Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, 3:30 would be early enough. You would be making good time at 3:30 and let me have a little time. This is a big amendment and we have to have some understanding of it before you get your bill finished. You are going to have a vote on it--I won't use more than 15 minutes at this point--on a very big proposition on behalf of almost all of the Republicans. I don't know about your bill in detail, but I think you are doing a terrific job.

Mr. DOMENICI. If you get that agreed to, can I have consent to be recognized after those votes for 15 minutes?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if votes are called for on the three amendments alluded to by Senator Dodd, the Senator from New Mexico would be recognized after those votes for 15 minutes to speak on the energy amendment which is attached to this bill.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What are we on now?

Mr. DOMENICI. We have been setting aside the pending amendments?

Mr. DOMENICI. I plan to speak for about 15 or 20 minutes here, for those who might be interested. I rise not to talk about the work that has been done by the committee on flood insurance, although it is obvious that is important, and they have done a great job and we ought to be finding our way through that thicket before too long. But attached to that bill, for the purpose of making an issue and seeing to it that we give everybody in this body an opportunity to vote for the production of more American energy for the American people, for the automobiles that drive on our streets, the trucks that drive on our streets, the airplanes, both domestic and military, that fly, and all other sources of energy, we are going to have a chance to vote on whether we want to produce more energy which we now import, either crude oil or crude oil products or substitute products that can be produced in the United States. Do we want to do that? The Democrats today had a press conference after we have been talking about this bill that we call the American Energy Production Act, and they are talking about what they might want to do. I regret I cannot talk in detail about what they propose, but I will say I will be very surprised if the sum total of their suggestions produces one new barrel of oil or one cubic foot of natural gas, one cubic foot of American- produced natural gas, because it seems to me they are too busy trying to find out what they can do to the oil companies of the United States and windfall profits and those kinds of things. But we are going to give everyone this opportunity, an opportunity to take a look at some very simple propositions that could yield large quantities of crude oil, natural gas, derivatives of coal that can be used in trucks, diesel fuel in airplanes, for military and the domestic airplanes. I want to suggest the following: Last week I introduced a bill which would fundamentally change America's reliance upon foreign oil in a shorter time period than I have seen of any proposal thus far. The American Energy Production Act is cosponsored by 19 of my colleagues and would produce a minimum of 24 billion barrels of American oil. Americans, in my opinion, are sick and tired of such high prices for gasoline, and unless we take action, the situation is going to only get worse. One can talk all one wants about why it is, but the biggest reason the price is going up and continues up--and we do not even know where it will stop--is because the demand for crude oil in the world is getting bigger than the production of crude oil in the world. So supply and demand is principally the reason for the increasing cost of crude oil. There may be other things we have to do, but essentially the only way to alter that rising price and cause it to come down and, thus, give the American people some relief is to produce more crude oil and derivatives of coal and otherwise that we can use to take the place of crude oil products. So if the American people are sick and tired of paying high prices and want to know what can be done, we are telling them we think it is time we face up to the fact that we can produce much more in America. But for some reason, we have decided to vote no on some very imposing and powerful supply sources. It is time we take another look at those, especially with crude oil at $120 a barrel and rising. What we have done is looked around at what we have refused to do in the past, new things we could do that would accomplish what I have suggested. Congress has made a great deal of progress already in promoting conservation and developing renewable energy technology such as wind and solar. I am for doing more of those, if we can and when we are ready. I stand ready to work on those. I have been leading the charge on those fronts as either chairman of the Energy Committee or ranking member. I believe we should develop all our energy sources as soon as we can. The bottom line is that America is not going to stop using oil in the near term, so we need to take action to make sure the oil we do use is produced domestically, all of it we can, rather than coming from unstable regions. Congress has not done such a good job in this area. In fact, almost every time we have tried to boost domestic production, Democrats--mostly Democrats--have blocked our efforts. But with oil now at $122 a barrel and rising, I implore my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to rethink their position. Times have changed. Now America's response needs to change as well. The American Energy Production Act, which is an amendment on this bill, which I indicated we will vote on one way or another before this bill is finished, is an excellent place to start. The bill allows for States on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to petition the Federal Government to opt out of a broad moratorium that for two decades has locked up America's assets and forced us to turn to unstable foreign nations to power our lives. Together, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans contain oil reserves of up to 14 billion barrels, and that is a minimum. We know it is a minimum, and we have not been allowed to spend the money to do an in-depth evaluation which I believe would show much more. The reserves of natural gas are thought to be 55 trillion cubic feet. These regions contain substantially more oil and gas than the areas we opened in 2006 in the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act. The area that is left, that we had this moratorium on for more than 20 years, is much bigger than the area we opened as part of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, much bigger, much larger space, and much more in reserves. This legislation also opens 2,000 of the 19 million acres of the Arctic Plain of ANWR for oil and gas leasing. Over the past week, I have heard Members from the other side of the aisle say that ANWR won't help because it will take 8 to 10 years to bring it on line. That is the same thing they have been saying for two decades. Had we acted when we had a chance, we would have 1 million barrels of oil a day available to us, oil that we are now forced to buy overseas. I heard a Member of the Senate from the other side of the aisle, the Senator from New York--the Senator from New York who is not running for President--say that if we could get the OPEC cartel to just add 500,000 barrels of production, it would have a big impact on bringing down the price of oil. If that is the case, if we had a million barrels of oil a day coming from ANWR, that surely would do as much or more. It would bring down the price just as well, if not more than the Senator was speaking of from oil the cartel would produce. That is because it is a supply-demand situation he is talking about. ANWR would yield more than the 500,000 barrels to which he alluded. Additionally, even after revenue sharing, ANWR oil could bring over $2 billion to our Federal Treasury annually. It is past time that we started producing our own oil and generating revenues for our own Government instead of buying foreign oil and sending billions of dollars to unstable, unfriendly regimes. The Republican bill I have talked about also makes it easier to build refineries. We haven't built a new refinery for 30 years, and our Nation cannot afford to go 30 more years without doing so. We provide some incentives and some very natural ways to cause that to happen. While I have resisted calls to suspend filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the past, I have indicated to the chairman of the subcommittee on which I serve, the Energy and Water Committee, I have told the Senator who is promoting discontinuing filling of the SPR for 6 months to a year, providing 70,000 additional barrels of light sweet crude a day to the marketplace, that I would support him on that at this time because the price of oil is so high that it is worth doing. That is in this bill. By its very nature, this 70,000 barrels from SPR is just a fraction of the oil that would be gained through the OCS production and ANWR production, but in today's environment every small amount helps. In the area of alternative resources, this bill requires studies on ethanol to help ensure that smart decisions are made as we move toward cellulosic and other advanced biofuels. This bill also provides incentives for the advancement of breakthrough energy technologies such as battery-powered vehicles. That is necessary and something we could do. It is ready and right. It is also important to mention that this bill will promote the use of coal-to-liquids technologies, as long as it results in no more greenhouse gases than the fuels we are already using. Bringing 6 billion gallons of this fuel to market, if we started immediately working on it, could be done quickly. They are already doing it in South Africa. It would reduce our projected imports by 4 percent by the year 2022. The coal-to-liquids mandate is just one-sixth the size of the ethanol mandate placed into law last year. To push the coal-to-liquids technology, we must send a signal to the marketplace that America is serious about using some of its abundant, reliable American energy resource--coal. In addition, this bill repeals the moratorium on oil shale regulations that was put into an omnibus appropriations bill in the dark of night, when those of us who had been involved were not around and could not object. The shale beneath our Western States amounts to three times the conventional oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. We need to accelerate this project's resources and repeal the $4,000 fee for drilling permits which hit America's smallest family-owned oil and gas companies the hardest. This, too, was done in an appropriations rider. It is time to take it off, while we talk about producing more rather than less. We don't need more taxes and fees on American producers if we want to produce more. It is my sincere hope that we can act soon on this measure. I have not talked about every provision, but they all are directed at producing more energy rather than directed at more attacks against energy companies and those things included in today's proposal by the Democratic leadership. The United States needs to send a message to the marketplace, to OPEC, and to consumers that we will no longer continue to let billions of barrels of oil sit underground within our own domain while the price at the pump goes up and up. We must end the cycle of dependence and the flow of money overseas for foreign oil. We must do it as quickly as possible. If we can do it now, we should do it now. I thank the Republican leader for bringing up this important issue. I urge my colleagues to think about it and ultimately to support it. What a message it would send. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. So for those who do not think it is worth another try-- that is, to have a vote and seriously consider ANWR--just think of the difference in economic impact on the United States of tying up that resource when we did it compared to now. Also, we were estimating only 1 million barrels of oil as the production per day. We have not upped that, brought that current for $120-a-barrel oil. It might very well be that it is more than a million barrels a day just based upon price because it would justify far more investment in that little 2,000-acre footprint. Clearly, with such an increase in price, you probably will get more. But I think some of the American people may have favored holding that 2,000 acres hostage and saying you cannot use it--they might have said, well, that is all right when it is $19 a barrel--but when we are suffering with $120-a-barrel oil, it may be a very close call even for those who have exaggerated in their dilemma and fear about ANWR. To say we can afford $19-a-barrel oil--lock it up--but should we lock it up for $120 a barrel is a very good question.

Mr. DOMENICI. Right.

Mr. DOMENICI. So a million barrels a day becomes a different thing. A million barrels a day was $19 million. But now a million barrels is 120 times that. That is what you are losing to foreign countries. You have alluded to the fact that maybe the American economy is suffering irreparable harm. You said it a different way than I. But I happen to believe--and have spoken to it two or three times on the floor--I think we are experiencing irreparable damage to the American economy because of the enormous price of crude oil and our inability to find a way to get along without it. We are just depleting our vitality, and we do not know quite how to figure it out. We do not know why the economy is having trouble. There are just all kinds of things we do not know. But I have an answer for most of them: It is too many dollars going overseas to get crude oil. That is an enormous drain on this economy, as strong as it is. That, plus the big debt we have accrued is hanging out there to be bought by the Chinese and others. You add them up, and it is frightening. If we can do something about it, we should. Isn't that why we are here?

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield floor and thank the Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.

Mr. DOMENICI. There is no question. One of the major oil companies has invested a huge amount of money. I think the initial investment allowed was $4 billion to experiment with a project that would in situ, on sight--rather than picking mines, they would boil the oil in the ground and siphon it out. That price was put around $50, $50 to $60 before they would consider it feasible to invest money. We are long past that, for that kind of an experiment. If it works, then the next steps have to be taken. It will be expensive, but $50 a barrel versus $120, there is a lot of room for play.

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. And this bill we are talking about here tonight has a provision in it about it. Because in the dead of night, in an appropriations bill in the Department of the Interior, somebody in the House--we think we know who--decided to put a moratorium on the final regulations for shale development, even though in the Energy bill you helped us write, the comprehensive bill, we provided for oil shale leases of the right size to permit activity, permit this research, this experimentation. Well, they put a moratorium on it and that thwarts the company that is putting the investment in it. This bill says no, that has to come off. So I don't know whether we will have a chance to vote on it another way, but maybe since it is one year at a time, we may take it off of appropriations. I don't know.

Mr. DOMENICI. Well, I choose to take one step back on that and say, there is no question but that South African technology is available to convert clean coal into liquid diesel. Its principal use at that point would be American airplanes, both commercial and military, American military equipment, and that would be a huge amount. This bill limits it to 9 million, the equivalent of 9 million barrels a day is what we would produce. That would be so we could be sure we weren't having a negative impact on the environment. How do we do that? Well, the energy produced by the conversion would not contribute any more than the crude oil we would buy would contribute and we would use it anyway, so we don't think we are harming the environment. But we are not going to go all out and produce the whole amount that coal can produce but, rather, learn how to do it, do it well, and send a signal that the great American ingenuity is ready to do something, and do something big. That is what that one would be, a big one that would frighten those who have us captive, because they would say they are finally going to do something and something that is important. The same thing would happen if we had a breakthrough on oil shale. There is no question, that would be an enormous signal. Now I am not saying that is as ready as coal to liquid. One is ready rather quickly, the other one would take a little while. But we only put things in that are doable and that are important, and if they are not doable immediately, they are doable in the sense of sending a signal that the country is doing something. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, can the leader explain how he is going to handle the two Energy bills? It seemed he was saying we would be finished with this bill before that. That is not the case, is it? These two amendments will be voted on as part of this bill.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Murray, to introduce the National Neurotechnology Initiative Act of 2008. Our bill will coordinate and accelerate federal brain and nervous system research, and will help move that research from the laboratory into the hands of patients. It is estimated that approximately 100 million Americans--one in three--suffer from some kind of neurological illness, disorder, or injury. These include some of the most debilitating illnesses, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, autism, schizophrenia, and stroke. They include issues with a neurological basis that often goes unnoticed, such as obesity and hearing loss. They also include issues of particular importance to Senator Murray and me: traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other neurological effects suffered by the brave men and women of our armed forces as they execute their missions throughout the world. The total economic burden of these neurological illnesses, disorders, and injuries is estimated to be more than one trillion dollars every year. These costs include direct medical treatment, long-term care for senior citizens who have been incapacitated by a neurological disease, addiction-related costs, secondary medical costs related to obesity, and so on. As the baby boom generation ages, the cost associated with these illnesses will increase rapidly, straining our healthcare resources even further than they already are. Now is the time to act to promote the development of diagnostics, treatments, and cures that will restore health and reduce costs. Our armed forces too often suffer from a traumatic brain injury, which is among the primary types of casualty that disables our service members. Some soldiers also suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder as well. We owe it to these heroic warriors to help them heal as quickly and as completely as possible. The National Neurotechnology Initiative Act is designed to address four key issues currently slowing the development of neurological treatments, and to rapidly accelerate R&D for only three percent of the annual NIH brain research budget. The first is a lack of coordination between the many agencies that conduct brain research. The bill creates a coordinating office that will help ensure that the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and other agencies know what every other agency is doing, and that they work together toward common goals. The second issue is insufficient coordination within the National Institutes of Health. Sixteen different Institutes, Centers, and offices within NIH conduct research on the brain and nervous system, and they have begun to work together through a program called the Blueprint for Neuroscience Research. This bill authorizes and fully funds that program. The third issue is the need to translate basic research into treatments. Advances in neurotechnology are useless if they merely sit in the lab. This bill boosts neuroscience-related technology transfer through the SBIR and STTR programs. The fourth issue is regulatory approval of new neurotechnology drugs, diagnostics, and devices. Brain-related treatments take much longer and cost much more to approve than other treatments. This bill will increase the timeliness and safety of the neurotechnology review process by allowing the FDA to hire and train neuroscience experts and to work with industry to develop neurotechnology standards. The bill also supports the analysis of societal implications of neuroscience and neurotechnology, so that we know we are proceeding thoughtfully and carefully in our research. Brain and nervous system research is an issue that has been extremely important to me throughout my time in the Senate. I have long been a supporter of the MIND Research Network, which does amazing work on these issues in New Mexico; and I have worked hard to advance our ability to treat and cure brain and nervous system diseases and disorders. I hope that this legislation will be part of my legacy in this area. I want to thank my good friend Senator Murray for asking me to join her on this very important issue. I appreciate her commitment to advancing this important research and I look forward to working with her to pass this legislation this Congress.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Murray, to introduce the National Neurotechnology Initiative Act of 2008. Our bill will coordinate and accelerate federal brain and nervous system research, and will help move that research from the laboratory into the hands of patients. It is estimated that approximately 100 million Americans--one in three--suffer from some kind of neurological illness, disorder, or injury. These include some of the most debilitating illnesses, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, autism, schizophrenia, and stroke. They include issues with a neurological basis that often goes unnoticed, such as obesity and hearing loss. They also include issues of particular importance to Senator Murray and me: traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other neurological effects suffered by the brave men and women of our armed forces as they execute their missions throughout the world. The total economic burden of these neurological illnesses, disorders, and injuries is estimated to be more than one trillion dollars every year. These costs include direct medical treatment, long-term care for senior citizens who have been incapacitated by a neurological disease, addiction-related costs, secondary medical costs related to obesity, and so on. As the baby boom generation ages, the cost associated with these illnesses will increase rapidly, straining our healthcare resources even further than they already are. Now is the time to act to promote the development of diagnostics, treatments, and cures that will restore health and reduce costs. Our armed forces too often suffer from a traumatic brain injury, which is among the primary types of casualty that disables our service members. Some soldiers also suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder as well. We owe it to these heroic warriors to help them heal as quickly and as completely as possible. The National Neurotechnology Initiative Act is designed to address four key issues currently slowing the development of neurological treatments, and to rapidly accelerate R&D for only three percent of the annual NIH brain research budget. The first is a lack of coordination between the many agencies that conduct brain research. The bill creates a coordinating office that will help ensure that the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and other agencies know what every other agency is doing, and that they work together toward common goals. The second issue is insufficient coordination within the National Institutes of Health. Sixteen different Institutes, Centers, and offices within NIH conduct research on the brain and nervous system, and they have begun to work together through a program called the Blueprint for Neuroscience Research. This bill authorizes and fully funds that program. The third issue is the need to translate basic research into treatments. Advances in neurotechnology are useless if they merely sit in the lab. This bill boosts neuroscience-related technology transfer through the SBIR and STTR programs. The fourth issue is regulatory approval of new neurotechnology drugs, diagnostics, and devices. Brain-related treatments take much longer and cost much more to approve than other treatments. This bill will increase the timeliness and safety of the neurotechnology review process by allowing the FDA to hire and train neuroscience experts and to work with industry to develop neurotechnology standards. The bill also supports the analysis of societal implications of neuroscience and neurotechnology, so that we know we are proceeding thoughtfully and carefully in our research. Brain and nervous system research is an issue that has been extremely important to me throughout my time in the Senate. I have long been a supporter of the MIND Research Network, which does amazing work on these issues in New Mexico; and I have worked hard to advance our ability to treat and cure brain and nervous system diseases and disorders. I hope that this legislation will be part of my legacy in this area. I want to thank my good friend Senator Murray for asking me to join her on this very important issue. I appreciate her commitment to advancing this important research and I look forward to working with her to pass this legislation this Congress.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I didn't hear the Senator from Texas say he was finished. (The remarks of Mr. Domenici pertaining to the introduction of S. 2958 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the floor time now be given to Senator Kennedy, who has been patiently waiting, for which I am grateful.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have a few remarks about the energy situation I would like to share with the Senate. Two months ago, I came to the floor to deliver a series of speeches on the State of our Nation's energy security. I said then, unequivocally, that our Nation's economic strength had been put in great peril by our growing dependence on foreign oil. I have been a member of the Energy Committee for 30 years and have served as chairman of that committee, as well as the Budget Committee, for a long period during that time. I have seen my share of serious debate on energy and the economy, and I recognize how vital these issues are to our Nation's well-being. Unfortunately, in these times of high gas prices and an approaching election, I have also seen my share of not-so-serious debate. The American people deserve better than false promises of short-term fixes, driving season gimmicks, and empty threats to the Middle East. I said in February--and I say it again today--the American people deserve serious, thoughtful, long-term solutions to our ever-growing energy crisis. If there are short-term solutions, or short-term aids, we ought to share those, too, and get on with adopting them. Investigating, taxing, and threatening our American oil and gas companies will do nothing to reduce the stranglehold foreign oil dependence has put on our economic strength, national security, and foreign policy agenda. To blame either side of the aisle for the trouble this Nation is in misses the point. The American people did not send us here to cast blame on one side or the other, and they certainly didn't send us here to put bandaids on serious illnesses that threaten our Nation. My first year in the Senate was during a Republican administration, when a President set out an aggressive agenda to reduce our Nation's oil imports. At that time, we were importing 6 million barrels of oil a day, which represented 35 percent of our total oil consumption. Fast forward 36 years to today. The aggressive agenda through several administrations and Congresses under the control of both parties has failed time and again. Today, we are more than 60 percent dependent on foreign oil which comes from some of the most hostile regimes in the world. Over time, our consumption has grown at a moderate rate, but our imports have more than doubled to 13.4 million barrels per day. The result is a rising cost of energy, a rising threat of disruption in our energy supply, and a rising anger among our already burdened constituents. As I said today, the average price of gasoline is $3.62 a gallon, an alltime high for the 17th straight day. Crude oil closed above $113 per barrel last night. The average approval rating of Congress has plummeted to 22 percent, and yet we continue to point fingers back and forth. In the past few years, Congress has achieved significant success in addressing long-term energy security. We passed a 2005 bill that will bring us a nuclear renaissance, a 2006 bill that will bring us greater domestic oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico, and a 2007 bill that will bring us increased fuel efficiency. That is a dramatic change in the CAFE standards. These were not little things, and they were hard to do. They were done without finger-pointing and with bipartisan support. To face this new challenge, however, we must do even more. Debate about energy, oil, and the environment has reached a fever pitch. The challenge of our time will be how we meet a rising demand for energy from the literally billions of new consumers who wish to share in the benefits of a global economy. I think we all know what that means. That means India, China, and other countries are adding to the demand part of the supply-and-demand cycles in mammoth ways. Already, China is moving ahead as one of the largest importers of oil and users of oil in the whole world. Just 10 years ago, or 12, they were hardly on the map. For our Nation's future energy security and the world's, we will need to ensure our supply of energy is reliable, affordable, and abundant. Today, I introduced the Domestic Energy Production Act of 2008. I ask unanimous consent that title be changed to the American Energy Production Act of 2008.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask that the clerk so change the bill, if they can. If not, the Senator from New Mexico asks for the right to change it.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, the policies set forth in this bill will begin to move us in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support its passage and to look at it seriously. First, the bill allows for States on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to petition the Federal Government to opt out of the broad moratorium that for two decades has locked up America's assets and forced us to turn toward unstable foreign nations to power our lives. I believe it is time that we ask the Atlantic and Pacific coastal States to take a real look at whether we could drill distances from their shores without doing any harm and adding substantially to the American supply for all our citizens, not just the coastal citizens. I believe the time is ripe. I believe right-headed people will consider that might be a reality. If we were to do it, we were told just that contains literally millions of barrels of crude oil and billions of cubic feet of natural gas for the American energy future. First, this bill allows these Atlantic and Pacific coasts to petition their Government to opt out, as I said, and these are large quantities of assets that are American. Together, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans contain oil reserves, and here are the numbers, what we know without doing a detailed reconnaissance. There are reserves of up to 14 billion barrels and natural gas reserves totaling 55 trillion cubic feet. Those are big enough for the American people to demand that everyone who represents States in this Senate look at this, whether they are coastal State Senators or not. America needs an honest evaluation because with these States, if there was no damage--and I believe we can drill without any damage today--we might move in a direction, an honest direction, of reducing dramatically what we must import overseas. Opening them to leasing would literally bring billions of dollars to the Federal Treasury and billions of dollars to the coastal States because they would share in it 37 percent, as we did with the coastal States of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas when we, 2 years ago, did the same thing for Gulf States and opened those areas for drilling. Those States abutting were positively impressed and helped by it because they wanted development and they also wanted to share in the royalties. The new way we build platforms and drill is a far cry from 20 years ago when coastal States were so worried. Actually, we can do it with little or no footprint, little or no seepage or damage, there is no question about it. Next, the bill opens 2,000 acres of the 19 million acres of the Arctic plain, or ANWR, for oil and gas leasing. In 1995, President Clinton vetoed an ANWR bill, and the price of oil was $19 a barrel. As a result, 1 million barrels of oil continue to sit beneath our ground each day instead of in our gas tanks. I believe the ultimate find, if we are permitted to drill, would be much more than the million barrels, without a question. The footprint is so small, the new directional drilling is so accurate that I believe it deserves an opportunity for the Senate to look again and think again and for the American people to look again and think again with us on what should be done. The price of oil is now $113 a barrel. When we last voted, the price was somewhere above $50 but certainly nothing like this. Yesterday, I heard a colleague on the other side of the aisle urge OPEC nations to release 500,000 barrels of oil to the global market. Today, in introducing this bill, I respond to my colleagues to release more than 1 million barrels to that supply, from our own lands, by supporting my bill. We don't know how much more we will get if the coastal States join in and begin lifting the moratorium. We may be able to send a message that more than the 500,000 barrels my colleague on the other side sought and far more than the 1 million we would get from Alaska would be released into the American market. This bill provides for a consolidated permitting process to ease constraints on building refineries in this country. While we improved the capacity over years, we consistently hear the criticism that no new refinery has been built in our country for over 30 years. Our Nation cannot afford to go 30 more years without building additional refineries. The bill also provides a small measure of relief by suspending delivery to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I ask my colleagues to consider their views on certain issues. I remind them that this issue I have reconsidered on my own. I believe it is appropriate in this pricing environment that we stop filling the SPR for up to 6 months, thus providing 70,000 additional barrels of light sweet crude per day. That might have an effect. Although it will be minor, it might be recognizable on the price of oil. I think it is time to do that. I told the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, with whom I serve and was the principal sponsor of this, that I would join him in this when he was ready to move on the Senate floor. By its very nature, this is just a fraction of the oil that will be gained through OCS production. OCS is what I am talking about in the bill I introduced today, and ANWR, oil shale production, and coal-to- liquid production are in this bill. In today's environment, any small amount helps the people of this country. In the area of alternative resources, this bill requires studies on ethanol to help ensure that smart decisions are made as we move toward cellulosic and other advanced biofuels. This bill provides incentives for the advancement of breakthrough energy technologies, such as battery-powered vehicles. That is important. It is obvious to everyone that we have not moved ahead as rapidly as we should in battery development, and we ought to push hard with our greatest scientists because a change in the right direction there would be a dramatic change in the right direction for automobiles that would be electric- motored and that would be good for our country. Our Nation is often called the Saudi Arabia of coal, and we should use that domestic resource to help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This bill creates a mandate for up to 3 billion gallons of clean coal-derived fuels over the next decade and 6 billion gallons over the next 14 years. This will provide diesel and jet fuel to help power our economy and create jobs throughout our coal-producing States. Additionally, this provision requires that the mandated fuels have life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions no greater than conventional gasoline. This is a win-win for our economy and our environment. I don't know why it is so violently opposed by some in America. I think they just don't want us to use our own if it means we are going to use it in automobiles, diesel trucks, or the like. I don't understand. If we don't do it, we will be using foreign oil unless and until we find a total new substitute, which will be years from now. This bill also allows for the long-term procurement of synthetic fuels by the Department of Defense and repeals section 526 of last year's Energy bill. That provision ties greenhouse gas emission requirements to the types of fuels our Air Force can purchase. The practical translation is that in a time of war, this policy would direct our military to purchase oil from the sands of the Middle East rather than the oil sands of Canada. While this bill takes many steps to strengthen our Nation's energy security, it also repeals several provisions in last year's appropriations bills that threaten to damage our Nation's energy security. At this point, most everyone knows what they are. I will merely mention one of those that is big, and that is a mandate that was imposed on oil shale development in America. Somebody in conference--I think we know which one but need not say since it is not certain--put a rider on that bill that said the final regulations for shale development have a moratorium imposed. That comes at a time when Shell Oil and others are exploring the great potential of shale converted to oil. I don't see why we should do this. I believe we should take that off and let them proceed. They will be bound by the laws of our land, and obviously, with the high price of crude oil, it is clear to me that they are going to find a way to make oil shale equal to conventional oil and thus usable by Americans as American- produced oil. We should let that happen as rapidly as possible and not deter it. I know some will not agree, but I would think that debate, carried to the American people, would be voted overwhelmingly in favor of letting it happen. That is why we put it in this bill. Finally, this bill repeals a $4,000 fee for drilling permits. These costs, slipped into a large Omnibus measure without notice or debate, hit the smallest oil and gas companies in our States. Making it more difficult to produce domestic energy for domestic use will only serve to further increase the prices we pay at the pump. As I complete my final year in the Senate, I look back on the many accomplishments this body has achieved for the American people. This great work has often been done when Members reached across the aisle after thoughtful deliberation, serious debate, and reasoned judgment. I hope, as the Congress makes a serious effort to tackle the energy challenges of our time, that we will address these challenges in the same spirit. As I said a few months ago on this floor that America faces a serious energy crisis with vital implications for our national security, economic strength, and foreign policy. The American people deserve a serious debate, for our present challenge will require thoughtfulness, vision, and judgment--not just today, but when the cameras are off, the elections are far away, and gas prices subside.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I wish to pay tribute to Glenna Goodacre, who was recently named the Notable New Mexican of 2008 by the Albuquerque Museum Foundation. Glenna is a nationally acclaimed sculptor whose works include designing the Sacagawea dollar coin and sculpting the Vietnam Women's Memorial here in Washington, DC. A resident of New Mexico since 1983, Glenna was born in Lubbock, TX. She graduated from Colorado College in Colorado Springs, CO. While obtaining her undergraduate degree, Glenna first showed her strong ability to persevere in spite of defeatist-minded individuals. She pursued her dream to become a sculptor despite the discouragement she faced from her professor. At her graduation, she gave a commencement address titled, ``Success Is the Greatest Revenge,'' a speech which reflected back on to the opposition she once faced. Throughout her career, Glenna has created many awe-inspiring bronze sculptures. Her most ambitious piece, the Irish Memorial installed at Penn's Landing in Philadelphia, contains 35 life-size figures. She is also credited with the creation of two 8-foot standing figures of Ronald Reagan. One stands in the Reagan Library in California and the other at the National Cowboy and Western Heritage Museum in Oklahoma City. Glenna's countless accomplishments have won her the recognition of the New Mexico Governor's Award for Excellence in the Arts and the Texas Medal of Arts. In addition to these honors, she has also been inducted into the Cowgirl Hall of Fame in Fort Worth. Although a fall in early 2007 threatened to end her dreams, Glenna bounced back to make excellent progress in her rehabilitation and recovery. Her experience even inspired her to dedicate her piece titled ``Crossing the Prairie'' to St. Vincent Regional Medical Center, a facility which was credited with saving her life. The Notable New Mexican program celebrates the extraordinary accomplishments of people like Glenna. Every year since 2001, the Albuquerque Museum Foundation honors a Notable for his or her high achievements, strong ties to New Mexico, and contributions to the public good. This year, Glenna will join the ranks of former Notables such as artists Wilson Hurley and Georgia O'Keeffe, authors Tony Hillerman and Rudolfo Anaya, and former Governor Bruce King. It is with great honor that I speak before you today, Mr. President, to commemorate the countless accomplishments of Glenna Goodacre. Again, I congratulate her on being named the Notable New Mexican of 2008.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?