Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I would like to honor and give special attention to the 50th annual Bat Flight Celebration Breakfast, at New Mexico's beautiful Carlsbad Caverns. Every evening over 300,000 Mexican free-tail bats exit the caves to feed, only to return in the early morning hours. It is in these early morning hours, once a year, that visitors gather to observe the return of these thousands of bats to their homes inside these incredible caves. On Saturday July 28, 2007, for the 50th time, over 600 visitors gathered and enjoyed a New Mexican breakfast while witnessing this magnificent in-flight return to the cave. Created by inland sea between 250 and 280 million years ago, the limestone caves of Carlsbad were declared a national monument in 1923, and the surrounding area was made a national park in 1930, in order to preserve its unique beauty and geology. Carlsbad Caverns National Park has more than 100 known caves and covers over 46,000 acres, with approximately 33,000 acres designated as wilderness. The park's most prominent feature is the cavern itself, which contains one of the world's largest underground chambers and countless spectacular geological formations, many of which are easily accessible along a 3- mile paved underground trail. The next time you happen to be in New Mexico, I encourage you to come visit and take some time to enjoy all New Mexico has to offer. From the beautiful rock formations, the stalagmites and stalactites, the wildlife, the culture and the history--the unique caverns near Carlsbad, NM, have it all. New Mexico is a great place, and the Carlsbad Caverns help make it so. To all, past and present, who have worked hard to preserve Carlsbad Caverns and showcase the annual bat flight celebration, I extend a heartfelt thank you.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Mr. Irvin L. Trujillo for receiving the National Endowment for the Arts National Heritage Fellowship Award. He is one of only 11 artists nationally recognized with this award for his work. The chairman of the NEA, Dana Gioia, will personally deliver the award to Mr. Trujillo this Sunday in Santa Fe. Mr. Trujillo, a Chimayo native, is part of the ever-growing population of talented artists that reside in New Mexico. He is a seventh-generation Chimayo weaver. Art is such a big part of the New Mexican way of life. Artists from all over the world dream of showcasing their art in one of the many New Mexico Art galleries. Art is a great outlet of creativity and emotion for those who experience its beauty and wonder. Art can take up many avenues; it can be a painting or a piece of pottery, a woven rug or even a photograph. New Mexico is home to many galleries featuring such pieces of art. I am proud to represent a State so full of culture and creativity. I am proud to be from a State with such a rich artistic culture. Taos and Santa Fe are famous for their world-renowned art galleries. Other areas of the State also demonstrate creative ideas. The deep Native American culture of New Mexico's tribes brings ornate turquoise jewelry and handmade pottery. Las Vegas and Ruidoso also have a vibrant art scene. New Mexico continues to be in the forefront of ever-evolving art community. Congratulations again, Mr. Trujillo, on your prestigious award. Thank you for your continued pledge to explore and demonstrate your artistic abilities for all of us to enjoy.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I was recorded as a ``yea'' on the previous vote. I meant to be recorded as ``nay.'' I ask unanimous consent that I be recorded as a ``nay.'' This would not affect the outcome of the vote.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to ask both of the leaders--I have not even given any speeches; you all are lucky. But let me ask, is it the intent now that we are at this point that we are not going to--whatever amendments are left, we do not intend to get back into the regime of amendments we just got through taking out by unanimous consent? Those ideas are no longer--we are not going to consider them? I am not agreeing to unanimous consent unless you are agreeing to that. We are not just agreeing to these amendments and second-degrees, we are not going to have that kind of amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI. I am not talking about any other bill.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to mark the centennial of Elida, NM. In July 1907, the town of Elida was officially incorporated, and for the last 100 years this small New Mexico town has remained a close-knit ranching community. Although much has changed in Elida during the last 100 years, many things have not. Elida is still the kind of town where neighbors take the time to help one another and come together for a Fourth of July barbeque every year. I believe that kind of community is something special and those individuals who call Elida home should be proud. As the residents of Elida and the surrounding area gather this weekend to celebrate the history of their town, I would like to wish them well and I hope Elida has another wonderful 100 years.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, today I wish to recognize six of New Mexico's youth who have participated in a national Mathematics, Engineering, Science and Achievement, MESA, USA competition. The competition held at the University of Maryland focused on physics this year and New Mexico had one team from middle school and one team from high school participating. Every participating team made a Trebuchet, or catapult with weight on one end and a projectile on the other. The teams were judged on accuracy, distance, and design. Four students from Sarracino Middle School in Socorro won the middle school division of the Jamboree State-wide competition held at the University of New Mexico. After winning there, they competed at the University of Maryland and took the third place position for all middle school participants at the national MESA USA competition. Sam Hale, Daniel Jaramillo, Tyler Lam, and Jordan Vinson, all eighth graders, proved with their teamwork that they were a force to be reckoned with. Two Belen High School graduates also represented New Mexico well at the competition. Samantha Huynh and Matthew Swanson won the high school division of the Jamboree State-wide competition held at the University of New Mexico. They, too, participated in the national competition in Maryland. I am always proud to learn of students such as these who have taken their learning in the classroom to another level. These sorts of competitions allow students to think outside the box and come up with new solutions to old problems. Problem-solving skills, such as these displayed during the competition, prove to be invaluable for this Nation's future. Congratulations again. I know these future leaders will accomplish great things.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my vote against cloture on S. 1639, the border security and immigration reform bill debated by the Senate this week. I support some of the proposals behind S. 1639 because we must address our border and immigration crisis. However, I was forced to vote no on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 1639 for several reasons. The bill before us is neither workable nor realistic. Additionally, many Senators do not even know what is in the latest version of the bill. It is also pretty clear to this Senator that anything similar to S. 1639 is dead on arrival in the House of Representatives. I question the rationale of passing a bill that has so many flaws when several Members of the House have said this bill will not even be considered by the House. Would it not be better for all of us to have a more open and fair debate on border security and immigration that is not subjected to unnecessary deadlines and closed-door decisionmaking? In addition, as a border State Senator, I know first-hand the need to secure our borders because every day my constituents tell me about the problems they face because of illegal entries into our country. We have a crisis on our borders that must be resolved. However, instead of pursuing immediate emergency funding to help secure our border, S. 1639 cobbles border security improvements and funding with some concerning immigration reforms. While the bill also provided $4.4 billion to fund these border security initiatives, that money was contingent upon final passage of the bill by Congress, something that appears to be less than a sure thing. What is clear to me is that the American people want the measures in the bill--like providing 20,000 Border Patrol agents, constructing 370 miles of border fencing and 300 miles of border vehicle barriers, putting 105 radar and camera towers on the border, and using four unmanned aerial vehicles for border security--in place before we address the millions of unauthorized aliens living and working in the United States. Therefore, I believe it would be more appropriate to provide $4.4 billion in border security funding in a separate emergency spending bill to fund these border security initiatives. Additionally, I remain concerned about the amendment process associated with this bill. More than 300 amendments were filed to this bill's predecessor, S. 1348, and almost 150 amendments have been filed to S. 1639. However, we were only allowed to consider 26 amendments to S. 1639. Border security and immigration reform are the most important domestic issues facing the United States today. Clearly the Senate, the most deliberative body in the world, should be allowed to consider additional amendments that could improve upon this bill. While one of my amendments is part of the package of amendments that was allowed to be considered to this bill, I had other good ideas to make this bill better for New Mexico, the southwest border, and the United States. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle did too, and we deserve an opportunity to consider those amendments. Also, some of the provisions that I initially supported in this bill have been amended to the point that the bill no longer has its initial purposes. For example, the temporary worker program that is critical to so many industries in my State does not meet those industries' needs. Further, I am concerned by statements by members of the bipartisan border and immigration working group that some issues of concern in S. 1639 will be resolved in conference. The Senate should debate the issues of concern in this bill; we should not rely on a small group of our colleagues to resolve those issues in an unamendable conference report. Lastly, I have been told that this bill would have an interesting and unintended effect in my home State of New Mexico. As I understand it, New Mexico State law would allow all Z visa holders under this bill to qualify for Medicaid. That matter needs to be reviewed and its impacts fully considered so that the Congress can avoid unintended effects of this bill. For all of these reasons, I decided to vote no on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 1639. We need improved border security and immigration reform.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to commemorate the 231st birthday of our Nation, on this coming Fourth of July. On the 4th of July, 1776, the Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence and our Nation was born. However, our forefathers would have to fight 7 more years and draft and ratify the Constitution before the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence could truly begin to be realized. That was just the beginning of our Nation's story. It has taken the hard work and dedication of countless Americans to build the great and free Nation we know today. On this day we should pay tribute to the pioneers who struck out across the frontier to build new lives, the individuals who built the roads and bridges that connect the country, the teachers who have ensured our youth reached their full potential and all Americans who in their own way have contributed to this Nation. We cannot forget the brave Americans of our armed services who throughout our history have fought and died to preserve the freedom we all enjoy, nor those currently serving. On the Fourth of July we must also honor the sacrifice of these men and women. As New Mexicans gather with family and friends to barbecue and watch fireworks, I hope they will take a moment to remember the greatness of this Nation and pay tribute to all those who have made it so.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I would like to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Roswell UFO incident. On July 8, 1947, the Roswell Army Air Field, RAAF, issued a statement announcing they had recovered a ``flying disk'' from a nearby ranch. This news release, concerning the landing of a mysterious object, was quickly changed. The next day, the RAAF issued a retraction and stated the mysterious object was in fact a downed weather balloon. Although Roswell Army Air Field officials had retracted their original statement within 24 hours, the controversy, which has endured for 60 years, had already begun. The interest ignited by the original ``flying disk'' statement continues to spark debate for many, not just in the great State of New Mexico but around the world. Supposed witnesses of the event and UFO theorists to this day claim that the mysterious object was an actual alien aircraft. Others hold steadfast in the Air Force's latest classification of the object being a U.S. Government spy balloon. Regardless of what was recovered 60 years ago, this notable event has become part of Roswell and the history of our State. For the past 12 years, the city of Roswell has celebrated this well- known event by holding the Roswell UFO Festival on the town's main street. Skeptics and alien-enthusiasts alike gather from around the globe to commemorate the incident by partaking in numerous activities and programs during a 4-day festival. The people who converge in Roswell this year for the festival, July 5--8, are in for an exciting weekend, as it promises to be the best in the festival's history. Lectures, parades, concerts, hot air balloon rides and air shows are only a few of the items on this year's program. I have no doubt the controversy and debate surrounding the events of 60 years ago will continue. However, as long as we are able to enjoy and commemorate such events in our country's history, I look forward to many more festivals such as these that bring people together from across the globe.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, while many may not know, last week was National Grasslands Week. I would like to join Secretary Johannes and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to celebrate and recognize the legacy represented by the establishment and maintenance of our national grasslands and to honor all of the individuals that have worked so diligently over the years to preserve New Mexico's precious grassland ecosystem. In my home State of New Mexico we enjoy the luxury of hosting two officially designated national grassland areas. Those are the Kiowa and the Rita Blanca National Grasslands. These grassland reserves, located near the towns of Clayton and Roy, in the northeastern part of the State, are chartered under the Cibola National Forest System. They are both ongoing ecosystem restoration projects that were implemented following the Dust Bowl in the 1930s. While the Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands started as a means to preserve the environment and wildlife, they are rich in cultural significance as well. The lands were once inhabited by a number of Native-American tribes, including the Comanche, Kiowa, and Kiowa-Apaches. They were nomadic tribes whose culture depended heavily on hunting Buffalo and gathering food from the areas vast array of native plants. The area also plays a significant part in the history of the Wild West as the Homestead Act of 1862 brought thousands of settlers out West, many of which settle in the grasslands of eastern New Mexico. They contain over 100 individual grazing permits, which incorporate the use of a wide variety of grazing management techniques, a large range of pinon-juniper management programs, which includes prescribed burning and mechanical treatment along with a personal use fuel wood program, and many active partnerships with State and local governments, and other entities such as Quail Unlimited and New Mexico State University's Clayton Livestock Research Center. The National Grasslands of northeastern New Mexico provide thousands of acres of wildlife habitat, livestock forage and even serve as centers for recreation and clean energy initiatives. The Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands also attract many visitors who get to see firsthand the biological wealth, culture, and heritage the grasslands preserve and maintain. Visitors can participate in a wide range of activities like camping, picnicking, fishing, and wildlife viewing and get a taste of our western heritage. The New Mexico's Grasslands provide a place of peace, quiet, and beautiful sunsets. Next time you are in my home State, I invite and encourage you to visit these great places in northeast New Mexico. I commend USDA, which has managed public grasslands to meet the needs of the American people for over seven decades, and salute the staff of the Cibola National Forest and the people of New Mexico who work so hard to help administer these grasslands in a way to maintain and preserve sustainable use.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the Baucus amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against cloture. There are only two things wrong with the Baucus amendment: One, it raises taxes in the wrong places; and, secondly, it spends these taxes on the wrong policies. I want to make two points upfront before I start my remarks. When we speak of American big oil, let me remind people that America's five big oil companies hold less reserves than Hugo Chavez, the state-owned company of Hugo Chavez in his country. My second point is, very seldom does the United States tax businesses that are in competition overseas. Let me repeat that. We in America hardly ever tax American businesses that are in competition overseas. Of course, that is exactly what we have done here, and what is going to happen is not going to be good. It is not going to help the American consumer one bit. There are only two things, as I indicated, that are wrong with the Baucus amendment. I would repeat: It raises taxes in the wrong places, and then it spends them on the wrong policies. I cast this vote, and I think it is an informed vote based on my experience. It is with a deep sense of responsibility to do what is right, with a keen interest and understanding of energy policy, because I have been forced to work on it with many who know a lot about it. With a real appreciation of the importance of this vote, I will oppose cloture. The tax provisions in this bill will increase the cost of gasoline at the pump for Americans, increase electricity bills for families, and work severe hardship on our natural gas supply. Additionally, this amendment could seriously harm our economy. The Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, recently noted that: A significant increase in energy prices can simultaneously slow the economy, and raise inflation. I cannot vote for that consequence. I urge that my colleagues not do so either. I do not cast this vote lightly, and I arrive at the decision after a great deal of reflection. There are many good and important provisions contained in this amendment. In the area of renewable energy, while there may be questions about how long certain tax credits should be extended, there should be no doubt that in the past I have supported renewable energy. In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, with Senator Bingaman, we passed the largest tax incentives for renewable energy, a variety of renewable energies, than we ever have in American history. My friend and colleague Senator Alexander has often referred to the bill that we passed as the ``Clean Energy Act.'' He is right. In 2005, in the Energy Policy Act we provided renewable energy production tax credits, automobile tax credits, and we can keep going. We provided tax credits for energy efficient improvements, biodiesel, and for ethanol. We included tax credits for installing alternative refueling property, tax credits for the installation of solar. The world demanded cleaner energy, and the Energy Policy Act answered the call. Between 2004 and 2006, global private capital investment in clean energy rose from around $30 billion to $60 billion a year. It rose because we set the framework into law, and it was invested on the private side. In the public market and in venture capital and in private equity, in corporate research, development, and demonstration, and government research and development and asset financing, the answer has been the same. Both the private and public sector are excited about the future of clean energy, and they are busy, under our 2005 act, investing heavily in it. The weakness is in the amendment I am talking about. Without question, some of the tax incentives in this bill could have a positive impact on the landscape of American energy future. To deny that would be to debate unfairly the merits of this amendment. Cellulosic ethanol production credits, plug-in hybrid vehicle credits, and clean coal energy bonds are smart financial incentives, and those tax policies complement many of the goals we have sought to achieve in the previous legislation. I think that is good. Supporting the great things that we accomplished together in the Energy bill 2 years ago made us all feel good. However, the tax incentives in this bill focus on too narrow a field of energy policy. The Finance Committee has reported this amendment with a pricetag of $32.1 billion, a very large tax increase. In a few minutes I will speak about the troubling revenue-raising proposals in this amendment. But, first, I ask myself and I ask others, so our people would get a feeling of what $32.1 billion is, what it can be better used for or what it might be used for in the American economy if it were free to be invested or other things bought with it: $32.1 billion would purchase 15 biorefineries, 16,000 barrels-per-day coal-to-liquid refineries, 5 gasoline refineries, and 4 nuclear powerplants, 10 bio-energy research centers, and 500 miles of transmission lines. Now, I am not suggesting we would buy them with this bill, but I am suggesting that everyone should know the huge size of this tax, taken out of the economy, and what it would invest in similar dollars, that it could invest in the American economy. I just told you what they were. We could use this money for commercial demonstrations in oil shale, fund demonstrations for energy from coal using IGCC, and we all know we must do that. We do not have any money to do them, and we are having difficulty getting loans from the Government, and here we are taking $32 billion and not providing anything for these kinds of investments that we must do if we are going to keep pace with China, which is going full speed ahead with all of those things, including nuclear power, and nuclear powerplants in this country. We must get there also. But in the meantime, we are taking an awful lot of revenue flow out of the economy, right away from the energy companies that know how to invest it, where to invest it, how to pick up reserves, and how to keep the price of oil as much within bounds as the world market will permit. Without question, the revenue-raising proposals in the amendment will increases the cost of exploring for and producing our Nation's oil and gas and natural gas. As a result, Americans will pay higher prices for gasoline at the pump, and we will suffer increased electricity costs as our Nation's natural gas supply is weakened. We will pay higher prices, obviously, for natural gas. The excise tax on oil and gas exploration increases taxes $10 billion over 10 years on producers on our Nation's Outer Continental Shelf. Frankly, I believe that entire tax is wrong. We should not be taxing the most productive--the places where more money is being put for exploration than anywhere else, the Outer Continental Shelf. Yet one-third of the taxes here come from imposing a fee, a very high fee, on the Outer Continental Shelf. Who would have thought it? The place in America where we have a chance of producing, we have imposed a heavy tax. Proponents of this amendment claim these tax provisions only affect the five largest U.S. oil and gas companies. Not true. But I have already told you who they are and what they represent in the world markets. In fact, there are 40 lessee companies. Nearly 75 percent of all entities leasing on the OCS hold leases that would be subject to a 13- percent punitive tax. I hardly thought I would see that on the floor of the Senate. Yet here it is, bragged about as a very big source of money that we can do other things with, without regard to the prices the American people are going to pay in the increased prices for oil and gas coming from the shelf. This is the lifeblood of our domestic oil and gas production. It makes absolutely no sense to advocate for independence from foreign oil, and then turn right around and raise taxes on our domestic companies that are producing America's oil and natural gas. It will mean higher prices for consumers. Oil and gas production in the Outer Continental Shelf amounts to approximately 1.7 million barrels of oil per day, and 12\1/2\ billion cubic feet of natural gas. Annually, this production equals approximately 600 million barrels of oil per year and 4.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year. Now, that is good. They are doing fine. So why don't we put a tax on them of 13.5 surtax? It makes no sense. The price will go up, production will come down. These amounts produce 30 percent of our domestic oil production per year, and 23 percent of our domestic natural gas. Placing a punitive tax on this production is serious business backed by very serious facts, and I say serious consequences. Activities on the OCS provide an average of over $6 billion a year in revenue to the Treasury. In the future the offshore will be even more important. The Minerals Management Service estimates about 60 percent of the oil and 40 percent of the natural gas resources estimated to be contained in remaining undiscovered fields in the United States are located where? Where might you guess? In the Outer Continental Shelf, upon which we are going to place a very stiff, very high tax. Furthermore, the intent of the OCS excise tax and the effect of this tax is crystal clear. The provision charges 13 percent of the removal price of taxable crude oil and natural gas, with a credit available to those who have price thresholds on their oil and natural gas leases. In plain English, this amendment seeks to legislatively breach valid contracts from 1998 and 1999, because the Clinton administration failed to include a term in these agreements. In other words, there was no fault of the companies. The Clinton administration either made a mistake or did not want to put the fee on; it just didn't happen. So for those 2 years, we have royalty leases with no royalty thresholds. Congress cannot rewrite contracts after the fact merely because we do not like the contracts or the results. I predict when we are all finished, the courts of the land are going to say: This part of this tax is illegal and unconstitutional, and out the window will go a very large portion of this tax because the rights are clearly there. We have to think about it and think about what we are doing. I do not like the idea of the United States of America going back on its contracts. It sounds and looks and smells like some foreign country. But we are close to doing it here in the name of some new answer, and at the same time saying it is going to yield revenues for us to use for various things in this bill. As we consider this amendment, the Senate should be on notice that legal precedent would not be on our side. The U.S. Supreme Court and Federal circuit court precedents suggest that the Government cannot avoid the obligations of its contracts by using its taxing power to take back benefits it has given up pursuant to an agreement. I suggest to the Senate that a Federal court will recognize this tax for what it is and, therefore, this $10 billion we are counting on in this bill will be lost. The Department of the Interior has already testified before Congress expressing its concern about protracted litigation over this issue and the potential for a loss of billions in revenue as well as the delay of oil and gas production. There are 2 other provisions among the revenue raising proposals that are very troubling. One provision would amend the Job Creation Act of 2004, which created tax relief for more than 200,000 U.S. corporations and businesses. This proposal increases taxes by almost $10 billion over 10 years. Instead of the Jobs Creation Act, we could call this provision the Jobs Destruction Act. Finally, the increase in taxes by the U.S. Government on American companies competing overseas--through the foreign oil tax provision-- increases taxes $3.1 billion over 10 years. This amendment also attacks American interests and cedes control to foreign interests. It says we would rather buy energy from the likes of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela than produce it ourselves. To put the proper context on this, Saudi Aramco, the Saudi Arabian state-owned oil company, has nearly 3 times more daily output per million barrels per day than the largest U.S. oil company and holds nearly 10 times the oil and natural gas reserves. To make it more difficult for American companies to compete overseas for this global commodity at a time when oil prices are nearly $70 per barrel is simply wrong. The Senate should reject this political expediency that will hurt American businesses, and the American consumer. I began my remarks by conveying to this Senate the seriousness with which I cast this vote. In my judgment, this amendment will have significant negative consequences on America's energy security. The Baucus amendment will increase the cost of producing oil and gas in America and will undermine the ability of American businesses to compete against state- owned oil companies run by foreign governments. The result for our Nation will be a greater reliance on crude oil from hostile regions of the world and an increase in the price of gasoline for the American people. That is an unacceptable consequence and not what the American people expect of us. For the reasons that I have stated, I must vote no on the motion to invoke cloture on the Baucus amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder, while the Senator is still standing, if I could ask him a question. I was standing someplace where I caught an echo on your last 2 or 3 minutes. Could you maybe repeat it, because it hit my ear wrong. I did not quite get it. What did you talk about when it went to the House and came back and what?

Mr. DOMENICI. When is that? When you come back from the House?

Mr. DOMENICI. The same people who voted here will vote again then, will they not? Are you expecting some Senators to leave in the meantime from this side?

Mr. DOMENICI. I see.

Mr. DOMENICI. I see. Well, it would be good if you would add to that there might be a little opportunity to work together on that, too, you know. If you get a few people a little anxious, you might find you could not get cloture again. That could happen.

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Well, you are inviting some of us not to approve anything tonight, to have another cloture, and you have nothing going to conference.

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, you know, you and I have been here long enough that we go through these tragedies every now and then. But they get worked out. Then as long as you do not try to defy reality--there were a lot of people who didn't want this to happen; a lot of people did. That is the Senate. Now we will see.

Mr. DOMENICI. So do I.

Mr. DOMENICI. Well, there is no doubt in my mind we are going to move ahead. We have had some terrific movement ahead in the past 3\1/2\, 4 years. Some of us who are questioning how you think it is going to happen have been part of that over the last couple of years. We are not--nobody is going to sit here and say: There is one way, only one group of Senators knows how to do this. We did our share in this pretty good bill you voted for a couple of years ago. Had we implemented the provisions of that with financing that went with it, we would already be a long way toward the development of both supply and conservation; supply of the type you want, and supply of the type some others want. We would already have that going. Instead, we do not, because we haven't financed it. We should have. You were with us on the financing. It should have happened.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have reviewed the amendments and cleared them on our side. We have no objection.