Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I had two Senators who wanted to speak. I have not spoken yet. Would the Senator from Tennessee like to speak for, say, 4 minutes?

Mr. DOMENICI. I will try to leave some time for the two of you. Tomorrow morning, we have a total of 45 minutes before the vote, starting somewhere around 9:45. If you don't get your time tonight, maybe you can call and see how much time you can have then. Mr. President, let me suggest that the distinguished Senator who just spoke said she was outraged because the price of gasoline was so high in her State. I might say to the distinguished Senator, if she is outraged today, I don't know what she is going to be 3 years from now because if we don't start doing something, as President Reagan once said, ``you ain't seen nothing yet.'' That is what I am going to tell the Senate and people of this country about gasoline prices. Let me also suggest that for those who think we are going to solve this problem with an investigation to see whether there is price fixing or something like that, let me suggest that is not going to happen. That has been looked at before. The truth is, this great United States of America has made a gigantic blunder, and we don't know how to get out of it. Certainly, one way to get into it deeper is to take a piece of America, like this 1.5 million acres which is supposed to be explored for oil and gas--and keep that kind of property closed and not produce crude oil. Let me assure everybody here that there is no one who knows how to get off of crude oil very quickly. In fact, I don't think anybody knows how America will ever be off of oil as a means of transportation and for many other things. I hope we get an energy bill that provides conservation. I hope Americans start driving small cars. I hope we have hybrids. But for now, I say to my good friend from Colorado, every single suggestion that anyone has about how we can reduce our dependency ought to be adopted. If you think we ought to conserve, conserve. If you think we ought to produce more crude oil, produce it. None of these potential solutions are going to be enough because we are now struggling over the fact that we are importing so much crude oil. I heard a Senator say today that we might consider ANWR if we were collapsing. Well, we won't know when we are collapsing, but we are pretty close. Right now, we are importing about 58 percent of the crude oil from a world that is in trouble, where some countries are fragile, and war might occur in others, and here we go along our merry way importing more and more oil. Petroleum imports are expected to reach 69 percent in the year 2025. Then we get a chance to produce 1 million barrels a day, and we are immediately confronted with those who say that is not very much. Why do we want to produce a million barrels of oil? Well, you know, this great United States is consuming 20.5 million barrels of oil a day and is currently only 11th on the scale of the most reserves on down the line. We are 11th from the top in the amount of oil reserves we have in our country. That is almost insignificant compared to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia ranks first in proven world oil reserves with 260 billion barrels. However, our reserves are only about 21.9 billion barrels. I say to my good friend from Tennessee, the 1002 area we are discussing is estimated to have about 10 billion barrels of oil--that is very probable. Just do the arithmetic. Our country's entire oil reserves amount to 21.9 billion barrels. This area in ANWR will produce 10 billion barrels. Insignificant they say? Add the two together and we could have 31 billion barrels in reserves. Again, this property will comprise 10 billion barrels of it. That is one-third of the reserves of America that will be up there in Alaska, and we are being told it is insignificant. That is like saying all the oil we have in America is insignificant. Why don't we close Texas down? That must be insignificant. It must be insignificant because we buy it from the world. As long as the world can supply it, I guess we are going to have to keep on arguing about ANWR. If there are not any more ANWRs around, I don't know what we are going to look to. I can tell you this. ANWR, with the potential for 1 million barrels of oil a day, will be the most significant onshore production capacity of any potential new onshore area in the United States--a brand new one. ANWR is by far the most promising site for onshore oil in the United States. You might say, since I learned that ANWR is so little, maybe America doesn't have much oil, and we should just not worry about having any. I do not think so. I think we better do everything we can and must produce as much as we can. There are so many facts indicating that we are pursuing a path of economic arrogance--we are absolutely refusing to face reality. Every time we discuss this issue someone will come and talk about another way to use less oil, but not to produce more here in America. I repeat, if you implemented every potential solution that everybody is suggesting, our tremendous Nation would be in terrible jeopardy for the next 25 to 50 years. We already are. America, as a powerhouse in the world for good and for freedom, is totally in jeopardy because we have not decided that we are going to move in a direction of diverse energy sources and where we can produce our own. It is so critical, in my opinion--and I say to the new Senator from Colorado--I predict that in your first term as Senator, we will be in the shale oil of Colorado again. We will be there with terrific research and experimentation saying can we convert that shale to oil because there sits oil in abundance. But you have to convert it. We tried it 30 years ago, but oil was not expensive enough. We are in such a bind, we will even look at that. Canada will produce oil from tar sands in abundance because we have to find some way to lessen our dependence while we make a transition to something else. I have been on the Budget Committee since a year after the Budget Act was written. I regret to tell my colleagues that everything that is used in the budgeting of America--I am going to use a terrible word-- was invented by me. It was invented by me and my staff. The first reconciliation ever used, we used it. It was a total argument about whether it was right or wrong. We won on the floor and said it was right. Every year we would use reconciliation, there would be an argument about whether it was right. Reconciliation does not mean the bill that is adopted pursuant to it or voted pursuant to it is automatic. It still has to get 51 votes, and it still has to be signed by the President. So for those who think this is an easy way to get through the process without any of the legislative and executive input, they are mistaken. But conversely, if a Budget Committee says we need additional revenue and we would like the Energy Committee to furnish us with new revenue and then gives the Energy Committee an instruction that says produce new revenue, for example produce revenue that flows about like this: 400 million, 600 million, 2 billion in each of these years, that is what the Senate voted on when we pass a budget. The instruction comes to the Energy Committee and it says ANWR receipts will produce a certain amount of money, therefore write a bill in response to that order. The reconciliation process then, produces that amount of revenue. That is absolutely legitimate. That is what the Budget Act has been used for in the last 27 years. I regret to say there are some who do not think that is how reconciliation ought to be used, but they lost that argument a long time ago. That is long past. The Senate wrote an act and we are living with it. I have already told them over 50 times in the past 20 years: You said this was a way to avoid filibuster. You said this was a way to avoid prolonged debate. Now we are using it. That is what we are doing here. There is absolutely nothing that says it cannot be done. Whatever questions you have about what else might be done, we will take them up in their proper time, and if they come up, they come up. This one we already did. We sent it all the way to the President as a reconciled bill, and then President Clinton vetoed it after it was done. If the President had signed the bill, oil from ANWR would currently be flowing and our dependence on foreign oil would be much less. So it seems that these letters being circulated by Senator Kerry and President Jimmy Carter, those very activist environmentalists, will have nothing to talk about tomorrow when we win this, and 4 weeks from now when we produce the bill. They have to understand, we have been trying for 24 years. A filibuster means we have to have 60 votes, unless there is a procedure which permits us to do otherwise. I say to my friend, the Senator from Colorado, this is not simple, nor is it profound. It is very cumbersome. There is a lot to it, but it is absolutely proper. It means that if this million barrels of oil a day is important enough, we will do it with a simple majority, but we still have to have a majority. We will put it in a bill, it will go to the President, and if the President wants to sign it, he will sign it. If he does not, it will not become law. I do not think we ought to be accusing anybody about doing this in a tricky manner or in some untoward way because such is not the case. It just is not the case. Tomorrow I will talk, for those who want to listen, about why we will do so little harm, if any, to the environment, and why there is no project, including Prudhoe Bay, that we can go see that shows what this is going to look like with new technology. There are none. It is absolutely so different from what we have ever done before that it is going to be amazing. I close by saying those of us who went to Alaska saw a production facility called Alpine. The Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, did not go with us. I wish he had. The 96 acres of land at Alpine had upon it the entire oil production facilities--the oil wells, not one but several so close together that it looked almost like a row of outhouses at a public park. Each outhouse has a well in it--that is how little it was--an oil well. Each oil well had six or eight wells underground. I will show one of those tomorrow. That little 96 acres had no roads. Instead, ice roads were built in the winter that simply melt away in the summer. In the summertime, there are no roads to it because they have melted. The facility produces 120,000 barrels of oil a day because under that little piece of property are wells that go down 7,000 feet, find the oil, and go up 4\1/2\ miles and drain the field. There is another one that goes down, and there are five new wells sprout out from under it, and coming out of the wellhead is 3,000 to 4,000, 5,000 barrels a day from one well. They have been getting that for a long time. It seems to me that it is rather ironic that we are all here talking about a crisis. We are suggesting it is not a big enough crisis to worry about a million barrels a day. We are also suggesting that we ought to do other things. This Senator has been here a while. First, this is the proper way to do it. Second, if anybody has another proposal for a million barrels of American oil, let's have it. It would be tremendous if we had a few more. If anybody knows how to conserve and pass through Congress a measure that would cause us to conserve 2 million or 3 million or 4 million barrels a day, put it on the table. It is not that if we did that we do not need this. We need them both.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for an additional 30 seconds, Mr. President.

Mr. DOMENICI. We worry about China bringing in all this, but almost 26 percent of the balance of trade is pure oil. We can stop the imbalance with China and continue to buy oil, and we will have a trade imbalance that is still going up, and we will be wondering whether we need a million barrels of oil a day from an area that is supposed to be explored that some do not even want to allow us to look at. I believe the time has come. I hope it is tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before Senator Alexander leaves the Chamber, I am pleased that I was late so he had to speak first and I could listen to him. His remarks were thoughtful, thought provoking, and conclusive. If Senators on the other side of the aisle will listen to what he said and think it through, they will understand that this situation is going to be resolved. If they continue to insist it be resolved their way, I believe the Senate will decide that they will change procedural rules. Having said that, I remind those who are listening and those who have lived through very recent history that there have been some contentious nominees that we have considered in recent times and that the American people can vividly remember. Let me remind those listening: We had the nomination of Judge Carswell years past. That was a highly debated nomination. All kinds of things were said about his qualifications, his capacity. There was enough enthusiasm against him--rancor--that if the filibuster had been used and brought to fruition, he probably never would have gotten enough votes to break the filibuster. He would have been defeated that way. But that did not happen. There was an up-or- down vote, and he was defeated. Remember recently when we thoroughly debated Clarence Thomas, how many weeks that went on; how many days the debate went on. That controversial nomination was not filibustered. There was an up-or-down vote, just as we Senators on this side of the aisle are almost begging the Democrats to let happen for current nominees. It happened in the case of Clarence Thomas and he won by two votes. It is obvious, that if those who opposed him--and they opposed him with a great deal of certainty that he should not go on the bench--would have chosen the course of today, they would have used a filibuster. Why didn't they? They didn't because historically in the Senate, traditionally in the Senate, where there is majority support for a nominee, a filibuster is not used. Having said that, it is obvious to this Senator that somehow or another in the last 4 years there has been a new idea promulgated that the advice and consent function, which the Constitution says is our prerogative to give to Presidential nominees, allows the other side, when it has an objection to a nominee, to filibuster that nominee. There have been more filibusters in the last 4 years against judges than in all of this body's previous history. It appears that every time there is a contentious nominee, that tactic will be used. That idea was not in this body before 2000. That tactic was not used before to the same degree it is used now. It is an invitation, I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, for the majority to decide that enough is enough. The idea that we want to protect the minority goes both ways. Senator Alexander is right. Many of us have been in the Senate on this side of the aisle when we were in the minority. I came here when we only had 38 Republicans. We were the ones crying out for protection. But we didn't filibuster Federal judgeships. We didn't filibuster district or circuit or Supreme Court nominees. That was for a number of years, not just one or two. For a number of years we were in the minority. But the problems with requiring a super-majority is a concept that has been discussed by our Founding Fathers. Alexander Hamilton wrote: To give the minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision) is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. Obviously, that is the case. Obviously, when we look at judges and history, the Constitution talks about advice and consent and clearly requires that a majority of the Senate consent. Our rules are not the only things that talk about advice and consent. The Constitution does. Our Founding Fathers, fully aware of this Hamiltonian quote, provided in the Constitution the events when more than a majority is required. The Constitution said to override Presidential vetoes required more than a majority; to remove Federal officers under impeachment required more than a majority; to ratify treaties required more than a majority; to expel a House or Senate member required more than a majority; and to propose constitutional amendments required more than a majority. It did not say such was required when we are exercising our advice and consent power. Had that been a situation in our governance that required a supermajority, it would have been easy for the Founding Fathers to write that in. But they did not. From this Senator's standpoint, the other side of the aisle, which talks so much about closing down Government if they don't get their way on this, ought to think it through carefully. Closing down the Government is something that ought to be used rarely. Even the words ought to be used carefully. ``Closing down the Government'' could mean we are going to stop funding education. It could mean we are going to close down all the national parks. It could mean we are not going to have enough money appropriated for our military. Closing down the Government, a threat from the other side of the aisle which they think would make us change our minds about this issue, is at least a two- edged sword and probably only a one-edged sword. That sword will be: Woe to those who close down Government over issues such as this. Recall within the last 15 years, closing down Government was a threat, I regret to say, made by and carried out by some leadership in the House. The issue was thought by them to be paramount. But the public prevailed. The public said: The paramount issue is to keep your Government open, even if your cause is one you believe whole-heartedly in. From my standpoint, the threat is sufficient for me to seriously consider using this constitutional option so that advice and consent will be majoritarian instead of requiring 60 votes in the Senate. The reason is easy for me. The Senate as an institution--its rules, its process--is marvelous. I have been here a long time. I support it. It is set apart by free debate, by opportunity to amend. But there also is precedent in our rules. There are requirements that the Senate think carefully about what they are doing regarding as important an issue as advice and consent. Some think, that Senator from New Mexico has been here too long; he has frequently said he admires and respects the rules of the Senate and has become accustomed to them. I have frequently said, for those who don't like the rules, wait until you are here 3 or 4 years--you will think they are great. Freshmen think we ought to get things done right now; forget the rules and the procedures. But let them stay here a term, and they understand what the Senate rules mean. Understanding all that and feeling as I do about these issues, it seems to me we cannot continue to deny a man like Miguel Estrada a seat in the judiciary when there is more than a majority of the Senate who, after hours of debate, is willing to have a vote. The other side knows that such a vote has a majority of support so they prevent a vote from occurring. You can't keep doing that and expect the majority to sit by and say: It is just the current rules, you can't change them; don't worry about it. In fact, that is a dangerous proposition. The bell will toll. If this is continued, there will be Members such as this Senator who will end up saying: We have had enough. We are willing to abide by the same rules when we are in the minority. It will apply to both Democrats and Republicans. We know some say we will be in the minority one day. Some of us are willing to say: Let it be the case for both, and let us rule by majority vote with reference to judicial appointees. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, March 9 at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nomination of Patricia Lynn Scarlett to be Deputy Secretary of Interior and Jeffrey Clay Sell to be Deputy Secretary of Energy. For further information, please contact Judy Pensabene of the Committee staff at (202) 224-1327.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing, entitled Power Generation Resource Incentives & Diversity Standards, will be held on Tuesday, March 8 at 2:30 p.m., in Room SD-366. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding ways to encourage the diversification of power generation resources. Issues to be discussed include: renewable portfolio standards (RPS) efforts among states and the cost and benefits of a federal RPS program. New approaches to promoting a variety of clean power resources, such as wind, solar, clean coal technology and nuclear power, will also be considered. 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, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510- 6150. For further information, please contact: Shane Perkins at 202-224- 7555. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to have supported the ``Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2005,'' a bill that will prohibit discrimination based on genetic information with respect to employment and health insurance. This bill represents much cooperation on the part of my colleagues, and I want to thank them for all the hard work done on this important issue. I am extremely pleased with today's passage of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act as it marks a great milestone for those of us involved in the Human Genome Project. It seems only a short time ago that the Human Genome Project was created as a joint effort between the Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health. What progress we have made. In the last 2 years, there have been many events celebrating the completion of maps of the human genome. The genome map has brought a promise of improved health through revolutionary new treatments for illness and disease. The ultimate result of mapping the human genome is a complete genetic blueprint, a blueprint containing the most personal and most private information that any human being can have. We will now have a wealth of knowledge of how our countless individual traits are determined. And perhaps more important, we will have fundamental knowledge about the genes that can cause sickness and sometimes even death. Our personal and unique genetic information is the essence of our individuality. Our genetic blueprint is unique in each of us. However, as genetic testing becomes a more frequently used tool, we now must begin to address the ethical and legal issues regarding discrimination on the basis of genetic information. Questions regarding privacy and confidentiality, ownership and control, and consent for disclosure and use of genetic information need to be carefully considered. An unintended consequence of this new scientific revolution is the abuses that have arisen as a result of our gathering genetic information. Healthy people are being denied employment or health insurance because of their genetic information. By addressing the issue of nondiscrimination, we are affirming the right of an individual to have a measure of control over his or her personal genetic information. Genetic information only indicates a potential susceptibility to future illness. In fact, many individuals identified as having a hereditary condition are, indeed, healthy. Some people who test positive for genetic mutations associated with certain conditions may never develop those conditions at all. Genetic information does not necessarily diagnose disease. Yet many people in our society have been discriminated against because other people had access to information about their genes, and made determinations based on this information that the individual was too risky to ensure or unsafe to employ. While the issue is complex, our objective is clear; people should be encouraged to seek genetic services and they should not fear its discriminatory use or disclosure. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act is an important first step toward protecting access for all Americans to employment and health services regardless of their genetic inheritance. There is simply no place in the health insurance or employment sector for discrimination based solely upon genetic information.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce an uncontroversial piece of legislation that I hope will receive prompt committee action and will make its way quickly to the President's desk for his signature. I would first like to familiarize the Senate with the important mission and related work of the Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park in Las Cruces, NM. The Chihuahuan Desert is the largest desert in North America and contains a great diversity of unique plant and animal species. The ecosystem makes up an indispensable part of Southwest's treasured ecological diversity. As such, it is important that we teach our young ones an appreciation for New Mexico's biological diversity and impart upon them the value of this ecological treasure. The Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park is a nonprofit institution that has spent the past 6 years providing hands-on science education to K-12th graders. To achieve this mission, the Nature Park provides classroom presentation, field trips, schoolyard ecology projects, and teacher work shops. The Nature Park serves more than 11,000 students and 600 teachers annually. This instruction will enable our future leaders to make informed decisions about how best to manage these valuable resources. I commend those at the Nature Park for taking the initiative to create and administer a wonderfully successful program that has been so beneficial to the surrounding community. The Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park was granted a 1,000 acre easement in 1998 at the southern boundary of USDA-Agriculture Research Service, USDA-ARS, property just north of Las Cruces, NM. This easement will expire soon. It is important that we provide them a permanent location so that they are able to continue their valuable mission. The bill I introduce today would transfer an insignificant amount of land: 1,000 of 193,000 USDA acres to the Desert Nature Park so that they may continue their important work. The USDA-ARS has approved the land transfer, noting the critically important mission of the Desert Park. I have no doubt that Senators on both sides of the aisle will recognize the importance of this land transfer. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce an uncontroversial piece of legislation that I hope will receive prompt committee action and will make its way quickly to the President's desk for his signature. I would first like to familiarize the Senate with the important mission and related work of the Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park in Las Cruces, NM. The Chihuahuan Desert is the largest desert in North America and contains a great diversity of unique plant and animal species. The ecosystem makes up an indispensable part of Southwest's treasured ecological diversity. As such, it is important that we teach our young ones an appreciation for New Mexico's biological diversity and impart upon them the value of this ecological treasure. The Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park is a nonprofit institution that has spent the past 6 years providing hands-on science education to K-12th graders. To achieve this mission, the Nature Park provides classroom presentation, field trips, schoolyard ecology projects, and teacher work shops. The Nature Park serves more than 11,000 students and 600 teachers annually. This instruction will enable our future leaders to make informed decisions about how best to manage these valuable resources. I commend those at the Nature Park for taking the initiative to create and administer a wonderfully successful program that has been so beneficial to the surrounding community. The Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park was granted a 1,000 acre easement in 1998 at the southern boundary of USDA-Agriculture Research Service, USDA-ARS, property just north of Las Cruces, NM. This easement will expire soon. It is important that we provide them a permanent location so that they are able to continue their valuable mission. The bill I introduce today would transfer an insignificant amount of land: 1,000 of 193,000 USDA acres to the Desert Nature Park so that they may continue their important work. The USDA-ARS has approved the land transfer, noting the critically important mission of the Desert Park. I have no doubt that Senators on both sides of the aisle will recognize the importance of this land transfer. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this Senator from New Mexico has known Mr. Chertoff for a long time. I have been familiar with him professionally, primarily when he was legal counsel for a committee on which I served. In that capacity, I got to know his professional qualities, his intellect, his care in interpreting both the law and facts, and I am absolutely positive that he is going to make a superb head for this very complicated Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Chertoff is a lawyer by trade and a judge by promotion within the profession of advocacy. Now, regardless of the profession or experiences of the person nominated to this position, there might have been some who asked: Why not some other particular area of expertise? That could be asked in this case. But I am quite sure that when one looks at the myriad of problems addressed by and the kind of intellect, commitment, and most of all, integrity that Judge Chertoff has, it is clear that he is going to do a superb job on behalf of our country and the safety of our homeland. My compliments to the President for sending this nomination to the committee, headed by Senator Collins, that reported him out quickly, and to the Senate for overwhelmingly voting for him today. I salute Judge Chertoff and wish him the best. I hope he is able to handle this job with the same kind of excellence that he has handled all the other jobs we have given him. He has plenty of help, which he will need. This is not a job he can do alone. It is a very big agency, and I hope everybody who works there will be part of his team as he works to make Homeland Security operate in a way that is efficient and good for our country and for our people. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the significant achievements of Joe F. Colvin, who is retiring as president and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute, and acknowledge his many noteworthy contributions in building a strong future for nuclear energy, America's largest emission-free electricity source. As chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, it has been my distinct pleasure to work closely with Mr. Colvin and his organization. I can personally attest to his leadership in guiding the nuclear energy industry through a period of extraordinary renaissance. Mr. Colvin has provided more than 40 years of service to our Nation, first as a submarine office in the U.S. Navy and later in the commercial nuclear energy industry. When he took the helm at NEI in 1996, conventional thinking was that the industry was stagnant and nuclear power had no future in America's energy mix. He rejected that view and tirelessly worked to advance nuclear energy's true capabilities--its proven safety, its contribution to our environment and its affordability. After more than 20 years of debate, Congress passed legislation in 2002 designating Yucca Mountain as the site of Nation's used fuel repository giving our Nation clear direction for our used fuel management program. Today, America's nuclear plants are now recognized as the significant assets they are, and the nuclear energy industry is more competitive than ever. In addition, several companies are testing an improved licensing process for new nuclear power plants. Although Mr. Colvin is quick to acknowledge the accomplishments of others, his own work on behalf of the nuclear energy industry has paid enormous dividends. Through frequent testimony before congressional committees, conversations with senior Government officials and countless others, he has educated many about the value of nuclear energy and the promise it holds. Hence, it is with mixed emotions that I wish Mr. Colvin, a great University of New Mexico Lobo, all the best in his retirement from the Nuclear Energy Institute. He has earned a well-deserved respite.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that continues my efforts to address a significant problem in the state of New Mexico, a problem that the Judicial Conference of the United States has previously described as a ``crisis.'' According to the latest survey by the Judicial Conference, the weighted caseload for the District of New Mexico is now the fourth highest in the Nation. This is in spite of the fact that in 2002 Congress approved a temporary judgeship for New Mexico which the President has filled. Based on this heavy workload, the Judicial Conference recently recommended 2 additional permanent judgeships, as well as an additional temporary judgeship for New Mexico; Only 2 districts in California, one in Florida, and one in New York were recommended to get more judgeships than New Mexico. The legislation I have introduced today reflects this recommendation. In the 12-month period ending on June 30, 2002, the number of criminal filings per judgeship increased from 222 to 320. This is compared to the national average of 81. You don't have to be a mathematical genius to figure out that this is just short of four times the national average. During this same time period, the number of weighted filings increased from 673 per judgeship to 739. The national average is 504 and the Judicial Conference has set the benchmark at 430 weighted cases per judgeship. The District of New Mexico is clearly in need of relief from this crisis. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial in all criminal cases. The United States Supreme Court has called this guarantee ``one of the most basic rights preserved by our Constitution,'' 386 U.S. 213. We must ensure that our States have the proper judicial resources to guarantee the basic right promised to Americans more than 200 years ago. The bill that I am introducing provides such necessary resources to New Mexico. Without additional judges, this problem will only continue to grow as the country focuses more intently on the security of our borders. I hope that my colleagues will act quickly to authorize these necessary additional judgeships for New Mexico. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that continues my efforts to address a significant problem in the state of New Mexico, a problem that the Judicial Conference of the United States has previously described as a ``crisis.'' According to the latest survey by the Judicial Conference, the weighted caseload for the District of New Mexico is now the fourth highest in the Nation. This is in spite of the fact that in 2002 Congress approved a temporary judgeship for New Mexico which the President has filled. Based on this heavy workload, the Judicial Conference recently recommended 2 additional permanent judgeships, as well as an additional temporary judgeship for New Mexico; Only 2 districts in California, one in Florida, and one in New York were recommended to get more judgeships than New Mexico. The legislation I have introduced today reflects this recommendation. In the 12-month period ending on June 30, 2002, the number of criminal filings per judgeship increased from 222 to 320. This is compared to the national average of 81. You don't have to be a mathematical genius to figure out that this is just short of four times the national average. During this same time period, the number of weighted filings increased from 673 per judgeship to 739. The national average is 504 and the Judicial Conference has set the benchmark at 430 weighted cases per judgeship. The District of New Mexico is clearly in need of relief from this crisis. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial in all criminal cases. The United States Supreme Court has called this guarantee ``one of the most basic rights preserved by our Constitution,'' 386 U.S. 213. We must ensure that our States have the proper judicial resources to guarantee the basic right promised to Americans more than 200 years ago. The bill that I am introducing provides such necessary resources to New Mexico. Without additional judges, this problem will only continue to grow as the country focuses more intently on the security of our borders. I hope that my colleagues will act quickly to authorize these necessary additional judgeships for New Mexico. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill prohibiting retirement of F-117 stealth fighter aircraft during fiscal year 2006. I am also pleased my colleague, Senator Bingaman, has joined me as a cosponsor. The Department of Defense budget proposed for next year reduces operations and maintenance funds for the stealth fighter. As a result, ten aircraft would be retired. I believe this would be detrimental to our national security and so I offer a very simple bill to maintain the current F-117 force structure. The mission of the stealth fighter is to strike highly important, highly defended enemy targets. Pilots from Holloman Air Force Base, NM have flown thousands of successful sorties while evading heavy air defenses because of the F-117's stealth capability. As I think most know, F-117s played a key role during operations in Serbia, in Operation Iraqi Freedom and in other dangerous theaters around the world. The F-117 has been this nation's preeminent first strike platform. And I would submit, that retiring nearly 20 percent of our proven stealth fighter fleet before new planes such as the F-22 and the Joint Strike Fighter enter the force is not prudent. Last year, a similar budget request was made to reduce the F-117 fleet. I recommended that the Department of Defense delay such a decision until new stealth platforms enter the fleet. Both the Armed Services committee and the Defense Appropriations subcommittee agreed with my assessment and included language in their bills prohibiting the retirement. For fiscal year 2006 my goal remains the same: to retain the vital first-strike capability this Nation has come to rely upon for the immediate future. I recognize that this is a time when our military forces are transforming to a different kind of force--one that is more agile. I also recognize that this will require new kinds of platforms and different force structures. But at a time when the world presents a number of challenges that may require use of stealth capability, I am committed to maintaining the current configuration of the F-117 fleet and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill prohibiting retirement of F-117 stealth fighter aircraft during fiscal year 2006. I am also pleased my colleague, Senator Bingaman, has joined me as a cosponsor. The Department of Defense budget proposed for next year reduces operations and maintenance funds for the stealth fighter. As a result, ten aircraft would be retired. I believe this would be detrimental to our national security and so I offer a very simple bill to maintain the current F-117 force structure. The mission of the stealth fighter is to strike highly important, highly defended enemy targets. Pilots from Holloman Air Force Base, NM have flown thousands of successful sorties while evading heavy air defenses because of the F-117's stealth capability. As I think most know, F-117s played a key role during operations in Serbia, in Operation Iraqi Freedom and in other dangerous theaters around the world. The F-117 has been this nation's preeminent first strike platform. And I would submit, that retiring nearly 20 percent of our proven stealth fighter fleet before new planes such as the F-22 and the Joint Strike Fighter enter the force is not prudent. Last year, a similar budget request was made to reduce the F-117 fleet. I recommended that the Department of Defense delay such a decision until new stealth platforms enter the fleet. Both the Armed Services committee and the Defense Appropriations subcommittee agreed with my assessment and included language in their bills prohibiting the retirement. For fiscal year 2006 my goal remains the same: to retain the vital first-strike capability this Nation has come to rely upon for the immediate future. I recognize that this is a time when our military forces are transforming to a different kind of force--one that is more agile. I also recognize that this will require new kinds of platforms and different force structures. But at a time when the world presents a number of challenges that may require use of stealth capability, I am committed to maintaining the current configuration of the F-117 fleet and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend Senator Kennedy 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 US 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 who 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. Thank you and I look forward to working with my colleague Senator Kennedy on this important issue. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend Senator Kennedy 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 US 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 who 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. Thank you and I look forward to working with my colleague Senator Kennedy on this important issue. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am very fortunate. I did not plan it this way, but I was here for most of what Senator Lieberman had to say. I am very glad I had that opportunity. Even though I have never been a member of the Judiciary Committee, I am a lawyer, although I have not practiced for a long time, but I am very pleased I had a chance to listen to an analysis given by the Senator with reference to the memos and what might be taken from them in terms of what it means if we nominate, if we accept his nomination or send him signals about what we think about torture. Does that mean because he was involved in all of this activity at a time of turmoil, when there were a lot of things we did not know, a lot of legal definitions had not yet been completely determined, that are still out there being litigated and discussed, that he is disqualified from being a good Attorney General? That is hogwash. As a plain, simple person looking at this, I say: What if I were a lawyer and I decided that the law meant A, B, C, D and that was logical, there were legal opinions and a lot of people supporting it, but after the fact things occurred, and D, E, F said that wasn't right. Does that mean whatever you said was right, as a matter of law? Does it mean since that is not what the court says, you are not a good lawyer, or in some way that disqualifies you from a job? We have lawyers arguing against each other with legal briefs that have innumerable citations supporting a position. Somebody wins, somebody loses, right? And that does not mean that either side did anything but research the law as best they could, come up with conclusions as best they could. These very narrow arguments on legal niceties totally miss the point. None of those justify saying he has given America a black eye in terms of torture, and if he is Attorney General, we approve of this kind of person, that would be part of such activity. That has got to be nonsense. I say it different from the Senator. You say it is nonsense but you never say it is nonsense; you just go through and pick it apart. Of the people who know him, who have known him for longer thin anybody on that side of the aisle, who have practiced with him, who were in the State bar with him, who were there when he got great awards in the Texas bar for his minority, in terms of his culture, but for his excellence in terms of the law, one is Henry Cisneros. He has known him for years and wrote a letter January 5, a tremendous letter. He knew this man. What did he say? Well, he is not saying he shouldn't be Attorney General because he has been reading about what happened with regard to prisoners of war. He didn't say that. He said: I know all about him. He is a terrific lawyer, a wonderful man, and a great success story, and he is Hispanic like I am. Henry Cisneros said: I am proud of him. That is Democratic Henry Cisneros. I think he should become the first Hispanic to be Attorney General. Other Senators--I hate to say which ones--come down here and argue these legal niceties. I don't want to discredit them. I don't want to say this is an excuse because probably some of them really believe what they have said. I think there is something to the fact that there are a lot of Senators who want to forget the fact that George Bush won. They can't believe he is President again, so, wherever they can, they want to vent their feelings about this. This man should have every vote in the Senate. He is more qualified than most. He is, in a sense, a better example of somebody who should get this job, a success in America, because of the signal it tells about the American way of life. And success can be achieved by minorities. His experience as a lawyer is as much or better than most who have been Attorneys General of the United States. Everything you look at, his decisions about this whole business of al-Qaida and whether they should be deemed to be protected by Geneva or not, whether the Taliban up there in Afghanistan should be treated as prisoners of war. There is no question he is not on the edge of a group of people who do not care about humanity, who want to do anything. He is not on that side. In fact, he is pretty much correct, that the ones I just described shouldn't be covered by the Geneva Conventions. Maybe the Iraqi soldiers, but there is nothing that says the Taliban terrorists should or the terrorists in Iraq should, for sure. There is lots of legal opinion. That is not the subject matter of the Geneva Conventions. You still have to have rules about torture. I understand. I thought I would try to answer some of the allegations that have been made today with reference to the subject matter, but I will not. I am absolutely convinced for many people who are active Democrats, including some in the Senate, they cannot envision that this man, Hispanic, with his upbringing, should be a Republican nominee for Attorney General. I lived through it all. I come from a State with a large population of Hispanics, huge numbers of them elected to every office in my State, predominantly Democrat. One can almost feel it, a Republican just shouldn't be doing that. That should not be a nominee of a Republican President. They have a lot to learn. He is not the first one. He will not be the last one. And Hispanics are not going to be natural constituents for the Democratic Party or naturally Democratic. It will just not happen anymore. I commend the President for doing what he did. I commend this man for his successes, his family for the sacrifices, and the Senate for confirming him by an overwhelming vote today. I look toward to his being sworn in. I conclude by saying I know him, I have worked with him--not as long as former Secretary Cisneros or some others I put in the Record yesterday who worked with him in Texas, but when it is all finished, he will be a very good Attorney General. Frankly, for those who think they might have bruised him up so he cannot be a nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States, which some might have hoped for, I think they missed it because it comes out in the end of being a very frivolous attack. He might be the logical candidate. He might be the kind of person who will clear the Senate. At least when he started a few weeks ago he clearly was in that category. I hope they haven't changed it by what they have done on the other side. Instead of simply saying we oppose President Bush or we are against the war in Iraq, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to make Judge Alberto Gonzalez a scapegoat for their own frustrations. We have heard numerous allegations such as not treating al Qaeda terrorists like prisoners captured during previous wars means the United States is not following the rule of law. Since 9/11, Judge Gonzalez and countless other Government lawyers have attempted to respond to war that America had never fought. This is a ``War Against Terror.'' All of these lawyers had to make very difficult decisions to protect America from a new and deadly threat while not knowing if more attacks were imminent. This is a case of second guessing at its absolute worst. The allegation is that Judge Gonzalez supports the torture and abuse of terrorists during interrogations. Judge Gonzalez has repeatedly stated that it is not the policy of the United States to condone torture and that he does condone torture. The allegation is that Judge Gonzalez does not believe in the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention applies when a combatant meets the following four criteria: is commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; has a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; carries arms openly; and conducts operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Clearly the Geneva Conventions do not apply to Taliban fighters or al-Qaida terrorists. Yet there are still those who insist that Judge Gonzales completely disregarded the Geneva Conventions and through his legal memoranda encouraged torture and mistreatment. Let me provide just a small sampling of the overwhelming body of evidence that completely refutes Judge Gonzales's opponents. The final 9/11 Commission Report stated: The United States and some of its allies do not accept the application of the treatment of prisoners of war to captured terrorists. Those conventions establish a minimum set of standards for prisoners in internal conflicts. Since the international struggle against Islamist terrorism is not internal, those provisions do not formally apply . . . The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in the John Walker Lindh case stated: The President's decision denying Lindh lawful combatant immunity is correct. Legal scholars agree. In her treatise on The Law of War, Professor Ingrid Detter noted that ``[u]nlawful combatants . . . are not, if captured, entitled to any prisoner of war status.'' Professor Gregory M. Travalio has written that ``terrorists would not qualify under Article 4 of Geneva Convention III as Prisoners of War.'' Moving beyond what can only be described as a smoke and mirrors argument, I believe there are other forces at work that have absolutely nothing to do with the Geneva Convention. Partisan, political, and personal pretty well sums up the opposition to the nomination of Judge Alberto Gonzales to be the next United States Attorney General.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, in accordance with Rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby submit for the Congressional Record the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Bingaman, to introduce legislation to address a serious problem in the State of New Mexico. State case law currently holds that the State of New Mexico does not have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes that occur on privately held land within the exterior boundaries of a Pueblo. Federal case law holds that the Federal Government does not have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes that occur on these lands. Read in tandem, these court decisions lead to the result that neither Federal, State nor tribal law-enforcement officials have jurisdiction on thousands of acres of privately owned lands within the boundaries of Indian pueblos. As a result, in recent years there have been stabbings, criminal sexual-contact cases, and aggravated battery charges that have stalled in court over jurisdiction questions. The prospect of having lands in my State where anyone can commit any crime and not be prosecuted for it is untenable and something that needs to be fixed. The legislation I am introducing today clearly outlines who is responsible for trying these cases by clarifying when a crime should be prosecuted in Federal, tribal, or State court. At the same time, the bill honors tribal sovereignty. If we do not address this problem, it will only worsen. This legislation culminates a lot of work among the New Mexico delegation, the pueblos, and the State. It is a necessary bill. It is a good bill. And I hope that my colleagues will act quickly to clarify jurisdiction over these lands. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Bingaman, to introduce legislation to address a serious problem in the State of New Mexico. State case law currently holds that the State of New Mexico does not have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes that occur on privately held land within the exterior boundaries of a Pueblo. Federal case law holds that the Federal Government does not have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes that occur on these lands. Read in tandem, these court decisions lead to the result that neither Federal, State nor tribal law-enforcement officials have jurisdiction on thousands of acres of privately owned lands within the boundaries of Indian pueblos. As a result, in recent years there have been stabbings, criminal sexual-contact cases, and aggravated battery charges that have stalled in court over jurisdiction questions. The prospect of having lands in my State where anyone can commit any crime and not be prosecuted for it is untenable and something that needs to be fixed. The legislation I am introducing today clearly outlines who is responsible for trying these cases by clarifying when a crime should be prosecuted in Federal, tribal, or State court. At the same time, the bill honors tribal sovereignty. If we do not address this problem, it will only worsen. This legislation culminates a lot of work among the New Mexico delegation, the pueblos, and the State. It is a necessary bill. It is a good bill. And I hope that my colleagues will act quickly to clarify jurisdiction over these lands. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for her good words. Needless to say, I agree with the Senator and I hope that sometime tomorrow an overwhelming number of Senators from both sides of the aisle will do likewise.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in behalf of the President's nominee for Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. I have read as much as I could about his background and his life. Most importantly, I have read what those who have lived and worked with him during his life have had to say about him, and I will read what they have had to say about him shortly. From everything I have read and learned, I have concluded that some on that side of the aisle oppose him for totally personal, partisan, and political reasons, no question about it. I do not want to speculate as to why because it is really inconceivable to me that Democrats would do what they are doing to this man. For decades, they used to talk about the Democrat Party being the party of Hispanics, as if it were just as natural and normal as day follows night that Hispanics, that minority which is growing, just ought to be Democrats. Well, something has happened a little bit. Some change is occurring, and sure enough this President is tinkering with that toy of theirs. He is appointing more qualified Hispanics to high office than any of their Presidents ever have. My colleagues cannot say Alberto Gonzales was nominated just because he is a minority with the name Gonzales, because every single qualification that one would require he has met. Did the American Bar Association approve? Absolutely. What did the bar of Texas think about him? They named him to one of their highest offices before we ever thought of him. What about law firms in Texas? He has been a member of the best law firms there are. What about judicial temperament? He sat on the highest civil and criminal court in the big, great State of Texas. Now, they did not all do that because his name is Gonzales, but it just happens that it is. Nor did they approve of him because he was born in poverty, because his parents did not speak English, or because he lived in a house without running water. They did not approve of him because of that. They approved of him because he was qualified. So then one might ask, what is all this objection about? It seems as if there is an idea that for some reason or another he has had a bad impact on our country's name because he is for torturing prisoners, or if I am reading too much into that then maybe it is he set a bad example which hurt America because people perceived he was for torturing prisoners and he did not do anything about it. Based on the record, based on the law, based on the interpretation of the law, that is about as flimsy a reason as one could ever have for not approving this man to be Attorney General. First, I do not want to take a lot of time. It is late. We have heard a lot. I did not come here without checking a few things. I find that most authentic and reliable discerners, interpreters of the legal consequences of the Geneva Convention conclude that the Geneva Convention does not apply to these kinds of captives. I do not know how else to say it. There is opinion after opinion, interpretation after interpretation, that the title which talks about the care and how one must treat prisoners of war does not apply to terrorists. I will insert in the Record three different leading scholarly statements that say that is the case. Now, that is logical. One might say, well, is America for torture? No. That is not logical. What is logical is when the Geneva Conventions were drawn, we were talking about prisoners of war such as those in the First and the Second World Wars, where literally thousands of soldiers belonging to an army of another nation were gathered and this was to say that you have to treat them a certain way. They belong to a country. Terrorists do not belong to any country. They are not fighting a war for a country. They are not part of an organized military that you capture. I don't need to go into all that. I can just say, that is a bum rap, to say he should not be Attorney General because he might have said or signed a memo that said we do not need to apply the Geneva Conventions to these captives. If that were the case, that should not disqualify him because that is the predominant law, interpretive law of that convention. Then we say: Senator, you are not saying, since that is not the case, you are free to do whatever you want to prisoners? Not at all. There still is a rule of law regarding the treatment of prisoners. I do not think anybody can rightfully get up and say Alberto Gonzales promoted or implicitly promoted treating these kind of captives any old way you want. I do not believe that is the case. So I don't know what we are talking about. There might be something. There might be something. It might be that there has been a decision on that side of the aisle to just make every appointment of the President difficult, or anyone they can find the least thing about, make it difficult. Let me say, I don't think it does them any good. I don't think the American people, 2 weeks from now, are going to think this effort on their part did anything to hurt this man or hurt our President. What I am concerned about is whether the Democratic Party thinks it is going to help them because I do think it is another opportunity for Hispanics to say, Why should we be Democrats? I think that is giving that nail another nice pound with a nice strong hammer. I do not think there is any question about that. I do think there is a growing concern on that side of the aisle as to who is going to be the next Supreme Court Justice. I know some might say: Senator Domenici, get off that. No, no, every time you get in corners, little corners where people are talking up here, the subject is, who do you think the President can appoint who can get by the Senate? There was a lot of talk up here that maybe Alberto Gonzales was that person. I don't know that. It looks to me, based on his history, based on his background, based on his relationship with the President, he might be. But maybe, if you make enough noise about him and attempt to stick enough signs up on a billboard saying he is this, that, or the other, maybe he will not be a candidate, a probable candidate anymore. That could be what some people think. I do not know. I hope it is not, and I hope, in spite of what has happened, it doesn't. I am not here as his champion for that job. That is the President's job. But I think it would be terrific if the President of the United States followed up on all the things he has done to prove that he has no discrimination about his personal being and no discrimination that stems from his party, or Republicans. He is open. He has, in his Cabinet, we all know, a distinguished group of Americans who are minorities. This would be another one. I want to close by saying I am very pleased that a lot of organizations in this country, and a lot of distinguished people have not bought the arguments made by the other side because they know him, they like him, they are familiar with him, they trust him, and they want him to be Attorney General. Let me say first, about Henry Cisneros--a lot of Americans and a lot of Hispanic Americans know who he is. He had a little downfall in his career, but he is a very considerate, intelligent, concerned Hispanic American from the State of Texas. He is the former mayor of San Antonio and a former Cabinet member, Democratic Presidential appointee. I will not make his letter part of the Record since it has already been printed in the Record. It is dated January 5, 2005, to the Wall Street Journal. This is a tremendous examination of who this nominee is, what he has done, what he has demonstrated, and the conclusion that it will be good for America to have an Attorney General who has memories like those-- having stated his upbringing and the like-- . . . because he can rely on those memories to understand the realities that many Americans still confront in their lives. I believe he will apply those life experiences to the work ahead. His confirmation by the Senate can be part of America's steady march toward liberty and justice for all. That is not a Republican, that is not the President, that is Henry Cisneros. He signs it: Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President Clinton, mayor of San Antonio, TX, from 1981 through 1989. Mr. Gonzales, in 1989, was recognized as the Latino Lawyer of the Year by the Hispanic National Bar Association and received a Presidential citation from the State Bar of Texas in 1997 for his dedication in addressing the basic legal needs of the indigent. He was chosen as one of the five outstanding young Texans by the Texas JCs, and an Outstanding Young Lawyer of Texas. He was also suggested as the Texas Young Lawyer by their association. There are many more. I merely read these, and you know that they all are giving accolades, and that those who are giving accolades or giving awards are Hispanic. They are Hispanic organizations, Hispanic individuals. I think that means something. We are very proud as Republicans that the minority Hispanics in America are thrilled with this appointment. I looked very carefully at a couple of organizations that have been cited or if not should be cited as being opposed to him. I would be remiss if I didn't tell you I would expect that they would be because they are so Democratic, I don't think they could be for a Republican Felix Frankfurter to be U.S. Attorney General if he were Republican. A couple of these Spanish organizations are so devoted to Democrats, they could not be for a Hispanic U.S. Attorney General if he were Republican no matter what his name is. So it doesn't bother me that two of them are. But the League of United Latin American Citizens--LULAC, they are for him. The National Council of La Raza--whether you agree with any of these or not--is for him. The Hispanic National Bar Association is for him. The National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, they are for him. The U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce is for him. I can go on. There are eight more. I ask unanimous consent the list in its entirety be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. There is a congressional Hispanic caucus which was among those that I was mentioning a while ago. They endorsed Senator Kerry, supported him, campaigned for him. I wouldn't expect them to be for this nominee. I think I said most of what I wanted to say to the Senate for those who are interested in the other side of the coin from what the Democrats--small in number but by sufficient numbers--want to make a lot of people in the country think, that this man should not have this job. I think they are wrong. I think the Hispanic community of America should know that they are wrong. I think the Hispanic community of America should know that most people who are concerned about them-- Hispanic Americans--are for him. I think they could rightfully conclude that those who are not for him don't care about Hispanic Americans because most of them overwhelmingly think he is the right man for this job. I thank the Senate for the few moments I have had to discuss this matter and hope that my few words will have something to do with adding to the chorus of support for this candidate, and for some of those who listened to that which is said against him will at least think if they were leaning toward believing that, that there really is another side; and that real side is probably somewhere close to what I said in the last 10 minutes. I yield the floor.