into federal district court. Those are the cases

driving up New Mexico's caseload . . . Some days as many

as 90 defendants crowd the courtroom in Las Cruces . . .

The same problems are afflicting federal border courts in

Arizona, California, and Texas.

Similar problems were documented in the May 23, 2006 Reuters article ``Bush Border Patrol Plan to Pressure Courts'' which said:

President George W. Bush's plan to send thousands of

National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border could spark a

surge in immigration cases and U.S. courts are ill prepared

to handle them . . . Even without the stepped-up security at

the border, federal courts in southern California, Arizona,

New Mexico and Texas have been overburdened. Carelli [a

spokesman for U.S. federal courts] said those five judicial

districts, out of 94 nationwide, account for 34 percent of

all criminal cases moving through U.S. courts. . . Most

immigrants caught crossing illegally are ordered out of the

country without prosecution. But that still leaves a growing

pile of cases involving illegals who are being prosecuted

after being caught multiple times or those accused of other

crimes. . . Nationwide, each U.S. judge handles an average of

87 cases a year. But along the southern border, even before

Bush's plan moves forward, the average is around 300 per

judge, Carelli said.

I have also heard first-hand about this problem from Federal judges in New Mexico, including one who travels almost 200 miles to hear cases in Southern New Mexico. Many of the situations he sees involve mass arraignments because there are so many defendants in the system. He is not alone in this arrangement; other Federal judges drive almost 300 miles to hear cases in the Southern part of my home State. This is a dire situation that must be addressed.

The United States Congress must address the overwhelming immigration caseload our southwestern border U.S. District Courts face. The bill I am introducing today does that by authorizing the eight permanent and two temporary judgeships recommended by the 2007 Judicial Conference for the four U.S. Districts in which the immigration caseloads total more than forty-nine percent of those Districts' total criminal caseload. I am proud to have Congressman Cuellar join me in this effort by introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Albuquerque Indian School Act. I want to thank Senator Bingaman, my colleague from New Mexico, for joining me as a cosponsor of the bill again this Congress.

The Albuquerque Indian School Act seeks to take two parcels of Federal land into trust for the 19 Pueblos--Acoma, Cochiti, Isleta, Jemez, Laguna, Nambe, Ohkay Owingeh, Picuris, Pojoaque, San Felipe, San Ildefonso, Sandia, Santa Ana, Santa Clara, Santo Domingo, Taos, Tesuque, Zia and Zuni. I believe this property, if transferred, would receive greater utilization and would benefit the 19 New Mexico Pueblos.

In 1981, the New Mexico Pueblos petitioned the United States for the transfer of approximately 44 acres from the Albuquerque Indian School site for the purpose of economic development. In 1984, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior conveyed 44 acres to the Pueblos. This land is currently under development by the 19 New Mexico pueblos. In 2003, the 19 Pueblos requested conveyance of the ``B'' and ``D'' tracts, which total approximately 18 acres, located near Interstate 40. This land contains various metal buildings which have deteriorated to the point that they have little to no usable value at this time.

The return of these two properties to the 19 Pueblos is supported by the southwestern regional office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. With the addition of these two tracts, the 19 pueblos will be able to continue their successful economic development of the Albuquerque Indian School property. I believe the transfer will benefit the 19 New Mexico Pueblos, and their individual tribal members.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that authorizes the Federal judgeships recommended by the 2007 Judicial Conference for our U.S. District Courts that are overloaded with immigration cases.

For a year, I have been telling the Senate about the crisis on our Southwest border involving judges who are overwhelmed by the sheer number of immigration cases that are filed in their courts.

New caseload numbers have recently become available, and it is clear that this problem is not going away--Congress must act to fix it. Federal Court Management Statistics available at www.uscourts.gov reveal that for the 12-month period ending September 30, 2006, four District Courts each had more than one thousand criminal immigration filings. Not surprisingly, all of these Districts share a border with Mexico.

In fiscal year 2006, the Southern District of Texas had 3,679 immigration cases, the Western District of Texas had 2,324 immigration cases, the District of New Mexico had 1,940 immigration cases, and the District of Arizona had 1,924 immigration filings. In each of these Districts, immigration filings make up more than forty-nine percent of all of the District's criminal filings. No other District Court recommended for new judgeships had more than 314 immigration filings. In fact, the four Districts mentioned above account for more than 60 percent of all immigration filings in fiscal year 2006.

The legislation I am introducing today authorizes the ten new Federal judgeships recommended by the Judicial Conference for these four U.S. Districts, where immigration filings total more than forty-nine percent of all Federal criminal filings.

Based on these caseloads, we should already have given these Districts new judgeships. But to increase border security and immigration enforcement efforts, as we have over the past few years, without equipping these courts to handle the even larger immigration caseloads that they will face as a result of immigration enforcement efforts would amount to willful negligence on the part of Congress.

It is imperative to equip our Federal agencies with the assets they need to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws, including the Federal District courts that try repeat immigration law violators who are charged with Federal felonies.

The New Mexico District Chief Judge, Martha Vazquez, wrote me a letter in May of 2006 about the situation her District faces. Judge Vazquez wrote:

As it is, the burden on Article III Judges in this District

is considerable. This District ranks first among all

districts in criminal filings per judgeship: 405 criminal

filings compared to the national average of 87. As in all

federal districts along the southwest border, the majority of

cases filed in this District relate to immigration offenses

under United States Code, Title 8 and drug offenses arising

under Title 21. Immigration and drug cases account for

eighty-five percent of the caseload in the District of New

Mexico. . . . In fiscal year 1997, there were 240 immigration

felony filings in the District of New Mexico. By fiscal year

2005, the number of immigration felony filings increased to

1,826, which is an increase of 661 percent.

The Albuquerque Tribune has also documented the burden on our Southwest border District Courts. An April 17, 2006 article entitled ``Judges See Ripple Effect of Policy on Immigration,'' stated:

U.S. District Chief Judge Martha Vazquez of Santa Fe

oversees a court that faces a rising caseload from illegal

border crossings and related crime. And help from Washington

is by no means certain. . . . From Sept. 30, 1999 to Sept.

30, 2004 (the end of the fiscal year), the caseload in the

New Mexico federal district court increased 57.5 percent,

from 2,804 to 4,416. In the 2004 fiscal year alone, 2,126

felony cases were heard, almost half of all cases in the

entire 10th Circuit, which includes Colorado, Kansas,

Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. Most typical immigration cases go

before an immigration judge, and the subjects are deported.

But people deported once and caught crossing illegally again

can be charged with a felony. And that brings the

defendant into federal district court. Those are the cases

driving up New Mexico's caseload . . . Some days as many

as 90 defendants crowd the courtroom in Las Cruces . . .

The same problems are afflicting federal border courts in

Arizona, California, and Texas.

Similar problems were documented in the May 23, 2006 Reuters article ``Bush Border Patrol Plan to Pressure Courts'' which said:

President George W. Bush's plan to send thousands of

National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border could spark a

surge in immigration cases and U.S. courts are ill prepared

to handle them . . . Even without the stepped-up security at

the border, federal courts in southern California, Arizona,

New Mexico and Texas have been overburdened. Carelli [a

spokesman for U.S. federal courts] said those five judicial

districts, out of 94 nationwide, account for 34 percent of

all criminal cases moving through U.S. courts. . . Most

immigrants caught crossing illegally are ordered out of the

country without prosecution. But that still leaves a growing

pile of cases involving illegals who are being prosecuted

after being caught multiple times or those accused of other

crimes. . . Nationwide, each U.S. judge handles an average of

87 cases a year. But along the southern border, even before

Bush's plan moves forward, the average is around 300 per

judge, Carelli said.

I have also heard first-hand about this problem from Federal judges in New Mexico, including one who travels almost 200 miles to hear cases in Southern New Mexico. Many of the situations he sees involve mass arraignments because there are so many defendants in the system. He is not alone in this arrangement; other Federal judges drive almost 300 miles to hear cases in the Southern part of my home State. This is a dire situation that must be addressed.

The United States Congress must address the overwhelming immigration caseload our southwestern border U.S. District Courts face. The bill I am introducing today does that by authorizing the eight permanent and two temporary judgeships recommended by the 2007 Judicial Conference for the four U.S. Districts in which the immigration caseloads total more than forty-nine percent of those Districts' total criminal caseload. I am proud to have Congressman Cuellar join me in this effort by introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Albuquerque Indian School Act. I want to thank Senator Bingaman, my colleague from New Mexico, for joining me as a cosponsor of the bill again this Congress.

The Albuquerque Indian School Act seeks to take two parcels of Federal land into trust for the 19 Pueblos--Acoma, Cochiti, Isleta, Jemez, Laguna, Nambe, Ohkay Owingeh, Picuris, Pojoaque, San Felipe, San Ildefonso, Sandia, Santa Ana, Santa Clara, Santo Domingo, Taos, Tesuque, Zia and Zuni. I believe this property, if transferred, would receive greater utilization and would benefit the 19 New Mexico Pueblos.

In 1981, the New Mexico Pueblos petitioned the United States for the transfer of approximately 44 acres from the Albuquerque Indian School site for the purpose of economic development. In 1984, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior conveyed 44 acres to the Pueblos. This land is currently under development by the 19 New Mexico pueblos. In 2003, the 19 Pueblos requested conveyance of the ``B'' and ``D'' tracts, which total approximately 18 acres, located near Interstate 40. This land contains various metal buildings which have deteriorated to the point that they have little to no usable value at this time.

The return of these two properties to the 19 Pueblos is supported by the southwestern regional office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. With the addition of these two tracts, the 19 pueblos will be able to continue their successful economic development of the Albuquerque Indian School property. I believe the transfer will benefit the 19 New Mexico Pueblos, and their individual tribal members.

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

Mr. President, it is now over 60 years ago that a brilliant, charismatic man arrived on the scene in my home State of New Mexico. He cut an odd figure and began a strange recruiting effort for a secret project at an undisclosed location for an undetermined period of time.

Who was this man and what was the upshot? His name was J. Robert Oppenheimer, a brilliant and charismatic American physicist. We all know something of him, and we might have different views, one from another. But he was collecting the best scientific minds of his time worldwide, not just Americans, for he had the Fermis from Italy, husband and wife. Some say, as they assessed the brilliance of the team, Enrico Fermi led the pack. I don't know which; it was 60 years ago. But I do know they were asked and recruited by Mr. J. Robert Oppenheimer. He was collecting the minds and taking them on a mysterious journey to a remote mesa in New Mexico. The task was to develop the first atomic bomb. The collective scientific brain power of the Manhattan Project, and the awesome power it produced, would change the world forever. The scientists at Los Alamos ushered in a new era. Their sacrifice and their ingenuity created a story for the ages.

More specifically, their legacy for us is to consider today, and is to find out that there is great value in an awesome power of science and mathematics education. That is what brings me to the Senate floor, and that is why I rise in strong support of this bill under consideration.

Today is a great day. Today the Senate begins a process of rising above the gathering storm. Let's hope. Let's hope. Those words, ``Rising Above The Gathering Storm,'' are part of the title of the National Academy of Science report released in 2005 on American future competitiveness and standard of living of our people. The report was written by a distinguished group chaired by a former Lockheed chairman, chief executive officer Norm Augustine. Mr. Augustine's committee included three Nobel laureates, presidents of leading American universities, including then Texas A&M president and current Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, and the chief executive officers of corporations with global reach.

After an intensive 10 weeks, the committee presented a significant challenge to our Nation. The findings of the ``Gathering Storm'' report and the 20 communications within tell us one thing above all else: America is not doing enough to harness and develop its national brain power. Yes, that is a strange thing to say. We are not doing enough to harness and develop our national brain power. Today we are here to begin to remedy this problem and to meet the challenge set forth in the report.

I am so grateful that even after 34 years in the Senate I can find an issue such as this to get excited about. I can find an issue such as this that Senators from both sides of the aisle can get excited about. They do not talk about their parties when we have these meetings. Most interesting. Maybe they go back to their rooms and talk about the Democratic party, how it can use this report, or the Republican party. They talk about America's brain power is on the wane, meaning that, believe it or not, we can do something about it. That is a nice observation. We can do something about the waning brain power of America; meaning these young kids, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 years of age, have within them the same collective brain power that was present when Oppenheimer went looking for the best. It was not just assumed that there were smart people; they knew there were people with brain power. Right? They just didn't have them in place. They were scattered about. Fermi was over here, some guys were over in Eastern Europe, and a bunch of them were over on the West Coast. But somebody had to put them together. They collected brain power that unlocked the atomic bomb.

Now, we are not going to do that. What we are trying to do is look back and say, how do we do the things that experts tell us will, in fact, increase the brain power of our people. It is there the same as it is in China. They are just producing more. Does it mean they have more? No, it does not. It means they have decided it is the greatest thing for them, so they are educating more and more and more. So is India. We are sitting over here with all of the greatest institutions to do the educating, but we do not have--it has not been coalesced even around the essence of a plan that has, as its goal, brain power collection, brain power enhancement; brain power is on the wane. Let's build it back.

That is what we are trying to do. Today, we begin to remedy the problem and meet the challenges set forth in the report called the ``Gathering Storm.'' It tells us in a few pages why it is a storm. It tells us in a few pages why it is a gathering storm. It tells us in a few pages that we are actually selling ourselves short. It tells us if we do not decide to build this brain power back, we are going to lose. We are going to lose a war which some of us do not even know we are fighting. We are going to lose the war for brain power equality and we do not even know we are fighting.

This ``Gathering Storm'' report identifies the two challenges linked to scientific and engineering excellence: first, creating high quality jobs for the American people, and, secondly, responding to America's need for clean, affordable, and reliable energy.

The report was aimed at enhancing our Nation's human financial knowledge and capital to ensure our prosperity. It addressed increasing America's talent pool by vastly improving science and mathematics education in kindergarten through grade 12. The report, ``Gathering Storm,'' called for significant advances in science and engineering programs in our Nation's higher education, improving our economic policy, from intellectual property protection to research and development tax credits and tax incentives for U.S.-based innovation.

The report also provides us with some worrisome indicators. The following few facts should sound alarm bells throughout this Chamber and this Nation. I trust people will listen. Senators have participated from both sides of the aisle, from all vintages. Some are young, some have just come, they are excited, some have been here a long time. I am not going to say such as the Senator from New Mexico, I am going to say such as the Senator from Hawaii, and he is enthused. Some have been even here as long as the Senator from Alaska, and that is a long time, longer than me, and he is excited. Right? What it means is if you put the right plate in front of us, we can get excited about doing something for our great country.

This report provided us with some worrisome indicators. I am going to tell you about them in a minute. In 2001, U.S. industries spent more on tort litigation than research and development. Look at that. That is not happening to our competitors, I tell you.

If we want people over here to say, well, there is some good to that, we are gaining something on that, well, we will have an awfully long dialog on the floor on that one fact. Are we gaining that much benefit for the American people out of our tort system, as we are when we say that costs us as much in dollars? It says here: Industry spent more on litigation than it did on research and development.

Chemical companies closed 70 facilities around the United States in 2004. I might say to my friend, of the 120 chemical companies being built at the time of the release of the Augustine report with a price tag of $1 billion or more, 1 was in the United States and 50 were in China. Got it? Those are chemical plants. People say: Oh, chemical plants; bad stuff. We are not talking about chemical plants, bad stuff. We are talking about chemical plants where you use the chemical product for all kinds of things that make you a strong nation, that make things for people to use in their house, that make things you can use outdoors. The chemical plants are an evidence of basic industry, and America built 1, China built 50. That is pretty startling, is it not?

Of the nearly 1.1 million U.S. high school seniors who took the college entrance exam in 2002, less than 6 percent had plans to study engineering. That is a 33-percent decrease from 10 years earlier. Pretty big stuff. Meanwhile, more than 50 percent of the U.S. science and engineering workforce is approaching retirement. Startling.

Now, Senators, these statistics show that the challenge to our Nation's standard of living is before us and the Senate must act. I am proud to join this bipartisan group of Senators introducing the America COMPETES Act of 2007, commonly referred to as the competitiveness bill.

Through this legislation, we are addressing nearly every one of the recommendations made by this significant report. Enacting this bill will be a culmination of a remarkable cooperative effort, with work cutting across three Senate committees, and with valuable contributions from a large number of colleagues in the Senate. This bill has the support of both leaders in the Senate and the collective support of our Nation's boardrooms, classrooms, and laboratories.

I will speak briefly about the area of the bill over which the Energy and Natural Resources Committee has jurisdiction. We know that following through on recommendations of the Augustine Commission will require new commitments and participation from several Federal agencies. The Department of Energy has a major role to play in meeting this challenge. This legislation doubles funding for the Office of Science over the next decade--that is healthy and hearty, and many will look forward to it with great enthusiasm--the largest source of Federal support for basic science in the physical sciences. The President called for the increase in announcing his American Competitiveness Initiative last year.

The Augustine report stressed the importance of increasing our national commitment to basic research in the physical sciences. The America COMPETES Act responds by putting the Department of Energy Office of Science on a path to double in funding over the next decade. As the largest Federal funder of basic research in the physical sciences, the Office of Science is of critical importance.

More than 58 Nobel Prize winners since 1936 have been supported by the Department of Energy at some time in their careers. Eighteen Nobel Prizes have been awarded to Department of Energy laboratory employees and another 13 to researchers who employed the National Laboratory facilities in their award-winning discoveries. Most of the 40 winners of the prestigious Enrico Fermi Presidential awards have done research supported by the Department.

A few years ago, we made a commitment to double funding in the National Institutes of Health to support the biological sciences. We made good on that commitment. We said it, and we did it. It is now time that we address the role physical sciences play and stand together to support such growth of key agencies such as the DOE Office of Science. By doing so, we will not be taking away from other Department functions or laboratory resources.

In fact, I was cosponsors with Senators Bingaman and Alexander to an amendment in this year's budget resolution. We have a few people who know something about that, too. It is rather tricky, and sometimes you have to do some things you don't quite understand. Then you catch on. But we did put in a billion dollars for new authorizations provided in that budget, so that the legislation we are going to enact will not take money from Peter to pay Paul. We won't be taking money out of the Department of Energy to pay for the new items in the Department of Energy. We would be called down here on the floor, and we would lose. I hope we have done it right so we can prove our point.

This bill leverages the tremendous talent and technological investment of our laboratories and its system. These new provisions will build on education and outreach work the labs have undertaken for years. Through this legislation, the national labs will provide opportunities for high school students from across the Nation to gain hands-on experience in science and engineering fields; assist States in establishing specialty schools in math and science; strengthen the skills of thousands of

math and science teachers by establishing training and education programs at summer institutes hosted at National Laboratories; establish partnerships between the National Laboratories and local high schools and centers of excellence in math and science.

I have spoken quite a bit recently about the importance of engaging China in the challenge of energy security and global climate change. I have written to the President about this important issue. It should be clear to all of us that our energy, environmental, and educational challenges cannot be considered in a bubble; rather, they must be considered in light of global competitiveness, challenges that face us all. To maintain our technological edge, we must improve our educational systems and the research and development we do in corporations, universities, and Government laboratories throughout our Nation. This must lead us to higher brainpower for our people.

The challenge is great, like others this Nation has faced. The challenge was great 60 years ago in New Mexico. They were busy trying to put a team together to build the first atomic bomb--can you imagine--from scratch. The idea alone is all they had. They put it together and built it. They found the manpower to do it. We have the manpower. We are just not using it. We are not letting it build itself as required.

I commend the authors of the Augustine report. I commend my colleagues for their hard work on this legislation. I am hopeful we will rise above the gathering storm. If we do, people will say: You had a lot to do, maybe more than you thought, but you sought out and found what was most important; that is, taking the gathering storm and making sure it did not end up hurting our great Nation but, rather, was the stimulus for us to increase the collective brainpower of our young people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, over 18 months ago, the President signed into law the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The enactment of that comprehensive legislation was a watershed event in structuring sound Energy policy for this Nation's future. We did a great deal in that energy bill on energy conservation and improved energy efficiency.

EPAct implemented new efficiency standards for 15 large commercial and residential appliances that have, in the past, consumed a great deal of energy, such as commercial washers, refrigerators, freezers, air-conditioners, and icemakers. In response to that mandate, the Department of Energy codified 15 new efficiency standards. Because of these new standards alone, we will save 50,000 megawatts of off-peak electricity use by 2020--which is an energy savings equal to more than eighty 600-megawatt power plants.

EPAct also encourages consumers to make their homes more energy efficient by giving them a 10-percent personal tax credit for energy efficient improvements. Additionally, homebuilders get a business tax credit for the construction of new homes that meet a 30-percent energy reduction standard. The law aids businesses in saving energy by providing a deduction for energy-efficient commercial buildings meeting a 50-percent energy reduction standard. Manufacturers are also assisted in building more energy-efficient home products via a manufacturers' tax credit for energy-efficient dishwashers, clothes washers, and refrigerators.

Still, there is no doubt that much can be done to improve the ways in which we use energy. That is why I am pleased today to introduce the Energy Efficiency Promotion Act of 2007 with Senator Bingaman. The bill we are introducing is a good starting point--but it is still a work in progress. I expect this bill to evolve over the course of the next several weeks with important input from those who will be tasked with implementing this policy and those who will be impacted by it. In particular, I am very interested in the Energy Department's views on this bill, and the committee will conduct a hearing next week at which the Department will testify.

The Energy Efficiency Promotion Act of 2007 represents over $12 billion in net present benefits for consumers. Potential electricity savings of 50 billion kilowatt hours per year equal enough energy savings to power almost 5 million households. Potential natural gas savings of 170 million therms per year equal enough energy savings to heat 250,000 households. And water savings from the legislation amount to about 560 million gallons per day.

This bill presses for better energy efficiency in the Federal Government--the appropriate place to start. Title I focuses on the promotion of energy-efficient lighting technologies within Federal Government and requires all general purpose lighting in Federal buildings to be Energy Star rated or designated as efficient by the Federal Energy Management Program. Title I also contains a sense of the Senate that Federal policies be adopted on efficient lightbulb standards.

Title II, which deals with energy efficiency standards, sets forth a number of consensus standards on such products as residential boilers, clothes washers, dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and electric motors. Such efficiency standards have the potential to save significant amounts of energy. This title also provides DOE with the authority to expedite rulemakings for energy-efficient consensus standards.

Title III promotes high efficiency vehicles, advanced batteries, and energy storage. It provides for lightweight materials research and development and loan guarantee the manufacture of fuel-efficient vehicle parts, including hybrid and advanced diesel vehicles.

Title IV sets forth national energy savings goals in the areas of transportation and the Nation's energy productivity. This title extends the President's goal for gasoline savings and further seeks to improve the Nation's overall energy productivity.

Title V calls for increased federal leadership in energy efficiency and renewable energy. It directs DOE to reduce petroleum consumption and increases the Federal requirement to purchase electricity generated by renewable energy. This title also permanently authorizes the Energy Savings Performance Contracts Program.

Title VI seeks to assist State and local governments with their ongoing efforts to improve their energy efficiency. It extends the authorization for both the Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Conservation Program. This title also establishes energy efficiency grant programs for local governments and institutions of higher learning.

Again, I think the Energy Efficiency Promotion Act of 2007 we are introducing today is a good starting point for our continued work in the energy efficiency area. I look forward to working with Senator Bingaman, the administration, and all affected stakeholders as we move forward on this bill.

Mr. President, over 18 months ago, the President signed into law the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The enactment of that comprehensive legislation was a watershed event in structuring sound Energy policy for this Nation's future. We did a great deal in that energy bill on energy conservation and improved energy efficiency.

EPAct implemented new efficiency standards for 15 large commercial and residential appliances that have, in the past, consumed a great deal of energy, such as commercial washers, refrigerators, freezers, air-conditioners, and icemakers. In response to that mandate, the Department of Energy codified 15 new efficiency standards. Because of these new standards alone, we will save 50,000 megawatts of off-peak electricity use by 2020--which is an energy savings equal to more than eighty 600-megawatt power plants.

EPAct also encourages consumers to make their homes more energy efficient by giving them a 10-percent personal tax credit for energy efficient improvements. Additionally, homebuilders get a business tax credit for the construction of new homes that meet a 30-percent energy reduction standard. The law aids businesses in saving energy by providing a deduction for energy-efficient commercial buildings meeting a 50-percent energy reduction standard. Manufacturers are also assisted in building more energy-efficient home products via a manufacturers' tax credit for energy-efficient dishwashers, clothes washers, and refrigerators.

Still, there is no doubt that much can be done to improve the ways in which we use energy. That is why I am pleased today to introduce the Energy Efficiency Promotion Act of 2007 with Senator Bingaman. The bill we are introducing is a good starting point--but it is still a work in progress. I expect this bill to evolve over the course of the next several weeks with important input from those who will be tasked with implementing this policy and those who will be impacted by it. In particular, I am very interested in the Energy Department's views on this bill, and the committee will conduct a hearing next week at which the Department will testify.

The Energy Efficiency Promotion Act of 2007 represents over $12 billion in net present benefits for consumers. Potential electricity savings of 50 billion kilowatt hours per year equal enough energy savings to power almost 5 million households. Potential natural gas savings of 170 million therms per year equal enough energy savings to heat 250,000 households. And water savings from the legislation amount to about 560 million gallons per day.

This bill presses for better energy efficiency in the Federal Government--the appropriate place to start. Title I focuses on the promotion of energy-efficient lighting technologies within Federal Government and requires all general purpose lighting in Federal buildings to be Energy Star rated or designated as efficient by the Federal Energy Management Program. Title I also contains a sense of the Senate that Federal policies be adopted on efficient lightbulb standards.

Title II, which deals with energy efficiency standards, sets forth a number of consensus standards on such products as residential boilers, clothes washers, dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and electric motors. Such efficiency standards have the potential to save significant amounts of energy. This title also provides DOE with the authority to expedite rulemakings for energy-efficient consensus standards.

Title III promotes high efficiency vehicles, advanced batteries, and energy storage. It provides for lightweight materials research and development and loan guarantee the manufacture of fuel-efficient vehicle parts, including hybrid and advanced diesel vehicles.

Title IV sets forth national energy savings goals in the areas of transportation and the Nation's energy productivity. This title extends the President's goal for gasoline savings and further seeks to improve the Nation's overall energy productivity.

Title V calls for increased federal leadership in energy efficiency and renewable energy. It directs DOE to reduce petroleum consumption and increases the Federal requirement to purchase electricity generated by renewable energy. This title also permanently authorizes the Energy Savings Performance Contracts Program.

Title VI seeks to assist State and local governments with their ongoing efforts to improve their energy efficiency. It extends the authorization for both the Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Conservation Program. This title also establishes energy efficiency grant programs for local governments and institutions of higher learning.

Again, I think the Energy Efficiency Promotion Act of 2007 we are introducing today is a good starting point for our continued work in the energy efficiency area. I look forward to working with Senator Bingaman, the administration, and all affected stakeholders as we move forward on this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senator Kennedy, Senator Bingaman, Senator Harkin, Senator Leahy and Senator Sanders to introduce a bill that will raise the minimum grant amounts given to States and territories under the PATH program. The PATH program provides services through formula grants of at least $300,000 to each State, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico and $50,000 to eligible U.S. territories. Subject to available appropriations, this bill will raise the minimum allotments to $600,000 to each State and $100,000 to eligible U.S. territories.

When the PATH program was established in fiscal year 1991 as a formula grant program, Congress appropriated $33 million. That amount has steadily increased over the years with Congress appropriating $55 million this past year. However, despite these increases, States and territories such as New Mexico that have rural and frontier populations, have not received an increase in their PATH funds. Under the formula, as it currently exists, many States and territories will never receive an increase to their PATH program, even with increasing demand and inflation. This problem is occurring in my home State of New Mexico as well as twenty-five other States and territories throughout the United States.

The PATH program is authorized under the Public Health Service Act

and it funds community-based outreach, mental health, substance abuse, case management and other support services, as well as a limited set of housing services for people who are homeless and have serious mental illnesses. Program services are provided in a variety of different settings, including clinic sites, shelter-based clinics, and mobile units. In addition, the PATH program takes health care services to locations where homeless individuals are found, such as streets, parks, and soup kitchens.

PATH services are a key element in the plan to end chronic homelessness. Every night, an estimated 600,000 people are homeless in America. Of these, about one-third are single adults with serious mental illnesses. I have worked closely with organizations in New Mexico such as Albuquerque Health Care for the Homeless and I have seen first hand the difficulties faced by the more than 15,000 homeless people in New Mexico, 35 percent of whom are chronically mentally ill or mentally incapacitated.

PATH is a proven program that has been very successful in moving people out of homelessness. PATH has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget and has scored significantly high marks in meeting program goals and objectives. Unquestionably, homelessness is not just an urban issue. Rural and frontier communities face unique challenges in serving PATH eligible persons and the PATH program funding mechanisms must account for these differences.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senator Kennedy, Senator Bingaman, Senator Harkin, Senator Leahy and Senator Sanders to introduce a bill that will raise the minimum grant amounts given to States and territories under the PATH program. The PATH program provides services through formula grants of at least $300,000 to each State, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico and $50,000 to eligible U.S. territories. Subject to available appropriations, this bill will raise the minimum allotments to $600,000 to each State and $100,000 to eligible U.S. territories.

When the PATH program was established in fiscal year 1991 as a formula grant program, Congress appropriated $33 million. That amount has steadily increased over the years with Congress appropriating $55 million this past year. However, despite these increases, States and territories such as New Mexico that have rural and frontier populations, have not received an increase in their PATH funds. Under the formula, as it currently exists, many States and territories will never receive an increase to their PATH program, even with increasing demand and inflation. This problem is occurring in my home State of New Mexico as well as twenty-five other States and territories throughout the United States.

The PATH program is authorized under the Public Health Service Act

and it funds community-based outreach, mental health, substance abuse, case management and other support services, as well as a limited set of housing services for people who are homeless and have serious mental illnesses. Program services are provided in a variety of different settings, including clinic sites, shelter-based clinics, and mobile units. In addition, the PATH program takes health care services to locations where homeless individuals are found, such as streets, parks, and soup kitchens.

PATH services are a key element in the plan to end chronic homelessness. Every night, an estimated 600,000 people are homeless in America. Of these, about one-third are single adults with serious mental illnesses. I have worked closely with organizations in New Mexico such as Albuquerque Health Care for the Homeless and I have seen first hand the difficulties faced by the more than 15,000 homeless people in New Mexico, 35 percent of whom are chronically mentally ill or mentally incapacitated.

PATH is a proven program that has been very successful in moving people out of homelessness. PATH has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget and has scored significantly high marks in meeting program goals and objectives. Unquestionably, homelessness is not just an urban issue. Rural and frontier communities face unique challenges in serving PATH eligible persons and the PATH program funding mechanisms must account for these differences.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.

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

Mr. President, I am very pleased today that we will have renamed the Albuquerque VA facility as the Raymond G. Murphy Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center. I thank my colleague Senator Bingaman for his support on this issue, as well as Senator Akaka and Senator Craig and the staff on the Committee of Veterans' Affairs for their help.

Raymond ``Jerry'' Murphy died last Friday at the age of 77. His obituary described him as ``one of the softest-spoken, most modest men to ever wear the Medal of Honor.'' Jerry Murphy was a true American hero who in war and peace dedicated himself to others. CPT Jerry Murphy was the 39th U.S. Marine to be awarded the Medal of Honor for heroism in the Korean war. When he returned from war he dedicated his entire life to taking care of other veterans. He spent 23 years working in the Albuquerque VA regional office. Upon his retirement, he continued to serve veterans as a volunteer until he became too sick to do so. I think it is only right that the medical center in Albuquerque bear his name in recognition of his great service to veterans and to the Nation.

I came to the floor earlier in the week and spoke about my good friend after he died. I stand by that statement and again send my condolences to Jerry's wife Maryann, his sons John, Michael, and Tim, his daughter Eleanor, as well as his eight grandchildren. It is never easy to lose a loved one, but at these trying moments, we can take solace in the fact that Jerry lived a long and fulfilling life. He helped many people and touched many lives. His service is a shining example to civilians and veterans alike of a life dedicated to service.

I am very proud to have known Jerry Murphy and to have been able to call him my friend. It is a privilege to play a part in bestowing this deserving honor on a great man and a great American, Raymond Gerald Murphy.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. Although I am not opposed to stem cell research and in fact enthusiastically support some types of stem cell research, I cannot support this bill.

This is a very difficult vote for me to cast. I have spent a considerable amount of time thinking about the issue of Federal funding for stem cell research involving the destruction of embryos. Over the last several years, scientific developments in human genetics have been proceeding at a rapid pace. This kind of research has the potential to be very helpful in the understanding of human development and the treatment of human diseases. However, this type of research also raises serious ethical and public policy questions that must be confronted. What limits do we place on research with human embryos?

Experimentation with embryonic stem cells is considered by some to be a revolution in medical research. Many in the medical, public and scientific communities believe that embryonic stem cell research could lead to the cure for such sicknesses as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's and diabetes. However, human embryos must be destroyed in order to derive embryonic stem cells and this is where my ethical dilemma arises.

It is my deeply held and personal belief that an embryo is an actual living being; it is not merely a potential living human being. The possibility of helping those who are sick may be a very powerful motivation, but I strongly believe that human embryos deserve the same respect as any other human being and it is never morally or ethically justified to kill one human being in order to help benefit another. It is for this reason that I cannot support the use of human embryonic material for research even if it has the potential to save others. I cannot accept the diminished status of the human embryo in order to justify their destruction in the course of research solely because they may theoretically provide potential benefits for another human being sometime in the future.

I want to make it clear that my ethical problem is not with the research itself but rather with the destruction of embryos. I believe there is potential for advances in stem cell research that does not involve the moral dilemma of destroying an embryo in the process. It is for this reason that I support S. 30, The Hope Offered through Principled and Ethical Stem Cell Research, HOPE, Act.

The HOPE Act will advance alternate forms of stem cell research by intensifying research on methods that do not involve the destruction of human embryos. This bill instructs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop techniques for the isolation, derivation, production, and testing of stem cells, provided that such techniques do not involve the creation of human embryos for research purposes; or the destruction or discarding of, or risk of injury to, a human embryo. Research that can benefit others without the destruction of human life is in my opinion the best path forward.

Scientists have shown they have the skill and ability to pursue the potential benefits of stem cell research without endangering human life in the process. I support these alternative approaches because I truly believe that they have the potential to help people while still maintaining ethical guidelines. This is the best way to allow Federal science-research on stem cells without offending the beliefs of millions of Americans.