Floor Statements

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for 1 minute?

I don't want to take the Senator's right to the floor under any circumstances.

First, I ask to speak to ask the Senator a question right now, because I can't stay. I want the Senator to know that I always appreciate his remarks. They always stimulate me, whatever the Senator thinks that means. Maybe it stimulates me to answer; maybe it makes me get red in the face. I don't know.

Anyway, I don't think my remarks were principally devoted to--in fact, only mildly devoted to--the delay that may be taking place with regard to some nominees. I stand on that premise--that there have been delays that were uncalled for. But that was the principal point.

I hope that nobody would let the distinguished Senator kind of avoid the issue. That is not the issue Senator Domenici raises.

The issue is that this man is totally qualified; that those who know him best say he is qualified. It appears that those on the other side of the aisle want to see him defeated, or put upon by their arguments such that he doesn't go into that office strong and full of support but, rather, nicked by attacks that are meaningless and without any merit. That is the argument.

I tried to tell everybody who is for him. Frankly, they knew him a lot better than any Senators knew him. Many of them like Cisneros knew him for 15 years--and what he said about him on January 5, not 10 years ago, what he was, what he wasn't, how good he was.

That was my argument. My argument and question was, Why? Maybe that is my question. I thank the Senator for yielding.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, this is a very pleasant and happy day for the Senator from New Mexico, and I hope for many Senators, Americans, and people who like freedom around the world.

I congratulate the President of the United States. He has had a very powerful commitment to freedom and democracy in Iraq. There has been discussion for many months about whether our mission in Iraq would work and about why we are there, but I think today we have seen the first giant step toward freedom for the wonderful Iraqi people who have suffered so long under tyranny and were made slaves, whose loved ones suffered, were enslaved, murdered, entombed, and killed. Thousands emigrated from that country. This is a great day for them, and I think they showed us that it was a real issue.

I am sure many did not believe these people would risk anything serious, including their lives, to have a chance at freedom. The President, by his strength of character and commitment against many odds, carried this issue forth to an electorate and an election, and has stayed with it until this great day when we saw grassroots freedom come alive.

This is an occasion when some might wonder whether we ought to have a free press over there observing things, especially in a war zone so to speak, but this is an occasion when it is obvious that it worked. Even skeptics who were there could not deny reality. The reality was that people, young and old, were not afraid of the threats of terrorism and risked everything for that little idea of exercising their franchise. We saw them putting up their inked finger indicating ``I voted.'' I thought it was tremendous. For that, I am very proud that I supported the President in this. I hope he is proud of what he has done.

I don't want anyone to think the Senator from New Mexico does not understand there are many pitfalls, and there may still be some that are difficult to overcome.

Ultimately, freedom and democracy are not the end. You have to have some kind of economic prosperity, stability, and law and order. I have said democracy and freedom do not work too well if you are hungry, if you are starving. That makes it pretty easy for people who would overturn freedom and democracy. The Iraqis are a fortunate people. They have a lot of resources. Let's hope they can develop them to the betterment of all their people.

There are three things I am thankful for today. The second is the U.S. military. We send our military to do much on behalf of the American people and to accomplish missions we think are important. This one I am sure many people looked at and said: They are just not going to be able to do it; this is not a role for American fighting men; they can't help with the voting; they can't get rid of the terrorists in sufficient numbers, even with sufficient intelligence and planning, to let an election move on. A lot of people thought that.

I submit that those who run the American military at the top, and those whose boots are on the ground and who run the machinery and equipment, are sending a signal: You asked us to do something. Give us some time and we will solve the problems and we will do it.

Didn't they do that and prove it yesterday? Did anybody think it could be so peaceful in so much of Iraq? There was so much opportunity for people to walk to the polls and not get killed, to see their neighbors going and then get sufficient strength and courage to join them because the terrorists were not there. There was some terrific plan, with the Iraqi soldiers who were getting trained, and ours, to create this safe haven, a significant safe haven. I surmise that a lot of hard work took place in the rooms where planning is done, in the evenings when people work, between our military leaders and the new budding leaders of the Iraqi military and Iraqi law enforcement.

I think the Iraqi police and military probably were invigorated by this event, and I would think that they, too, will be stronger and better for it.

Again, as I have on a number of occasions in my years as a Senator-- it is going on 33, so I have seen a few victories--I have seen a few involvements where it was very difficult. I have seen the Vietnam war, seen the Korean war a little bit; I have seen great achievements and otherwise, but I think this is a rather significant indication of how our military will help us if we will help them.

I am so proud we did not get to the point where the naysayers in America made it impossible for the military to do their jobs. It was getting ever closer to that, but it did not get there. I think that is very fortunate for freedom, liberty, and the whole Middle East--a terribly important part of the world.

Then, lastly, I congratulate the Iraqi people. Many of those who did not like what was going on over there, many who voted for us to go in and changed their minds--there were 77 Senators who voted for us to do that, go in--to some who had just been against it turned and were accusatory of our President. Some called him a liar. Some said he had misled. That is for another day, another argument, which I have already made that I think clearly indicates those kinds of things were not true. There were no weapons of mass destruction, but that doesn't mean there were lies about it.

But some said the Iraqi people should have been dancing in the streets as our military marched through and went to Baghdad in such fast order, you recall, with very few lives lost in the American military, and very few Iraqis. But there was not laughter and joy and marching bands in the streets. But when the day finally came, when the people thought they were really rid of the tyranny of Saddam, they did. They did come forward with joy in the streets and hope in their eyes, feeling very satisfied with the job they were doing by going to vote.

So it is a very pleasant task for a Senator to come to the floor after having heard so much negative about that, even negative about our military leaders, and to say to them, to the Iraqi people, the President, to the American people who have supported this effort for freedom--we all have supported it with a lot of our tax dollars, along with our best men and women and a great deal of equipment and other things--Job well done. May the next set of actions that are required come forth and be as good as this for the people there in Iraq and the Middle East. I only hope that as we look at this and are rather pleased as Americans, that some of our normal and natural allies in the world who have become pointedly in opposition to what we have done and have carried it even further, to where people seem to think Americans are not their friends and they don't want to be our friends and we have qualities and attributes they don't like, I hope this sends a signal that maybe they ought to become more rational and reasonable about what we mean to each other. After all, we have been through a lot together-- France, Germany, Italy, Belgium. We don't have to worry about the English. They have been with us all the way. We have been through a lot of sweat and blood in the name of freedom with those allies, to our cost in lives and to our cost in billions of dollars. It is not that they owe us anything. But I think they might at least say they might have been wrong

in this or at least maybe the American President had a reasonably good idea and how we ought to get together and hope that together we will try to make it work. I hope that is not asking too much.

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

Mr. President, in 2000 Congress established the Valles Caldera National Preserve, which is composed of approximately 89,000 acres of spectacular land in northern New Mexico. The Preserve was created to protect and preserve the region's values and to provide the public with opportunities for the multiple use and sustained yield of its resources.

Over the past 5 years, we have become aware of some simple changes in Federal policy that can be made to allow the Valles Caldera Trust and U.S. Forest Service to better address the issues facing the Valles Caldera Preserve. The bill that Senator Bingaman and I introduce today recognizes the need for those policy changes.

The bill does the following: (1) Eliminates the ``willing seller basis'' so the Secretary of Agriculture can purchase the outstanding mineral interests of the Valles Caldera; (2) requires the Valles Caldera Trust to better manage its obligations and expenditures; (3) expands the category of people who can solicit and accept donations on the Trust's behalf; (4) allows monies received from claims relating to the Preserve to be used for costs incurred by the Trust; (5) provides a rate of compensation for the chairman of the Trust; (6) authorizes the Trust to dispose of marketable renewable resources; and (7) requires the Secretary

of Agriculture to develop a fire safety plan for the Preserve.

These are not vast changes; nor should they be controversial. They will, however, make an important difference to one of New Mexico's most pristine wilderness areas that is appreciated by New Mexico's visitors and natives alike.

Because of the difference this legislation will make in New Mexico, I hope my colleagues will join with Senator Bingaman and me in approving the Valles Caldera Preservation Act of 2005.

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

Mr. President, in 2000 Congress established the Valles Caldera National Preserve, which is composed of approximately 89,000 acres of spectacular land in northern New Mexico. The Preserve was created to protect and preserve the region's values and to provide the public with opportunities for the multiple use and sustained yield of its resources.

Over the past 5 years, we have become aware of some simple changes in Federal policy that can be made to allow the Valles Caldera Trust and U.S. Forest Service to better address the issues facing the Valles Caldera Preserve. The bill that Senator Bingaman and I introduce today recognizes the need for those policy changes.

The bill does the following: (1) Eliminates the ``willing seller basis'' so the Secretary of Agriculture can purchase the outstanding mineral interests of the Valles Caldera; (2) requires the Valles Caldera Trust to better manage its obligations and expenditures; (3) expands the category of people who can solicit and accept donations on the Trust's behalf; (4) allows monies received from claims relating to the Preserve to be used for costs incurred by the Trust; (5) provides a rate of compensation for the chairman of the Trust; (6) authorizes the Trust to dispose of marketable renewable resources; and (7) requires the Secretary

of Agriculture to develop a fire safety plan for the Preserve.

These are not vast changes; nor should they be controversial. They will, however, make an important difference to one of New Mexico's most pristine wilderness areas that is appreciated by New Mexico's visitors and natives alike.

Because of the difference this legislation will make in New Mexico, I hope my colleagues will join with Senator Bingaman and me in approving the Valles Caldera Preservation Act of 2005.

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

Mr. President, I thank Senator Lugar for finding time for me to express my views to the Senate and to those who might be listening or viewing the Senate proceedings.

I say to Senator Lieberman, I appreciate very much the broad scope of his statement with reference to America and the world, and I thank him for stating his views, which are my views, and I think the views of an overwhelming number of Senators--77 of them who voted for us to proceed with this approach to Iraq.

I think we all know our intentions, regardless of what some may say, are good and that the objective is that something good happen for the people of Iraq and for America and the world.

Having said that, I have been dismayed to hear--not everyone on the other side--but some use words such as ``liar,'' to use words as to this nominee--Condoleezza Rice--that called her a liar, implied she was a liar, who implied the President intentionally misled. I would like to zero in on that for a minute and those who have been putting forth that accusation--I am not talking about those who oppose the war. I am talking about those who say the policy was fraught with intentional misleading information about weapons of mass destruction.

I want to step back and say to my fellow Senators and those listening: What if today we were considering for Senate approval Secretary of State Colin Powell? Just think with me. He is the nominee. He is being reconfirmed for Secretary of State. What would the Senators who were here talking about Condoleezza Rice or our President intentionally misleading, being a liar, implying they had information they withheld, what would they say about Colin Powell?

On a certain day, Colin Powell appeared before the United Nations. Remember that day? February 5, 2003. I remember it. I think millions and millions of people remember it: maps, overviews, a firm statement by him about weapons of mass destruction. Now I ask: Where did he get his information? Was he lying? Did he mislead the American people? Was he intentionally trying to force upon us a policy that was not based upon what he said but that those facts were dreamed up? I believe that neither Senators nor the people of America would believe he was not telling the truth.

My point is, he got his information from exactly the same source that our President did, that the Prime Minister of Great Britain did, that all leaders at that point did, that we the Congress did. The President did not get his information from someplace in the sky, nor did Colin Powell. There was only one source: the accumulation of intelligence by the United States intelligence-gathering institutions. They told our President, Condoleezza Rice, and Colin Powell what was going on, and they all said, what? That there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that Saddam was a danger--an exceptional danger--because he had weapons of mass destruction.

Frankly, I believe there are those who have become partisan on this issue, and I almost would say, and should say, extremely partisan, who have become totally political on this issue and totally personal. There is no evidence whatsoever that Colin Powell lied, that he was misleading us, that Condoleezza Rice was a part of a policy to mislead the American people, nor that the President was. They all had the same information. One would not think that from what we have heard on the floor. One would not think that as you hear those who want to deny her this nomination.

Frankly, that argument does not wash. It is not consistent with reality. It is dreamed up. It is political. It is for no other reason than to insert false and untrue information and facts into this discussion. She deserves the nomination.

The President did not intentionally mislead. Those who oppose the war ought to say it and quit exaggerating and being political and personal about their attacks.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Lugar, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the nomination of Jim Nicholson to be Secretary of Veterans Affairs. I believe Ambassador Nicholson's 30 years of military service make him an excellent choice to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jim Nicholson's leadership is particularly important as our brave men and women in uniform once again serve the cause of freedom in the fight against terrorism around the globe.

Jim Nicholson has served his Nation faithfully and ably for the majority of his lifetime. I believe his great diversity of experience will be of the utmost benefit to the Department of Veterans Affairs and our veterans. We as a nation have a commitment to our veterans. They and their families have made countless sacrifices to serve in our country's defense, and we have a duty to provide for their needs. Jim Nicholson's leadership of the Department of Veterans Affairs will help us honor this obligation.

Jim Nicholson graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1961, becoming an Army Ranger and a paratrooper. He went on to serve during the Vietnam war. While in Vietnam, he earned the Bronze Star, the Combat Infantry Badge, the Meritorious Service Medal, and the Vietnamese Cross for Gallantry. After his 8 years of active service as a Ranger, Jim served 22 years in the Army Reserve, retiring with the rank of full colonel.

Jim Nicholson has been an esteemed chairman of the Republican National Committee and for the past 3 years he has served as the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican. Jim holds a master's degree in public policy from Columbia University and a law degree from the University of Denver. On top of these vast achievements, he has been a successful businessman and community volunteer.

In conclusion, I believe the President has chosen the right person to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs in its very important work, and I strongly support the nomination of Jim Nicholson.