Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. If I yield back, do we go to votes? Are we finished?

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time do I have in opposition to the amendment?

Mr. DOMENICI. Fine. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum, and let it be charged to me.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will start my 15 minutes. I ask I be notified when I have used 10 minutes, please.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. First, might I say to my friend Senator Bingaman, it is not to my liking we are here opposing each other. We produced the Energy bill, which we are discussing or debating today, together. Today we have an argument about how to implement it, how fast to implement it. I am on the side of the President in terms of implementing it, and the Senator wants to implement it faster. That does not mean we are at odds with reference to what we tried to do. It is just how fast we will do it. I wish to suggest to the Senate that when you have a budget, you have to make choices. The President made some very significant choices in this area of how much of the Energy Policy Act should be implemented. In his State of the Union Address, he spoke rather eloquently about our addiction to oil. It is interesting, when he spoke about that, he then turned to issues and matters within the Energy Policy Act, which was passed by 74 Senators--bipartisan--when he said: Let us move ahead to substitute in the tanks of our automobiles--instead of gasoline, let us substitute ethanol and a related product that eventually will come from cellulose that will be produced, that grows. And we are about to the point where we know exactly how to convert that to something that can be used in the tanks of our cars. The President asked for that. That is a very large item. That is funded. Senator Bingaman has no argument with that. Obviously, he is for that. In addition, the President said: We should move ahead with a technology toward batteries so a hybrid automobile will come onboard more quickly. That is another $31 million add-on. I am sure the proponent, my friend, my colleague, supports that also. He asked for $289 million for hydrogen fuel cells and $281 million for the development of clean coal technology, including $54 million for the FUTGEN Initiative, one of the most important projects in the country. In addition, the President asked for $250 million for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership--the name for that is GNEP; we have all heard about it; $148 million for the new Solar America Initiative, a very important initiative--again, I am sure that is wholeheartedly supported by the proponent of the amendment, and which I oppose; and then there is $44 million for wind research to try to make the technology for wind energy, which is good. It is already producing, and we are generating great quantities in the State of Colorado, the State of New Mexico, and many others. But the distinguished Senator, my colleague, asked for much more than that. He asked that we add $3.5 billion to this function called function 207. That just means it is the function that contains energy. I wish it were increasing funding for all the items the amendment seeks. I wish the President asked for them. I wish it were possible. I believe we can go much further for the cause of energy efficiency and renewable energy as well as conventional forms, but we can't do it all right now. We have to be realistic about using the funds currently available. For that reason, although many of the proposals are very good and I believe we will do them in due course, I can say to the Senate and those who are interested in the issues and ideas raised by my colleague, I believe they are going to be implemented, just not by this budget. How do you pay for them? Because you see, Senator Bingaman would not want to say we broke the budget. So he says: Let's pay for them. The way he suggests we pay for them is dubious. He suggests that we pay for them by reauthorizing Superfund taxes. That is an assumption made in this amendment, that we will find the money, the $3.5 billion, by reauthorizing the Superfund, which has been controversial. It has not been reauthorized in a long time. I don't believe there is a way to do it. So we are increasing taxes that should not even be used for these programs. We are assuming that will happen in order to make this amendment look as if it is a budget-neutral amendment, and then we are asking for these good things to be paid for in that manner. I believe the Senate should reject it. Again, many, if not all, of the items are good for the country and should eventually be done. To the extent that we work together to get them in an energy act, I think we will ultimately work together to get them funded one way or another. I hope we don't do it today because I don't think that will add to the budget and to the requirement that we as an institution produce a budget. That is our primary requirement, to produce the outline. I think this amendment will not help do that. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think my colleague knows it is with reluctance that I must stand and oppose his amendment. We wrote the bill he is talking about. The President chose to fund provisions in the Energy Policy Act amounting to $1.2 billion. He didn't fund everything. My colleague intends to add items that were not funded. We will have an opportunity in the appropriations process to move the money around and do some of what he seeks rather than some of those the President seeks. But the issue here is that to do what he wants, we have to add more than $3.5 billion. We add that to the bottom line which we have to pay for. The Senator pays for it by assuming that we will reauthorize the Superfund tax. That is how he pays for it. That has not been reauthorized for years. If it was, it shouldn't be used for this purpose. So essentially, we should not adopt this amendment because it breaks the budget.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce a correction for the information of the Senate and the public. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources hearing to review the proposed Fiscal Year 2007 Forest Service budget will be held on Tuesday, February 28, 2006, at 10 a.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Frank Gladics (202-224-2878), Elizabeth Abrams (202-224-0537) or Sara Zecher (202-224-8276) of the Committee staff. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been rescheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing originally scheduled for Wednesday, March 1, 2006 at 10 a.m. in Room 366 of the Dirsken Senate Office Building will now be held at 9:30 a.m. on March 1, 2006, in the same room. The purpose of the oversight hearing is to receive testimony regarding the state of the economies and fiscal affairs in the Territories of Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Josh Johnson at 202-224-5861 or Steve Waskiewicz at 202-228-6195. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 7, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. in Room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the goal of energy independence. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Frank J. Macchiarola 202-224- 1219 or Shannon Ewan at 202-224-7555.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill regarding immigration: the Welcoming Immigrants to a Secure Homeland Act of 2006. As a border State Senator and the son of immigrants, I have a unique perspective on immigration. I understand the need to provide a secure homeland for my constituents who see the problems caused by illegal entries into our country every day. I also understand the need to welcome immigrants to our country, so that America remains a country where hardworking, entrepreneurial, and intelligent immigrants can prosper. My perspective is the basis for the WISH Act. I believe we can welcome immigrants to a secure homeland by addressing five areas. First, we must improve security at our international borders. On November 17, 2005, I introduced the Border Security and Modernization Act of 2005, S. 2049. That bill calls for improvements to our port of entry infrastructure, increased Department of Homeland Security, DHS, and Department of Justice personnel, new technologies and assets for border security, increased detention capacity, and additional Federal assistance for States. I believe these actions will provide the necessary increased security at our borders. Second, we must improve enforcement of our immigration laws. The WISH Act addresses this situation by increasing the number of DHS personnel who investigate human smuggling laws, employment of immigrants, and immigration fraud. My bill also increases penalties for violations of immigration laws and provides for a system to verify a worker's employment eligibility. Third, we must create a new guest worker visa that is easier to obtain and lets individuals who want to come to the United States to work know that if they are hardworking and industrious, we want them in America. The WISH Act creates such a visa, which is valid for up to 9 years if the guest worker remains employed. After the applicant has worked in the United States for 6 of those years, he or she may apply for permanent resident status. An applicant's spouse and unmarried minor children may be admitted to the United States with the guest worker. To ensure that such visas are issued only to legitimate guest workers, my bill requires applicants to provide information on his or her criminal history, gang membership, immigration history, and involvement with groups that have engaged in terrorist acts, genocide, persecution, or plans to overthrow the United States. It also provides for the completion of all necessary background checks. Fourth, we must account for the millions of undocumented aliens residing in the United States. I believe that the vast majority of these aliens are honest, hard-working individuals who are contributing to our country in positive ways, so the WISH Act allows them to obtain the guest worker visa I just mentioned without leaving the United States if he or she pays a fine. This will allow for these aliens, and their immediate families, to remain in the country doing the work they already do. In order to provide for their timely and orderly transition into legal guests, my bill requires undocumented aliens to apply for this visa or leave the United States. Failure to take one of those actions means they will be removed from the United States and will be unable to return. For aliens who have been working in the United States for at least 5 years before enactment of the WISH Act, my bill allows them to apply for any visa, adjustment of status, or immigration benefit except adjustment of status to that of a permanent resident after they have worked as legal guests for 5 years. However, such applications may not be granted until the alien has returned to his home country. Lastly, we must create a more welcoming environment for students and visitors to our country. Before the horrific events of September 11, 2001, the United States was a preferred place for foreign students to attend school. This was beneficial to our country because students came to the United States to study, but they stayed here to work. They did business with colleagues they met at U.S. schools. Our country was obtaining some of the most brilliant minds not only from within our borders but from across the world. Unfortunately, restrictions and limitations put on visas in recent years have forced many of the business leaders of the next generation to attend school in other more welcoming countries. To reverse this trend, the WISH Act allows full-time foreign college and graduate students to work and travel while studying in the United States and provides for foreign students who graduate from a U.S. college with honors to stay in the United States to work after graduation. I am personally involved in this issue both because I represent a border State and because I remember the day, when I was 5 or 6 years old, that my parents learned that the lawyer who advised them about citizenship was wrong and my mother was an illegal alien. Federal officials came to our house to arrest my mother while my father was at work. It was a frightening situation for my entire family that occurred through no fault of my mother, who had lived in America for more than 30 years as an exemplary citizen and who was told by an attorney that she was an American. I believe that we can, and must, do our best to prevent situations like this from occurring in the future. I believe that the measures in the WISH Act, together with the measures in my Border Security and Modernization Act, will play an important role in that effort, and I am pleased to introduce this bill today. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill regarding immigration: the Welcoming Immigrants to a Secure Homeland Act of 2006. As a border State Senator and the son of immigrants, I have a unique perspective on immigration. I understand the need to provide a secure homeland for my constituents who see the problems caused by illegal entries into our country every day. I also understand the need to welcome immigrants to our country, so that America remains a country where hardworking, entrepreneurial, and intelligent immigrants can prosper. My perspective is the basis for the WISH Act. I believe we can welcome immigrants to a secure homeland by addressing five areas. First, we must improve security at our international borders. On November 17, 2005, I introduced the Border Security and Modernization Act of 2005, S. 2049. That bill calls for improvements to our port of entry infrastructure, increased Department of Homeland Security, DHS, and Department of Justice personnel, new technologies and assets for border security, increased detention capacity, and additional Federal assistance for States. I believe these actions will provide the necessary increased security at our borders. Second, we must improve enforcement of our immigration laws. The WISH Act addresses this situation by increasing the number of DHS personnel who investigate human smuggling laws, employment of immigrants, and immigration fraud. My bill also increases penalties for violations of immigration laws and provides for a system to verify a worker's employment eligibility. Third, we must create a new guest worker visa that is easier to obtain and lets individuals who want to come to the United States to work know that if they are hardworking and industrious, we want them in America. The WISH Act creates such a visa, which is valid for up to 9 years if the guest worker remains employed. After the applicant has worked in the United States for 6 of those years, he or she may apply for permanent resident status. An applicant's spouse and unmarried minor children may be admitted to the United States with the guest worker. To ensure that such visas are issued only to legitimate guest workers, my bill requires applicants to provide information on his or her criminal history, gang membership, immigration history, and involvement with groups that have engaged in terrorist acts, genocide, persecution, or plans to overthrow the United States. It also provides for the completion of all necessary background checks. Fourth, we must account for the millions of undocumented aliens residing in the United States. I believe that the vast majority of these aliens are honest, hard-working individuals who are contributing to our country in positive ways, so the WISH Act allows them to obtain the guest worker visa I just mentioned without leaving the United States if he or she pays a fine. This will allow for these aliens, and their immediate families, to remain in the country doing the work they already do. In order to provide for their timely and orderly transition into legal guests, my bill requires undocumented aliens to apply for this visa or leave the United States. Failure to take one of those actions means they will be removed from the United States and will be unable to return. For aliens who have been working in the United States for at least 5 years before enactment of the WISH Act, my bill allows them to apply for any visa, adjustment of status, or immigration benefit except adjustment of status to that of a permanent resident after they have worked as legal guests for 5 years. However, such applications may not be granted until the alien has returned to his home country. Lastly, we must create a more welcoming environment for students and visitors to our country. Before the horrific events of September 11, 2001, the United States was a preferred place for foreign students to attend school. This was beneficial to our country because students came to the United States to study, but they stayed here to work. They did business with colleagues they met at U.S. schools. Our country was obtaining some of the most brilliant minds not only from within our borders but from across the world. Unfortunately, restrictions and limitations put on visas in recent years have forced many of the business leaders of the next generation to attend school in other more welcoming countries. To reverse this trend, the WISH Act allows full-time foreign college and graduate students to work and travel while studying in the United States and provides for foreign students who graduate from a U.S. college with honors to stay in the United States to work after graduation. I am personally involved in this issue both because I represent a border State and because I remember the day, when I was 5 or 6 years old, that my parents learned that the lawyer who advised them about citizenship was wrong and my mother was an illegal alien. Federal officials came to our house to arrest my mother while my father was at work. It was a frightening situation for my entire family that occurred through no fault of my mother, who had lived in America for more than 30 years as an exemplary citizen and who was told by an attorney that she was an American. I believe that we can, and must, do our best to prevent situations like this from occurring in the future. I believe that the measures in the WISH Act, together with the measures in my Border Security and Modernization Act, will play an important role in that effort, and I am pleased to introduce this bill today. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, March 2, 2006, at 10 a.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to review the proposed Fiscal Year 2007 Department of Interior budget. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Elizabeth Abrams (202-224- 0537) or Shannon Ewan (202-224-7555) of the Committee staff.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will he held on Wednesday, February 28, 2006, at 10 a.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to review the proposed fiscal year 2007 Forest Service budget. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Frank Gladics (202-224-2878), Elizabeth Abrams (202-224-0537) or Sara Zecher (202-224-8276) of the Committee staff.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been rescheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing originally scheduled for Tuesday, February, 14, 2006 at 10 a.m. in Room. SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building will now be held on Thursday, February 16, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. in the same room. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the Energy Information Administration's 2006 Annual Energy Outlook on trends and issues affecting the United States' energy market. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Lisa Epifani 202-224-5269 or Shannon Ewan at 202-224-7555.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been rescheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing originally scheduled for Tuesday, February 14, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building will now be held on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. in the same room. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding S. 2197, to improve the global competitiveness of the United States in science and energy technology, to strengthen basic research programs at the Department of Energy, and to provide support for mathematics and science education at all levels through the resources available through the Department of Energy, including at the National Laboratories. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Kathryn Clay or Steve Waskiewicz. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Wednesday, March 1, at 10 a.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the oversight hearing is to receive testimony regarding the state of the economies and fiscal affairs in the Territories of Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Josh Johnson or Steve Waskiewicz.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Foreign Language Training Act of 2006, a bill that I believe is necessary for the success of our Department of Homeland Security personnel and other Federal agents. As you may know, our Department of Defense employees receive foreign language education and training at the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center. This school has provided training for American forces involved in arms control treaty verification, the war on drugs, and Operation Desert Storm. I believe the Department of Defense's success can provide guidance for Department of Homeland Security personnel and Federal law enforcement agents who need foreign language skills. The Foreign Language Training Act of 2006 provides for such guidance by creating a facility similar to the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center for these Federal employees. My bill requires the Secretary of Homeland Security and other Federal agency leaders to identify employees who need foreign language education and plan for the provision of such education. To fully utilize existing Federal assets, the Foreign Language Training Act requires this training to take place at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia, New Mexico. FLETC is already planning to increase its language training capabilities and construct new language arts facilities in Artesia to accommodate the increased number of border patrol trainees being sent there, so it makes sense for other DHS employees and Federal agents to utilize this facility as well. Mr. President, the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center has prepared our soldiers for World War II, the Cold War, the Korean War, and the Vietman conflict. It continues to provide such training today. I believe that similar training is necessary for the men and women securing our homeland, and the Foreign Language Training Act of 2006 provides for such education. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Foreign Language Training Act of 2006, a bill that I believe is necessary for the success of our Department of Homeland Security personnel and other Federal agents. As you may know, our Department of Defense employees receive foreign language education and training at the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center. This school has provided training for American forces involved in arms control treaty verification, the war on drugs, and Operation Desert Storm. I believe the Department of Defense's success can provide guidance for Department of Homeland Security personnel and Federal law enforcement agents who need foreign language skills. The Foreign Language Training Act of 2006 provides for such guidance by creating a facility similar to the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center for these Federal employees. My bill requires the Secretary of Homeland Security and other Federal agency leaders to identify employees who need foreign language education and plan for the provision of such education. To fully utilize existing Federal assets, the Foreign Language Training Act requires this training to take place at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia, New Mexico. FLETC is already planning to increase its language training capabilities and construct new language arts facilities in Artesia to accommodate the increased number of border patrol trainees being sent there, so it makes sense for other DHS employees and Federal agents to utilize this facility as well. Mr. President, the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center has prepared our soldiers for World War II, the Cold War, the Korean War, and the Vietman conflict. It continues to provide such training today. I believe that similar training is necessary for the men and women securing our homeland, and the Foreign Language Training Act of 2006 provides for such education. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. So that I understand, I am speaking on my own time now; is that correct?

Mr. DOMENICI. Right. First, let me say the Senator who is raising the point of order has every right to raise the point of order. The question is, is this a real point of order? I want to tell the Senate, I am not the Parliamentarian. I am not the Congressional Budget Office. But if I were either, I would say this point of order does not even lie, not that we should defeat it, it just does not lie. It is not a proper interpretation of the existing budget law to say this point of order can be raised and can invalidate this bill because the bill violates the budget. I want the Senators who are worried about voting to waive this point of order to understand this is not a budgetary issue. This is a technical point of order that got to the Senate because the Congressional Budget Office, I assume, or the Parliamentarian in consultation with the Congressional Budget Office, ruled that any expenditure of money exceeding $5 billion over a baseline in the year 2016 cannot be sustained. You see, Senator Byrd, this was done by our distinguished new chairman of the Budget Committee because he found that budgets were being broken in future years by putting in a program that ran at $2 or $3 billion a year and increased, way out there in future years, up to $10 or $15 billion. Now, fellow Senators, what I have described was perfectly valid until the distinguished chairman, within his rights, decided that this was a problem he wanted to solve. Now, you see, the goal is to prevent the bump-up of expenditures in future years that are unexpected by everybody voting today--unexpected because the increase comes along 10 years later and costs much more than what you thought you were voting for. Now, I cannot explain it any better than that. That is about the best I can do. Somebody must have determined that this budget rule applies because there is no way to disburse this trust fund money without going through the Department of Labor. That must be it. Because some Government agency must take this money--not tax money, not Federal money--and run it through their books and write the checks, somebody has decided that this fear of a bump-up in some future year applies. My good friend from Nevada is absolutely right to bring up this point of order if what he wants to have happen to this bill is for it to be proven by 60 votes. That is fine. But I want everybody to know, if the point of order is not sustained and this bill goes forward, I don't think the deficit of the United States is going to be affected in 2016 by one dollar if this $5 billion estimate is true because the money is not really on the Federal books. The trust fund has no real relationship to the expenditure of Federal money. So in considering this budget rule--I have explained it to you--I ask: how are we going to break the budget when this money is not even part of the budget? It is not on the budget. The money is going to be collected and then go through the Department of Labor, but it is not Federal money. I say to Senator Byrd, when they send the budget up in 2016, there is not going to be any of this trust fund money. This money might get a footnote. The Department of Labor is going to have to run the trust fund, but it cannot add to or subtract from the deficit because the Government is not spending its money. And it is not tax money. So let me say, if you want to kill this bill based upon a point of order that is--it is almost not a point of order, it is just a little, tiny technicality--it gets in by the skin of its teeth on an interpretation--then vote for it. If you are worried about saving money, and being a tightfisted budgeteer, then understand that this has nothing to do with being a tightfisted budgeteer because there is no budgeting involved. So I thank the good chairman who has worked so hard on this bill. I have never sat on the committee that produced this bill in my 34 years here. I never chose to go on the Judiciary Committee, so I am not intimately knowledgeable about this. But I know we better do something about asbestos. We run around talking about fiscal responsibility and helping business and cutting taxes so we will have more business. If we do not do anything about asbestos, and leave it in the courts, it will be the biggest abuse of the court system that we have ever known. If you want to tell these new countries becoming democracies, ``boy, are we a gifted country, we have this great rule of law, this fantastic court system,'' please, don't let them ask about asbestos because they will laugh: Why should they be like America? Why should they have a legal system that is so messed up that there are hundreds of thousands of claimants running around this country with scores of lawyers who, when we were practicing law, would not even have been lawyers? You could not run around soliciting these cases when I was sworn into the bar. You could not run around hiring these doctors when I was a member of the bar. You could not run around saying: Go get your neighbors and sign them up. That is American law today. It is business. It is entrepreneurial law. That is what we have. But it is not very orderly and it is not very ``due'' in terms of due process. Nor is it very fair because the claimants do not get very much money. The lawyers get a lot. I do not know why we would want to kill this bill. Lawyers get less. There is an orderliness involved. There is a way to adjudicate claims instead of waiting around for years. So with this point of order, while I think it is not even a point of order in the sense of what we intended with the 10-year-out rule--let's call it that; the 10-year-out rule--I do not know what we are even trying to protect against. It is not going to affect anything except to possibly kill the bill. So with that I thank the Senate for yielding me a few minutes. I regret having to intervene before the proponent got to speak. But I thank the Senate nonetheless.

Mr. DOMENICI. I am 73 years old, but I didn't chair it all the time.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, February 16, 2006 at 10 a.m., in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding S. 2253, to require the Secretary of the Interior to offer certain areas of the 181 Area of the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas leasing. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Frank Macchiarola or Shannon Ewan. Subcommittee on National Parks

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct. Not only is that correct, every single new powerplant--98 percent of powerplants built in the United States in the last 15 years--is natural gas.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, that bill was introduced yesterday. I don't have the number, but the clerk has it. Senator Sessions is not on that bill.