Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOMENICI. Does the Senator have a minute left for the Senator from New Mexico?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the Senator on his remarks and say I concur with them. I would say this is the wrong time, while we are trying to enhance the investment in cellulosic ethanol and everything that goes with that, to come along with this idea. This would weaken the investment potential and the credibility of investment right when it is ripening and really generating interest. This requires billions of dollars to be invested in cellulosic ethanol as we move to the next generation, and to have weakening that comes from this issue as to what is going to happen with this export- import issue is the wrong thing. I encourage colleagues to follow the lead of Senator Bingaman and Senator Grassley. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. I am. I say to Senator Schumer, we had no objection to your amendment. It took an extra amount of time because of matching up one versus one side and the other. It was nothing fundamental. It was just that.

Mr. DOMENICI. I have to object to your bringing up the amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objections. We have worked together to arrive at this schedule.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate grant me 1 minute at this point to make a statement and ask the Senator a question.

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, first of all, I listened. Some people might say the Senator from New Mexico shouldn't listen again because I have listened now at least twice to you on this subject matter. To tell you the truth, your analysis of the situation becomes more relevant every single month that passes in the Congress because today we are about to decide what to do with $30 billion, more or less; that we are going to levy a tax; and you have come before us and told us what you might do. I might say, as chairman of the Energy Committee, I don't serve on the Finance Committee. That is the breaks of the way things are done in the Senate. I am not complaining, but I can guarantee you and the Senate that I, as one Senator, and as chairman of the Energy Committee a year and a half ago--not now--I would never have voted to put that much money in wind and so little in other technologies and breakthrough science items.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to honor and give special attention to the 100th anniversary of the establishment of Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument in my home State of New Mexico. On November 16, 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt signed the proclamation that recognized the Gila Cliff Dwellings and 533 surrounding acres as a national monument being what he called, ``of exceptional scientific and educational interest . . . as the best representative of the cliff- dwellers' remains of that region.'' This unique monument, nestled among the spectacular scenery of the Gila National Forest, was once the home to the people of the Mogollon, who lived along the East fork of the Gila River during the late 13th and early 14th century. It is at that place where these impressive builders constructed a 42-room collection of homes in 5 spacious sandstone caves high along the face of a small creek-canyon. Today, this monument gives Americans a glimpse of the great cultures and societies that once occupied the North American Continent prior to the arrival of European settlers. This year-long centennial celebration is more than just an appreciation for the unique beauty that is defined by the many special places like this in New Mexico. In commemoration of this special centennial event, an unexcavated surface site referred to as the TJ Ruin will be open for a limited number of guided tours. Over the next few weeks other exciting events such as Stories in the Stars, Stories in the Shards, Rock Art and Storytelling will be taking place. There will be a number of other events, including an exhibit opening at the Silver City Museum, cowboy poetry, music, Dutch oven cooking, and Chiricahua Apache Culture Days that will be held throughout the remainder of the year to entertain those visiting the area and to celebrate the 100th anniversary. The attractive weather and abundance of forest and desert flora and fauna in the Gila region of southwest New Mexico attracts over 60,000 visitors every year who contribute to the economies of southwestern New Mexico cities and towns such as Silver City, Cliff, Deming, Bayard, and Lordsburg. With over 1,500 miles of trails, the opportunities for mountain biking, hiking, and horseback riding are endless. There is also a great abundance of wildlife that roam the Gila region. For the fisherman, there is over 360 miles of mountain streams, creeks, rivers, and lakes that are a precious resource in the Southwest. The outdoors reminds us all of the things we hold so dear. Public lands make up over one-third of the United States, most of which is in the West. Those of us from the State of New Mexico cherish the open spaces afforded by the West. Like the Mogollon, we are reminded daily of our dependence on the land and therefore take a devout interest in its health and management. The Gila Cliff Dwellings and the Gila National Forest remain much the same as so many years ago, and I am glad this will be the case for generations to come. 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 many beautiful mountains, to the rivers, the canyons, the wildlife, the culture and the history--the marvelous place we call the Gila has it all. New Mexico is a great place, and the Gila Cliff Dwellings help make it so. To all, past and present, who have worked hard to preserve the Gila Cliff Dwellings, I extend a heartfelt thank you and honor you this centennial year.

Mr. DOMENICI

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

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, for more than six decades, the bedrock of American national security has been a strong, reliable, and cutting- edge nuclear deterrent. Literally thousands of the best scientists and engineers in the world have dedicated themselves to ending World War II, winning the Cold War, and protecting the free world. Each year, the Directors of the three national nuclear weapons laboratories must certify to the President, and through him to the rest of the United States, that our nuclear weapons systems are reliable. That certification process assures Americans, and warns our adversaries, that the Nation's nuclear stockpile will be able to continue to perform its basic mission--prevention of a nuclear weapons exchange. During these six decades, discussion of the nature and size of our nuclear deterrent has been literally constant. Each year, hundreds of scientists, engineers, and global strategists devote innumerable hours and days to intense discussions of the proper strategy for the Nation and the proper nuclear stockpile to implement that strategy. Each year, Presidents have recommendations based upon the work of specialists inside and outside the Federal Government. Since the end of physical testing of our nuclear weapons stockpile--a big event; and, in fact, a major event in American nuclear weapons evolution, the idea we would no longer test our weapons--America has relied on a concept called stockpile stewardship to try to keep our nuclear weapons resources certifiably reliable. This Nation has already embarked upon, and through three different Presidents has reaffirmed, a commitment to physical testing-free testing that has cost billions of dollars. Our strategy has been simple: the most reliable weapons without physical testing, upgraded as strategy dictates. At the same time, the United States has embarked on a major reduction in the size of our stockpile and in the nuclear stores of other nations. We have done this through programs this Senator has supported and authored during the past 20 years. I salute Senator Richard Lugar, my colleague from Indiana, and former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia, for their groundbreaking work in forging these programs, and I am proud I have been able to work with them in these critical efforts. Because of these initiatives--the Nunn-Lugar, Nunn-Lugar-Domenici, the Nuclear Cities Initiative, the Global Initiative for Proliferation Prevention, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and Development Program, and others--our world is safer. In total, under Nunn-Lugar, we have deactivated 6,982 warheads, 644 ICBMs, 485 ICBM silos, 100 mobile ICBM launchers, 155 bombers, 906 air- launched cruise missiles, 436 submarine-launched ballistic missile launchers, 611 submarine-launched ballistic missiles, 30 strategic missile submarines, and 194 nuclear test tunnels. Indeed, nine more warheads were deactivated in the last month. We have offered thousands of Russian nuclear scientists alternative pay and occupations, in hopes they will be less susceptible to blandishments from other parties. We are sharing nonproliferation efforts with other nations beyond the former Soviet Union states. In more stark terms, under the Washington-Moscow Treaty, ratified by the Senate and signed by the President, we will have in our nuclear stockpile, by 2013, fewer weapons than at any time since the era of President Eisenhower. We will have fewer nuclear weapons than we had, in other words, before the Cold War began in earnest. So this two-pronged approach--international cooperation against proliferation and for elimination of weapons, coupled with the inception of Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship--has been America's strong response to the need to reduce the danger of both nuclear weapon stockpiles and physical nuclear testing. Almost a decade ago, in a speech at Harvard University, I outlined what I called a new nuclear paradigm. That paradigm envisioned, among other things, a cut in American nuclear weapons to what I then called a threat-based nuclear stockpile; that is, a stockpile commensurate with the anticipated international threat to our Nation. Critical to that concept was, and remains, the principle of reliability and the continuous battle against degradation of our present stockpile. No serious expert advocated simply keeping the very same physical weapons we had 20 or 25 years ago, with no upgrading or improvements. At some point, the degradation of components in those weapons would mean the certification necessary from the three weapons labs Directors to the President could not be honestly made. In short, without upgrades and continuous nonphysical monitoring, our nuclear weapons deterrence could be put in serious doubt. Yet at this very time, the youngest nuclear weapons designs in our arsenal are 20 to 25 years old. Age-related component degradation could impact several different systems at the same time, calling into question reliability. For the past several years, this Senate has supported, on a bipartisan basis, spending the money necessary to protect our stockpile from degradation. At the same time, we have recognized some of our systems are too complicated, pose risks to workers, and need substantial upgrading. This background brings me to the present Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008 proposed by the House Appropriations Committee and scheduled for House floor action this week. That bill, if enacted without substantial change, would send American nuclear deterrence strategy in a new, unknown, direction. Think about that. More than 20 years of intensive study, by some of the best minds in the world, could begin to be overturned by enactment of a single appropriations bill. The new direction wouldn't be enacted as the result of 3 to 4 years of intensive study and hearings by all of the relevant committees of Congress. It wouldn't result from a convocation of the best minds at our disposal. It wouldn't result from the kind of pain-staking analysis of future risks that any prudent American would demand from its government. No, that new path would begin by a single appropriations bill, devised by a small group with the best of intentions, but far from public view and analysis. In that regard, I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Washington Post, ``Congress seeks new direction for Nuclear Strategy,'' by Walter Pincus, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Note an important point in this story. The funding cuts are proposed now; a new strategic direction will be forged later in this decade. Such an approach is absolutely backwards. We should forge the new direction, if one is believed appropriate in a world of increasing threats to our security, after great study. We should fund our present strategy, 20 years in the making, now. The House Bill and the Post story focus on the so-called RRW, the Reliable Replacement Warhead. The RRW is a proposed new element of administration policy. The intent of the RRW, to enable increased reliability and design simplification in weapons of comparable explosive yield is, in my view, a very appropriate consideration, which may well result in the ability to maintain still smaller future stockpiles supported by a still smaller future weapons complex. But, as other legislators have suggested and as I noted in the last paragraph, I agree that a study of the complete role of the RRW in the Nation's nuclear deterrent is appropriate. That study must involve far greater resources than those involved in the House report language. Furthermore, Congress will have many opportunities to review and finalize any decision for actual deployment of the RRW, but the funds proposed for investment in the RRW now should provide the detailed data to underpin any future congressional decision to shift portions of our deterrent to that design. But far beyond the RRW debate, with or without any RRW, stockpile stewardship is absolutely vital to our national security. As long as this Nation requires a nuclear deterrent in our defense or in support of our allies, we must maintain the skills and infrastructure that support the viability of that stockpile. That must include both trained people and the facilities to enable their work to proceed. Th House bill does harm to the Stockpile Stewardship Program. It cuts all funding for the new CMRR facility, which would replace the present facility, which will be inoperable after 2010. Without a new facility, our Nation will not be able to support the pit mission, which is a single point failure in the complex. Without a viable pit capability, the U.S. nuclear deterrent is vulnerable. The House bill cuts the Nuclear Material Safeguard and Security Upgrade, required to meet the Design Basis Threat around the key nuclear facilities that contain special nuclear material; it would cut stockpile services, the foundation of the production capability for our Nation; it would cut almost in half our pit mission, the critical component of our nuclear deterrent systems; it would cut funding for the repair and elimination of old and unused facilities that now drain funds from required new facilities; it would cripple advanced computing, the key to science-based stockpile stewardship; force the shutdown of LANSCE, the accelerator needed for a variety of research; and, cut the Z machine, another component of our nonphysical testing regime. I urge all my colleagues to attend to this debate as it moves through the House and to markup in subcommittee next week on the Senate side. Implementing and funding a new strategic policy after extensive debate is intelligent; defunding critical parts of our present strategy without a clear new path in view poses serious risks to our national security. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, if it is in order or appropriate, I ask unanimous consent, to establish my position following Senator Byrd, when he is finished, that the Senator from New Mexico will be recognized for his comments.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, is it appropriate for the Senator from New Mexico to speak now?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have a few remarks as ranking member of the committee. I am going to speak first in favor of amendment 1628, the Bunning amendment, with reference to coal to liquids. Later on today--later on today, Senator Byrd--and I don't say this because you need to be on the floor or anything like that, but later in the day, when some other people have finished speaking in favor of this amendment, I will speak against your amendment and be very specific and precise as to why. I do say to you and your very excellent staff that I think you will be interested in my reasoning, because I am not trying to be vindictive or pick one over another, but I think your amendment, when we finish talking about it, you ought to be worried about whether you have set standards in it that will never commit coal to be turned to liquids.

Mr. DOMENICI. I think you have done that, by mistake or otherwise. The environmental requirements are too high for it to be achieved. So the money can be used for things other than coal to liquid. That is what it will go for over time, because you cannot achieve the environmental standards. I don't know how I can do it later, but I will talk with you seriously about it. For now I am going to speak to the Bunning amendment, and later I will do that other one, and if I have to do it in writing, because of my great admiration for Senator Byrd, I will write it up and show it to you, because I do not think you are going to get coal to liquid the way someone has drawn the standards for you. I do not know who drew those. I rise today, in the absence of Senator Bunning--I hope everyone in the Senate and those who are wondering why this distinguished Senator, who is so strongly in favor of this coal to liquids, is not here, let's make sure everybody knows that what is going on right now is a very important aspect of this energy bill. It is the tax portion, and Senator Bunning is on the Finance Committee. They are writing the tax portion, Senator Byrd. So Senator Bunning can't be here because he is there writing this giant tax provision that is going to be affixed to this bill. First, I ask unanimous consent that the letter Senator Bunning and I received this morning in support of this amendment that we have be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Now I would look to repeat once again my opposition to the Tester-Bingaman amendment on coal to liquid fuels. I believe it does little to advance the domestic coal to liquid fuels industry, and could, in fact, harm that effort. But I will return to the floor later today and speak to it in more detail. I wish to provide some context for my colleagues as we move forward to vote this afternoon on the issue of coal to liquids, because it is so important for our country that we create a situation which will generate incentives so those who will invest money and try innovative technologies will do so for coal to liquid. We have an abundance of coal. We have an abundance of need for liquefied coal. We have a lot of people who do not want to see this happen because they are fearful of the environmental consequences of this transition. First, we must increase our national energy security by decreasing our reliance on foreign resources of crude oil. Second, we must ensure that the fuels available to American consumers are affordable. Third, we must seek to improve the environmental performance of the energy resources we consume. I believe coal to liquid fuels will allow us to accomplish all three goals, and that the Bunning amendment puts us on the right path to get there. In terms of the opportunities for increased energy security that are created by coal to liquids, the case to be made is a convincing one. Our country accounts for 26 percent of the world's proven reserves, 26 percent of the coal. We have enough coal right here in America to meet our needs for more than 200 years. In every authoritative forecast of domestic and world energy consumption, coal use is projected to increase, not decrease. No matter what people say, you know they don't want coal because it is not clean, every projection says there will be more coal used, not less, in the next 10, 20, 30 years. What we have to do is be sure that since we have so much in America, we are pushing that and pursuing that with a hand on the accelerator, that makes sure what we come out with is a fuel that is clean enough to sustain itself among the fuels we are permitted to use, where it is as good as any we are promoting for the American people for their future. Here in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, we often talk about our Nation's increasing reliance on foreign sources of crude oil. We have included provisions in this bill that represent significant progress toward reversing this trend. I believe we should go further, however, and make better use of coal as our most abundant, secure, and affordable resource. The facts in support of coal to liquid as a path to greater energy security don't only rely on the sheer abundance of this resource within our borders. It is because of this secure supply, but also due to the characteristics of coal to liquids as a fuel that the Department of Defense has undertaken an aggressive program to test, certify, and ultimately transition to meeting much of their demand with coal to liquid alternatives. I want to repeat what I have just said about the fact that we are so abundantly blessed, and it is here and it is ours, and it is to be used by us. Because of this, the Department of Defense has undertaken an aggressive program to certify, ultimately to test and certify, to meet much of their demand with coal to liquid alternatives. Last year the Air Force went through over 3 billion gallons of aviation fuel. That amount represents more than half of the fossil fuels consumed by the Federal Government. That is amazing. Half of all the fossil fuels consumed by the Federal Government was the 3 billion gallons of aviation fuel. The goal of the Air Force is to certify their entire fleet by 2010, with a 50-50 mix of jet fuel with coal to liquid fuels and meet 50 percent of their demand for fuels with coal to liquids by the year 2016. We must be encouraging progress along these lines, and the Bunning amendment is a step in the right direction. Coal is affordable. If we consider historic price trends, based on nominal dollars per million Btu's between 1980 and 2005, the cost of petroleum fluctuated between $6 and $16; natural gas fluctuated between $2 and $10; retail electricity fluctuated between $14 and $24; and coal between $1 and $3. Is that not incredible? Now, if we can find a way through our technological advances and technological genius to make more coal usable, think of that, we will inject into this stream of usable resources that are used in the place of energy a fuel that is the cheapest and most stable fuel we have. I told it to you in incredible numbers. These are accurate. Coal, between $1 and $3 during the same period that retail electricity has been $14 to $24. You got that, my good friend from Montana? Incredible. Petroleum fluctuated from $6 to $16, and here is that good old coal, $1 to $3. The problem is, we haven't figured out ways to use it for enough of the uses for which these energies I ticked off are used. Coal is secure. But it represents one of our most stable and affordable energy sources. It should be our policy to ensure that this feedstock shares an equal footing with others that are available for production of alternative fuels. Of course, we must ensure that we continue to reduce the environmental impacts associated with energy resources we consume. Here, too, the ability of coal-to-liquid fuel to achieve this significant improvement is impressive. By virtue of the process coal must undergo in producing a liquid fuel, nearly all of the criteria pollutants are removed by virtue of the processes coal must undergo in the process of liquid fuel. I am repeating it. Nearly all the criteria pollutants are removed. This represents a significant improvement relative to conventional diesel and includes a reduction in unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, particulate matter, and others. I wish to direct the attention of my colleagues to the chart behind me which represents an average of the findings on the national renewable energy laboratories and other Government entities. It shows the percentage reductions achieved in the categories I have mentioned, by using coal-to-liquid fuels instead of conventional diesel. Fuels are virtually sulfur free and dramatically reduced the emissions of other harmful pollutants. There it shows it to you right on the chart. Environmentally, what remains is a concern about the emissions of greenhouse gases. This too can be effectively addressed by coal-feeding biomass, utilizing a plant's carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery or through future efforts to achieve reliable and safe geological sequestration. Those seeking to build coal-to-liquid fuel plants believe they can meet the same standard of 20 percent better than gasoline that is included in the underlying bill for ethanol. I believe no single one of the priorities I laid out as important to the consideration of the fuels legislation should overshadow the other. Coal to liquid meets all three priorities. On this basis alone, I believe the Bunning amendment is the right approach. Now, some may ask, if this alternative fuel is such a good idea, why have we not already begun to produce it? The Department of Energy has testified that as long as the price of oil remains above roughly $50 to $60 a barrel, the first few gallons of coal-to-liquid operations will be economically viable. So as long as energy remains at that high price, from there, commercialization will further improve the competitiveness of coal-to-liquid fuels. It is a concern that oil- producing nations will increase production to lower oil prices, thereby undercutting the viability of alternative fuel production. That has created an unwillingness in the private sector to finance these plans. I believe the most proven approach to addressing concerns of alternative fuel developers is to provide a guaranteed market and assurances that the market for these fuels will remain present. This is what the Bunning amendment does. This is all it does. This is all we need to do. Specifically, and starting in the year 2016, it will require that three-quarters of a billion gallons--that is all, three- quarters of a billion gallons--are produced a year. That gets us to a level of 6 billion gallons by 2022. Now, I would remind my colleagues that biofuels are mandated at a level of 36 billion gallons that same year under the base bill. We have required that coal-to-liquid fuels have lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions that are at least 20 percent better than gasoline. That is how we make sure that greenhouse implications are not something we need to worry about. This is the same standard required of biofuels in the base text of the legislation that is currently before the Senate. We have seen the utility of a mandate in the current success of ethanol. In fact, currently the use of ethanol has even exceeded the mandates set forth in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. I believe the time has come to embark upon a similar success story in coal-to-liquid fuels. If the environmental obligations are the same as the mandate for biofuels--and the coal-to-liquids mandate is one-sixth the size of a biofuel mandate--there is no reasonable basis to vote no on the Bunning amendment. The choice given by the amendment is coal from Wyoming, West Virginia, Connecticut, and North Dakota versus oil from the Middle East or Venezuela. The choice is an easy one. I encourage colleagues to vote for amendment No. 1628. It is not a huge amount of production we are going to assure the use of, but it will push producers and inventors, technocrats and people with money that they will all be working toward a new way to do it because by that point in time, they want to be able to say: Ours is ready. Please buy it. That is what the law says you are supposed to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think I have, what, 3 minutes remaining?

Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Senator Larry Craig, for those comments. Now, let me say we have a similar situation to the one we had here in the last 2 or 3 days on the 15-percent wind mandate--RPS. We have two amendments out here, and all of a sudden we find out neither of them is going to have the votes. I am afraid what has happened here is we have two amendments and neither is going to get the votes if the Senate doesn't consider the difference between these two bills and vote for the one that is most apt to accomplish the purpose we set out in a coal-to-liquid amendment. The Tester-Bingaman amendment, No. 1614, in this Senator's opinion is only a long shot that we are going to get a lot of incentives for coal to liquid. There is $10 billion in direct loans. That is nice for everybody. We are going to have $10 billion to loan, but it is loanable on a number of things beyond coal to liquid. I predict the money is going to go to those other things because it is so hard to reach the calibration required in this amendment of coal to liquid. In the Bunning amendment, there is a long time to work on it, until 2016, and a given amount of that liquid will be purchased and they can get ready for it to be purchased. But the standard is clearly achievable because it is the same 20 percent we are going to require of ethanol and of the other programs we are achieving, and we are saying do the same thing. They are not saying that in the Montana amendment-- do the same as we have done for the other fuels. I am afraid we are not going to get there and the money is going to get loaned for the wrong things before we are finished. In competing between the two, both are going to die. I suggest that colleagues vote against the amendment of the Senator from Montana and for the one of the Senator from Kentucky if you want to get coal to liquid started.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I looked around and didn't see anyone else, so I guess I will respond. Fellow Senators, we defeated the best amendment to assure we would bring coal to liquid on board. Now what you have is an amendment that says a $10 billion direct loan program--not any other kind of loan but a direct loan--meaning the appropriators, without the White House, can approve in appropriations $10 billion. But the kicker is it does not have to go for coal-to-liquid technology, it can go for a number of technologies, and if you can't reach it in coal, you will reach it in the others. So you surely are voting for $10 billion in direct loans. You are not assuring that you are going to get coal to liquid because the standards are so high you may not be able to achieve them in the coal to liquid. That is enough for me. I thank you for giving me some time, and I urge a ``no'' vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I believe we have 8 minutes remaining in opposition, and I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. First, before the Senator from Arkansas leaves the floor, I wish to say I associate myself with her remarks as they pertain to both subjects, and in particular CERCLA, in which we both share a common interest. We have to get something done; we both know it. Those who are not letting us have a chance at getting a vote will find out sooner or later we are going to get a vote, and what is fair and reasonable will prevail. We are going to work hard to see that is done sooner rather than later. Having said that, I want to talk about the No-OPEC amendment that would permit legal action to be brought in U.S. courts by the Department of Justice on alleged price-fixing and other anticompetitive behavior affecting petroleum product pricing, production, and distribution by members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries--OPEC. While I can see at some level how this idea appeals to our sense of fairness and our frustration about oil prices, I must oppose this amendment and join with my chairman, because it is reality, not sentiment, that counts in public policy. The reality is this amendment would be unenforceable. OPEC producers would simply decide not to sell oil to us any longer. One-third of the oil used in the United States every day comes from an OPEC member. They would suffer the loss of some profits, but our entire economy could come to a grinding halt. Another problem I have with the amendment is it is a major change in international law that has potential applications beyond the oil sector. The sovereignty of nations is put into question by this amendment. I know of no instance when the United States Government sued a foreign government. I think if this amendment passes, we can expect a jittery oil market to become even more nervous. We can expect that. In reality, that means higher prices. We can expect less transparency from OPEC. In reality, that means higher prices. We can also expect less cooperation from OPEC in the future, and I think that, too, will lead to higher prices. I believe this amendment should fail, but obviously, looking at the past and looking at the propensity of Senators to vote on this amendment without looking at the realities of it, I am not too hopeful. Nonetheless, that is the extent of my remarks. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. I think Senator Bingaman yielded our time back.