Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as I understand it, the other side is going to have only one speaker to use their time. I am trying to find the Senator from Texas. He wanted to speak. Let me take a couple of minutes. If he gets here, I will yield the floor as soon as he arrives.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I just have so much to talk about. I wanted to follow my text I had prepared, but having heard the Democratic Senator discuss this issue, I have to tell the American people, one, their energy policy, if they are talking about today, is a policy that has to do with the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The leader of that policy is the distinguished Senator Dorgan. He has led that cause, and he is going to win. But literally that cannot be an energy policy. It is 70,000 barrels a day that we are not going to buy and put in the reserve--70,000--and that is for the rest of this year. Now, we use 21 million barrels of oil a day. So let's face up to it. If you do not think 1 million barrels a day from the Alaskan arctic wilderness--which would be American, and we could get that coming to America for maybe 50 years--if that is not better than 70,000 barrels for 7 or 8 months to not put in the Reserve but leave in the world market--I will leave that to anybody who is listening. Price gouging is in their portfolio again. They talk about it. Last year, we gave authority to the Federal Trade Commission. They have not yet found any gouging. We hope they do. Now, I would like to go on and talk about what we are trying to do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 4737. It is now known as the Reid amendment, but it is actually Senator Dorgan's amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, earlier this year, I gave a detailed speech on the Senate floor about the perils of our Nation's growing dependence on foreign oil. At that time, I noted the Nation was ignoring policies that would increase our energy supply while the stranglehold of foreign oil was tightening. I spoke bluntly and warned of dark days ahead for our Nation's economy and foreign policy if we continued to send our money abroad to buy oil from unstable and hostile regions around the globe. I stated that at the current price of oil, we are at a pace to send nearly a half trillion dollars overseas annually to purchase oil--a half trillion. When the driving season ends, and the price at the pump subsides a bit, naturally the volume of constituent letters and phone calls will decrease a bit. When the cameras fade and the focus of the day begins to turn elsewhere, we should stop and reflect on the debate we are having today. Make no mistake, a growing and gathering storm is swirling around this Nation. It is threatening our economic strength, our national security, and our place in the world. That storm comes in the form of dependence upon foreign oil. Last year, Congress passed a strong energy bill, built on advancing cellulosic ethanol and strengthening our fuel efficiency standards. We made great steps in setting up policies that will reduce our gasoline consumption. However, I said at the time, and say again today, last year's legislation had a glaring weakness, which is highlighted today. Last year's bill failed to include measures for domestic energy production. When we tried to open the Virginia Outer Continental Shelf to natural gas leasing, the other side blocked that. When we tried to improve our Nation's refining capacity, the other side blocked that. And when we tried to advance domestic coal-derived fuels--a very major way for America to diminish its dependence on foreign oil--the other side blocked that. On conservation and efficiency and the pursuit of clean energy, this Chamber is in wide bipartisan agreement. But on producing more American oil and gas to reduce the price of gasoline at the pump, it will become clear from today's debate and vote that the vast majority on the other side opposes action. When today's vote is over, regardless of the outcome, I will continue to return to the Senate floor and speak on this important issue of our growing dependence on foreign oil. I will continue to speak out against policies that increase the cost of energy, when the American people so clearly want us to provide relief from high gas prices. I have listened intently to the increased debate over the past few weeks about our energy challenges. I have heard some on the other side plead with OPEC nations to increase production by one-quarter of the amount we provide for in America with this amendment--one-quarter the amount. I have heard ANWR opponents from a decade ago repeat their claim from a decade ago that ANWR oil will take a decade to produce. I never heard this argument when we were supporting increasing vehicle fuel economy standards that we know will take a decade to come to fruition. We passed a bill that everybody takes credit for. It will take 10 years for it to have an impact. Yet we praise ourselves for producing it. Of course, all of this would be assuming the price of oil did not increase over $100 per barrel during the time that ANWR was being blocked. If President Clinton had not vetoed ANWR over 12 years ago, we would have this oil from Alaska on the market today. I have also heard my colleagues argue that 70,000 barrels of oil per day would make a significant difference in the price of oil--that is the SPR bill--while denying access to over 1 million barrels of oil per day from ANWR alone. It is time to act, and what the other side has offered at this critical moment is talk of energy independence supported by more Government investigations and empty threats to OPEC combined with pleas for more OPEC production. If that were not enough, we are faced with the prospects of a windfall profits tax like the one that passed in April by the Chavez administration in Venezuela. We tried to implement such a tax in the 1980s. It did not work then, and it will not work now. We cannot produce more energy by taxing oil companies or taxing anyone. According to the Congressional Research Service, the imposition of a windfall profits tax could have ``several adverse economic effects.'' And such a tax could be expected to ``reduce domestic oil production and increase the level of oil imports.'' The architect of this tax during the Carter administration recently called the windfall profits tax ``a terrible idea today.'' Today, we consider real solutions to our national problem. On May 1, I introduced the American Energy Production Act of 2008. Obviously, if we had Democratic support and help we could make it even better, but we had to do this with Republicans, to lay before the American people a fact: that there are ways to produce more American oil and natural gas without doing any real harm to the American environment. I am pleased to have 21 cosponsors on that bill, and I am pleased Senator McConnell has offered this legislation as an amendment to the bill currently before us. Unfortunately, the other side has not allowed us to consider this proposal to address record-high gas prices. Speaking of filibusters, on our bill they have insisted there be 60 votes. That is the equivalent of a filibuster. So you can chalk one up for us. They are filibustering the only Energy bill we have seen in a while that would produce energy for America. I support the bipartisan amendment on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and I have already indicated to you that I do, and it needs no further explanation. I am confident, if enacted, the American Energy Production Act--the one we are talking about--will strengthen our Nation's security for decades to come. In this legislation, we open 2,000 of the 19 million acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And I defy anyone with common sense to seriously contend that 2,000 acres out of 2 million will harm that wilderness. It can be done with a small footprint, and everyone knows it. We have just chosen sides, regardless of the real facts. Therefore, I assume the Democrats will defeat it again. Taken together, these policies enable the production of 24 billion barrels of American oil, which would increase our domestic production by nearly 40 percent over the next three decades. Opening ANWR alone would create thousands of American jobs, provide $3 billion in revenues in the next 10 years to the Federal Treasury, and bring on line over 1 million barrels of oil per day. This amendment also spurs the commercialization of coal-derived fuels and oil shale resources. Advancement of these policies will be spoken of in more detail by other Senators but, clearly, they are things to look at. The American people ought to know about them. They are sources--huge sources--of energy that can be made in America by Americans for America. With emerging economies around the world increasing their thirst for oil, we face a new energy challenge in America. The world demand for oil continues to grow. America's production of oil has fallen to its lowest levels in 60 years. That is because we haven't done anything new or significant to add to what we have produced for years. If we do not start producing more of our own energy resources, we will continue to rely on unstable foreign oil and continue to pay a high price. That is what is at stake with today's vote. We probably will not win, but we feel very comfortable giving the other side an opportunity to vote no again for the production of oil and gas that is American, by Americans, for America. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to my friend, Senator Dorgan, I have changed my mind about the SPR bill. I think he knows that. People wonder about changing your mind. A lot of people change their mind. I changed mine because of the real price of oil and because I do believe we are not going to harm our strategic reserve by this one event. I wish to make the record clear. America needs the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We must have it, and we should not grow accustomed to thinking the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is going to solve our energy supply problem. Senator Dorgan has never said that. But it would not. I will answer some of the remaining questions when I wrap up. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, I wish to say that my good friend, my fellow Senator from New Mexico spoke about speculation in this oil market. There may be some. We heard testimony there may be. So everybody knows, there is nothing before the Senate that the Democrats propose regarding speculation. They just have a one-shot bill, and it is pretty good, but it is not an energy policy. Probably most of us are going to vote for it. That is what Senator Dorgan proposed. As I indicated, I changed my mind. If people are wondering about that, I was reading about economic history, and I read where John Maynard Keynes, the great economist, was asked: Why did you change your mind? He said: When the facts change, I change my mind. That is what happened here with reference to SPR. The facts changed, and I changed my mind. The good Senator from New Mexico, my colleague, also said we have a big problem with the weakening of the dollar. I hope he doesn't intend to imply by that, when we find we can strengthen the dollar, then we will solve the energy problem. I don't know that we know how to do that one any quicker than we do the energy crisis. I don't think that would accomplish anything. We have a lot going on in the gulf, so we said let's let those continue. That is what the Domenici bill says. But we say the rest of the offshore around America--and incidentally, there is probably more than any of us know in offshore America. We probably would send such a big signal to the world if we decided to move on that. That alone would have a positive impact. In addition, the bill before the Senate does a lot in a number of areas that have not been talked about very much. It would cause the world to take another look and to say: America is serious, they are really going to do something about their energy problems. Mr. President, I now yield the remainder of the time to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. DOMENICI. Do we not have 1 minute left on each side? The amendment is not in order while time remains.

Mr. DOMENICI. That means 1 minute each?

Mr. DOMENICI. On behalf of the amendment, I wish to say whoever is interested in what is going on today should know that Democrats speak of doing other things to bring the price down, but the only thing we are really doing is the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota on SPR. We all agree with that. That is a temporary 7-month deferral of purchases. Clearly, if it does anything, it will be extremely temporary. All of the other things that are spoken about, none of them are in this bill, whether it has to do with fraud, speculation, or whatever. On our side we have at least said: Let's start coal to liquid, a great American resource. Let's start offshore around America. Let's start on ANWR. Let's start moving on oil shale. Let's accelerate battery research, which will move us toward automobiles that can plug in, which will be a big American boon. So there are lots of pluses. There is a lot of rhetoric. And there is one amendment that the Democrats offer that we agree upon. I believe those people interested in production should vote for the Domenici amendment and tell the American people the truth: We can produce in America and put pressure on the world markets and reduce the price of oil. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want the Republicans to know I have changed my mind over the past 3 or 4 weeks, and it is simply because the price of oil is now up to $125 a barrel--perhaps in real dollars $110. I think for 7 months to stop filling SPR could have a chance of reducing the price by a small amount. Make no bones about it now, this is no big energy policy. This is one little thing we can do, and I think we ought to go ahead and do it. I know there are some who take the fact that we need a big reserve very seriously, and they think we ought to continue to fill it even more than we are, and I respect those views. But with reference to this amendment, by Senator Dorgan, I think we ought to support it and at least do one positive thing. It was in our bill, incidentally, as one of a number of positive things we would do, including Alaska, which is complained so much about. It would produce a million barrels permanently, more or less. This is 70,000 barrels one time--so we understand. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOMENICI. I object.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I did object, and I object now.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wish today to commemorate the hard work and sacrifices made daily by law enforcement officers all across our great land. Many officers have lost their lives in the line of duty so that our families and communities may remain safe. We must never forget those who have given their lives to protect us all. In 1962 President John F. Kennedy first declared the annual celebration of Peace Officers Memorial Day and National Police Week in ``recognition of the service given by the men and women who, night and day, stand guard in our midst to protect us through enforcement of our laws.'' Since then, many men and women have paid the ultimate price for our security, including many brave New Mexicans. This year, two New Mexico police officers will be honored and remembered by having their names added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, DC. The first, Patrolman Germaine F. Casey of Albuquerque, was tragically killed in a motorcycle accident while he was a part of the police escort for President George W. Bush's trip to Albuquerque, NM, on August 27, 2007. Patrolman Casey was an officer with the Rio Rancho Police Department and had previously served as an officer with the University of New Mexico Police for 2 years. Also being honored this week is Officer Christopher M. Mirabal of Alamogordo, who passed away as a result of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident while on duty as a New Mexico State police officer on July 13, 2007. Officer Mirabal was a lifelong resident of Alamogordo and like Patrolman Casey, worked to protect New Mexicans, including the families they left behind. This week we remember the dedication of Patrolman Casey and Officer Mirabal and all of our fallen police men and women who protect and serve our communities, and the tragic price they paid for that devotion. We must also remember the families of all fallen officers and the sacrifices they have incurred because of a deep-seated commitment to duty and public service. All of us from New Mexico owe a debt of gratitude to each and every officer who has lost their life in the line of duty. To those who continue to serve, we are grateful. You have my utmost admiration.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to continue the restoration and preservation of the unique cultural resources along the famous Route 66. Passage of the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Reauthorization Act would carry on the wonderful work of the Park Service's Route 66 program over the past decade. As in the past, I am joined in this effort by my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman. In 1990, I introduced the Route 66 Study Act, which directed the National Park Service to determine the best ways to preserve, commemorate and interpret Route 66. As a result of that study, I later introduced legislation authorizing the National Park Service to join with Federal, State and private efforts to preserve various aspects of historic Route 66, the Nation's most important thoroughfare for east- west migration during the 20th century. The Route 66 program is a collective effort by private property owners; non-profit organizations; and local, State, Federal, and tribal governments to identify and address preservation needs along the historic route. The program offers grants for the restoration of significant properties dating all the way back to the mid 1920s. The bill authorizes funding over 10 years and supports grassroots efforts to preserve aspects of this historic highway. Designated in 1926, the 2,200-mile stretch from Chicago to Santa Monica, California, the Mother Road, as it was called, rolled through eight American states, and in New Mexico, it passed through the communities of Tucumcari, Santa Rosa, Albuquerque, Grants and Gallup. New Mexico added to the aura of Route 66, giving new generations of Americans their first experience of our colorful culture and rich heritage. Route 66 allowed travelers to see firsthand previously remote areas and experience the traditions and natural beauty of the Southwest and West. The bill authorizes the National Park Service to support State, local and private efforts to preserve the Route 66 corridor by providing technical assistance, participating in cost-sharing programs, and making grants. Since 1990, the Park Service has acted as a clearinghouse for communication among Federal, State, local, private and American Indian entities interested in the preservation of America's Main Street. Congresswoman Heather Wilson of Albuquerque, New Mexico, has introduced a similar bill in the House of Representatives, and I hope Congress will act promptly in passing this important legislation. I thank my colleagues for considering the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Reauthorization Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to continue the restoration and preservation of the unique cultural resources along the famous Route 66. Passage of the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Reauthorization Act would carry on the wonderful work of the Park Service's Route 66 program over the past decade. As in the past, I am joined in this effort by my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman. In 1990, I introduced the Route 66 Study Act, which directed the National Park Service to determine the best ways to preserve, commemorate and interpret Route 66. As a result of that study, I later introduced legislation authorizing the National Park Service to join with Federal, State and private efforts to preserve various aspects of historic Route 66, the Nation's most important thoroughfare for east- west migration during the 20th century. The Route 66 program is a collective effort by private property owners; non-profit organizations; and local, State, Federal, and tribal governments to identify and address preservation needs along the historic route. The program offers grants for the restoration of significant properties dating all the way back to the mid 1920s. The bill authorizes funding over 10 years and supports grassroots efforts to preserve aspects of this historic highway. Designated in 1926, the 2,200-mile stretch from Chicago to Santa Monica, California, the Mother Road, as it was called, rolled through eight American states, and in New Mexico, it passed through the communities of Tucumcari, Santa Rosa, Albuquerque, Grants and Gallup. New Mexico added to the aura of Route 66, giving new generations of Americans their first experience of our colorful culture and rich heritage. Route 66 allowed travelers to see firsthand previously remote areas and experience the traditions and natural beauty of the Southwest and West. The bill authorizes the National Park Service to support State, local and private efforts to preserve the Route 66 corridor by providing technical assistance, participating in cost-sharing programs, and making grants. Since 1990, the Park Service has acted as a clearinghouse for communication among Federal, State, local, private and American Indian entities interested in the preservation of America's Main Street. Congresswoman Heather Wilson of Albuquerque, New Mexico, has introduced a similar bill in the House of Representatives, and I hope Congress will act promptly in passing this important legislation. I thank my colleagues for considering the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Reauthorization Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: What is the business before the Senate?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, that is because we had unanimous consent to set aside the Domenici amendment, or the Allard amendment?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am going to speak on the underlying Domenici amendment for about 15 minutes, and then time will be arranged for that between the leaders for later in the day, so we will not have to have any further interruptions, as I understand it. I do not seek to interrupt your bill. I say to Senator Dodd, there will not be any further interruptions until some agreement is reached, perhaps between the leadership.

Mr. DOMENICI. If we don't get agreement on that, then I ask that I be recognized at 3:30 for my 15 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Sure.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the floor, will he answer a question?

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask the Senator, do you know what the price of a barrel of oil was when we sent the ANWR bill to the President of the United States, which was vetoed? Do you know how much it was per barrel?

Mr. DOMENICI. Nineteen dollars a barrel.

Mr. DOMENICI. It is going to be freestanding.

Mr. DOMENICI. As long as there is ample time to discuss it.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.