Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I wish to say to the Senator, I congratulate you on this amendment, the scope of the amendment and the rationale. It is something we need. From my standpoint, I am in favor of it. It will not require a rollcall vote. Hopefully, we can dispose of your amendment very shortly. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, because our very economic security is dependent on the availability of electricity, our Nation must reinforce its electric power transmission system. In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress sought to establish national interest electric transmission corridors to make America's electricity grid more secure by ensuring there is enough capacity in essential areas. In EPAct, we directed the Energy Department to identify regions where electricity reliability is threatened by transmission congestion and to designate national corridors. Congress further provided FERC with ``backstop siting'' authority for the construction of transmission facilities if the states involved are unable or unwilling to do so. Just recently, DOE unveiled the following two draft corridor designations: the Mid-Atlantic Area National Corridor, which runs from New York to Northern Virginia; and the Southwest Area National Corridor, which includes counties in southern California, western Arizona, and southern Nevada. The amendment offered by Senator Thune would authorize the Energy Department, in designating national corridors, to consider transmission constraints or congestion that increases costs to consumers; limits resource options to serve load growth; or limits access to sources of clean energy, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass. Now we just had a debate on the Senate floor last week on the use of renewable energy sources. We all support the increased use of renewable energy sources but there is often heated opposition to the siting of transmission facilities. This is not in the national interest. I don't see how you can support a mandate for more renewable energy sources but then oppose the designation of national corridors to get the transmission built that is needed to move these renewable energy sources to market. Yet as we consider this amendment to expand the work we began in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, there are those in the House that are attempting to block the needed funding to implement the national corridors designations out of NIMBY concerns. Again, such attempts are not in the national interest. The siting provision in EPAct literally provides a light at the end of the tunnel for parts of the country where the electricity grid is at risk due to congestion. The Thune amendment simply seeks to allow national corridor designations to ensure the necessary transmission to access clean sources of energy like wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass. I ask my colleagues to support the Thune amendment. I congratulate Senator Thune for his amendment because it is just a rational extension and expansion of what we did in the Energy Policy Act. I happened to be part of that Energy Policy Act. As a matter of fact, I think I can say that for years before we got together and Senator Bingaman and I were carrying it, we couldn't get it through. But we did get it through. I believe we got it through because it was high time the United States decided that for most matters we could stand on States rights, but every now and then something percolated up that demanded that we take a serious look at a greater interest of the Federal Government. That is all we are talking about here. If the development of our electric grid ran into situations where you couldn't go through because of the obstinacy of a State to your moving from one State to another or one property owner had a transmission line totally locked up, you could back that up with the Federal Government ending up saying: It has to go because it is a big national interest. You are just kind of piggybacking on that national interest already found in that law as we passed it. Therefore, I believe it is appropriate that we pass this amendment tonight. I yield back any time I have. I wonder if Senator Bingaman would so we could vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time do we have in opposition?

Mr. DOMENICI. Well, I want to take 5 minutes and yield the rest of it to Senator Bingaman. But I do want to make a point that this country is going to need large amounts of natural gas over the next 15, 20, 30 years. One source is probably going to be LNG, liquefied natural gas. It is terribly important for our country that we have this available when we need it, and if the price is right that we be able to locate sites that serve the United States. Now, frankly, when we passed the Energy Policy Act, there were three or four things that were very much on the minds of those who wanted to deliver energy to the United States. I say to my new friend, the new Senator from Maryland, one of those at that particular time happened to be liquefied natural gas and those around the world who were trying to figure out whether the United States was going to be a place where they could sell liquefied natural gas or was it going to be a place where they could be held up forever. We had to decide, as we worked through this very gigantic, gargantuan bill, what we were going to do about the concern on the part of the LNG market that if you left the law as it was, every State's Governor would have a veto power, and in some instances mayors would have veto power over an LNG site. We decided that would not work. Now, we did not take away everyone's power. As a matter of fact, we encouraged cooperation. We encouraged the involvement of the States and the local governments with the LNG company, and we said only when you get to the point where you cannot reach agreement does the Federal Government step in, and then they backstop it and make a determination, through FERC, what is in the interest of our Nation, what is fair, and what is right. Frankly, I don't know the facts about the Maryland plant, and I do not believe we need to know them on the floor of the Senate, nor do the Senators. What we need to know is we have a good law now on the books that gives involvement and participation to everyone who ought to have that, but it does not give a Governor veto power over the site. I correct any implications or direct statements by my good friend, the new Senator from Maryland. There is no question the amendment which they offer seeks veto power on the part of the Governor, gives the ultimate control to the Governor of the State as to what happens to an application. I do not believe that is what we wanted when we overwhelmingly--as the occupant of the chair has said so many times--in a bipartisan manner passed the Energy Policy Act. I do not think we intended the first time we had a problem that somebody would come to the floor and change that wonderful law that was clear as could be, that when it came to locating LNG plants, we were not going to revert back to where we were and take the power away from FERC, the Federal agency in charge, and reinvest it in the Governor of the State. We all know how this happens. People get disgruntled about a site, they go to the Governor, we immediately have a political tussle, and, all of a sudden, the Governor, talking to 500, 600, 700 people at a meeting, cannot get out of it, and that puts the Governor in the position where he has to say: I am not going to let that happen. We saw that over the years. We saw it in other areas. We were bold enough in that Energy Act to change that situation, not only when it came to this kind of LNG siting but we also changed it--just a while ago we were talking about it as it pertained to the grid--the occupant of the chair might recall, where we said, if the grid gets clogged up, where you cannot get things done, we are going to actually put power in the Federal Government to use its public powers to take that gorging and dislodge it through eminent domain. We did that, and we did other things, all in the interest of what we knew was true; that you ultimately had to let energy sources and energy grids and energy plants--you had to let the Federal Government have the last say, especially where arbitrariness on the part of the local unit was entering the picture and they wanted their way, their way under all circumstances. I thank the Chair for being aware that I am over a moment or so, but I am now finished and have left most of the time for Senator Bingaman because I think he will do a good job, and maybe we will not have to have a vote. But if we do, I urge Senators not to change the law they just voted for 77 strong. Do not change it the first time we get an amendment of this nature coming before us. Leave it there for a try. Let it get tried. It is going to work. It is not going to hurt anybody. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to say that I wholeheartedly agree with Senator Bingaman. Just 2\1/2\ years ago, we decided we needed LNG so much in the future that we wanted an orderly process that did not give the Governors of each State the right to veto. This one is even broader. This gives Governors a 15-mile radius around the opportunity to veto. I don't think we should change the law so quickly. I think we should leave it alone for a few years.

Mr. DOMENICI. I object.

Mr. DOMENICI

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

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I can propose an amendment numbered 1628.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, as we resume consideration of the Energy bill, I would note to my colleagues that we have about 120 amendments filed, and we have 10 amendments pending. Additionally, I understand we have a number of Members who wish to offer other amendments. I encourage people to come forward and file amendments if they wish to do so. I understand the Finance Committee is working on a major energy package over the next couple of days. I have some concerns about what is rumored to be in that package, but I will reserve my comments and judgment until the Senate sees the full product. Additionally, we have a number of large items that I am sure Senator Bingaman concurs that we have to resolve over the next few days, including the Bingaman RPS amendment, a potential CAFE amendment to the fuel economy language currently in the base text, as well as the debate on the issue of coal- to-liquids, which received a great deal of attention and debate in the Energy Committee and I am sure will receive the same here. This bill does some great things in the area of biofuels, and it is important to the Senate that we take action on improving the fuel efficiency of our vehicles. This is a win for the diversification of fuels we use, and it is a win for saving energy, but we must act to increase our domestic energy supply at the same time, especially if we can and especially if we have energy. That is one of the reasons I worked so hard to pass the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, and that is one reason I support the Bunning amendment which I have introduced which will be before the Senate on coal-to-liquids. While Senator Bunning could not be here this afternoon, we all know of his advocacy on this issue. It is important that the topic of coal-to-liquids be addressed before the Senate. I understand that, provided there is time--and I think there certainly should be--Senator Bunning will speak on this amendment tomorrow, as I indicated, if at all possible. We have developed this legislation. This is not the first time the issue of coal-to-liquids has come up. On May 2, we considered an amendment in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to provide identical treatment of coal-to-liquids as that provided for cellulosic ethanol. Senator Thomas, from Wyoming, and Senator Bunning offered an amendment to mandate 21 billion gallons of coal-to-liquids by the year 2022. I supported them. But the amendment failed by the slimmest of margins--a 12-to-11 vote in the committee. Since that markup, for over a month there has been an effort to reach out and negotiate a middle ground on the issue of coal-to-liquids. I regret that those discussions ended without agreement. Let me be clear: I do not support the Tester amendment that may come up before the Senate shortly. I oppose the amendment for a number of reasons we will discuss when these proposals are more fully debated. The Bunning-Domenici amendment draws wide support from those in the field who will be doing the work necessary to bring those domestic fuels to market. This Bunning-Domenici amendment will establish and mandate for just 6 billion gallons of coal-to-liquid fuel by 2022, a very large difference in terms of the mandated amount, much smaller--22 before and 6 now in the amendment before us. That is a reduction of 15 billion gallons from what we offered in the committee. This mandate starts in 2016, which is the same year the cellulosic energy mandate begins in the base bill. Importantly, this mandate requires that greenhouse gas emissions from coal-to-liquid fuels be 20 percent better than gasoline--20 percent better than gasoline. Again, that is the same standard as appears in the base bill for cellulosic ethanol. In other words, you can't make the claim that this 6 billion which will be there, this 6 billion gallons, will harm the atmosphere or greenhouse gases any more than cellulosic ethanol, which we are all advocating, and there is so much pressure to get it done and so much almost awe that it is going to get done and how great it will be. It will have the same effect as this is going to have on the air. There are many ways to provide the incentives for these alternative fuels. One that has been proven to work is to provide a reliable market for the products. We have experience with this approach on ethanol, and I have not been presented with a reason to believe it will not work for other fuels. In terms of the merits of coal-to-liquid fuels, there are many. Unlike cellulosic ethanol, this has been commercially demonstrated in other countries; now we need to do it here in the United States. Unlike cellulosic ethanol, it can be moved in existing pipes and used in existing vehicles. Coal-to-liquid fuel will reduce the emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, particulate matter, and other pollutants when compared to conventional fuels, and coal-to-liquid fuel will create an investment in rural communities, good-paying jobs for Americans, and cheaper energy for American consumers. As we move forward with the consideration of coal-to-liquid amendments, there are some points about this particular one I would like to point out. First, the program is entirely separate and will not compete with the biofuels program. Second, the mandate is only one-sixth the size of the renewable fuel mandate. Third, only coal-to-liquid fuel that can meet the same life cycle greenhouse standard as biofuels will be eligible for the program. There will be much we disagree on as we consider the issue more fully. Many will say: We cannot do coal-to-liquids unless we require carbon sequestration. We should remember that we do not require carbon sequestration for ethanol in this bill. For carbon sequestration, I am concerned about efforts to require it and, after all, we have concluded in the base text of the bill before us that carbon sequestration requires more research and development. That is true. I will agree that requiring the same greenhouse gas standards for all fuels is a reasonable approach. That is why we have included the same language in our amendment. The amendment is quite different from the one that was received in the Energy Committee on May 2. It has been written to address the concerns that arose then and have arisen since. This amendment represents an effort to ensure that we provide a stable market for the first coal-to-liquids plants, and if that happens, there is no question that coal, one of Americas most abundant fuels, will be on its way to being a first-rate source of fuel for the automobile and related kinds of activities. There is broad and growing support for reducing our reliance on foreign sources of energy in affordable and environmentally sound ways. Coal is our most abundant and affordable fossil resource. I do believe that technology will continue to make coal cleaner and that this amendment further establishes the path forward. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Martinez be added as a cosponsor of the Bunning amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I understand Senator Bingaman and I are going to each call up an amendment, and I think it is in order that we have agreed that I would go first and he second, and then we will arrange everything with unanimous consent.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, one unresolved issue that is of grave concern to many in the west is unresolved Indian water rights claims. Over the past century, many parties have sought to determine the extent of Indian water rights in the courts. However, litigation to determine Indian water rights has failed in many respects for both Indians and non-Indians. Unresolved Indian water rights claims are of particular concern in New Mexico which has 23 Indian tribes. As with all litigation, the outcome is uncertain and one party generally loses. If the Indian nations were to receive a large award by the courts and those water rights were exercised, the senior priority date of many Indian water rights claims have the potential to displace existing users. This means that non-Indian towns, farmers, and industry could ultimately have their water supply cut off. However, in many instances, even if an Indian nation were to receive a water windfall from the courts, many of the Indian nations lack the water infrastructure to make use of the water awarded by the courts. Additionally, Indian water rights litigation often takes decades. For example, the Aamodt litigation in New Mexico was filed in 1966 and is the longest standing litigation in the federal judiciary. Finally, the numerous unresolved Indian water rights claims in many western states such as New Mexico impair our ability to effectively undertake water rights planning as we are unsure of the award that the Indian nations will receive. Over the past two decades, many parties have pursued negotiated settlements in lieu of litigation, an approach beneficial to all parties involved. In negotiated settlements, multiple parties get together and determine how best to allocate water among Indians and non-Indians in a way that does not curtail existing uses. Many of the settlements also contain authorization for the Federal Government to provide funding to the Indian nations so that the Indian nations involved can make use of the water they are awarded under the terms of the settlement, resulting in economic development and health benefits on the Indian nation. Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne and his staff deserve a great deal of credit for trying to advance the New Mexico Indian water rights settlements. However, current Federal budgets cannot accommodate the upcoming New Mexico settlements. This is troublesome for several reasons. First, it impairs Congress's ability to resolve Indian water rights claims in a way that keeps all water users whole. Additionally, many of the settlements require the construction of water infrastructure benefiting an Indian nation. Lack of a steady stream of Federal money results in water projects that take far longer to construct, costing taxpayers significantly more money in the long run. Today I introduce the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund Act of 2007. This bill would establish a reliable source of Federal funding to resolve Indian water rights claims in New Mexico. The bill provides that, over the next 10 years, 30 percent of the revenues generated in New Mexico that would otherwise be deposited in the reclamation fund would instead be used to fund Indian water rights settlements. The amounts deposited in this fund could be used to pay for the Aamodt, Abeyta, and Navajo Indian water rights settlements after the parties resolve outstanding issues and the settlements are signed into law. It is important to note that the fund created by this legislation would allow us to fund New Mexico Indian water rights settlements without compromising the sustainability of the reclamation fund. The consequences of not settling outstanding Indian water rights claims in New Mexico are dire. The legislation I introduce today would remove the main impediment to the resolution of Indian water rights settlement. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, one unresolved issue that is of grave concern to many in the west is unresolved Indian water rights claims. Over the past century, many parties have sought to determine the extent of Indian water rights in the courts. However, litigation to determine Indian water rights has failed in many respects for both Indians and non-Indians. Unresolved Indian water rights claims are of particular concern in New Mexico which has 23 Indian tribes. As with all litigation, the outcome is uncertain and one party generally loses. If the Indian nations were to receive a large award by the courts and those water rights were exercised, the senior priority date of many Indian water rights claims have the potential to displace existing users. This means that non-Indian towns, farmers, and industry could ultimately have their water supply cut off. However, in many instances, even if an Indian nation were to receive a water windfall from the courts, many of the Indian nations lack the water infrastructure to make use of the water awarded by the courts. Additionally, Indian water rights litigation often takes decades. For example, the Aamodt litigation in New Mexico was filed in 1966 and is the longest standing litigation in the federal judiciary. Finally, the numerous unresolved Indian water rights claims in many western states such as New Mexico impair our ability to effectively undertake water rights planning as we are unsure of the award that the Indian nations will receive. Over the past two decades, many parties have pursued negotiated settlements in lieu of litigation, an approach beneficial to all parties involved. In negotiated settlements, multiple parties get together and determine how best to allocate water among Indians and non-Indians in a way that does not curtail existing uses. Many of the settlements also contain authorization for the Federal Government to provide funding to the Indian nations so that the Indian nations involved can make use of the water they are awarded under the terms of the settlement, resulting in economic development and health benefits on the Indian nation. Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne and his staff deserve a great deal of credit for trying to advance the New Mexico Indian water rights settlements. However, current Federal budgets cannot accommodate the upcoming New Mexico settlements. This is troublesome for several reasons. First, it impairs Congress's ability to resolve Indian water rights claims in a way that keeps all water users whole. Additionally, many of the settlements require the construction of water infrastructure benefiting an Indian nation. Lack of a steady stream of Federal money results in water projects that take far longer to construct, costing taxpayers significantly more money in the long run. Today I introduce the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund Act of 2007. This bill would establish a reliable source of Federal funding to resolve Indian water rights claims in New Mexico. The bill provides that, over the next 10 years, 30 percent of the revenues generated in New Mexico that would otherwise be deposited in the reclamation fund would instead be used to fund Indian water rights settlements. The amounts deposited in this fund could be used to pay for the Aamodt, Abeyta, and Navajo Indian water rights settlements after the parties resolve outstanding issues and the settlements are signed into law. It is important to note that the fund created by this legislation would allow us to fund New Mexico Indian water rights settlements without compromising the sustainability of the reclamation fund. The consequences of not settling outstanding Indian water rights claims in New Mexico are dire. The legislation I introduce today would remove the main impediment to the resolution of Indian water rights settlement. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand this is all right with the other side, so we have no objection.

Mr. DOMENICI. We will be ready with ours in just 1 minute. We will offer one. We would object.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. First, let me say to my friend from Maryland, if you will wait a minute, you do not even have to leave the floor. It will not take very long. Mr. President, I ask the pending amendment be set aside so I might call up the Thune amendment, which we have agreed to.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send to the desk amendment No. 1609 on behalf of Senator Thune and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, having presented the amendment, I now ask that the Thune amendment be set aside so the next amendment may be offered by the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask for 2 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, let me say before you leave, first, I would appreciate it if you would add me to the legislation, and, second, I thank you so much for doing this, for offering this piece of legislation. That is the best we can do. We can't bring him back--we can't do much. We just hope everything will go well with his family, and this will be something that in truth indicates how much we cared for him and what a true gentleman he was--strong of will and yet very kind and decent. We want to do this in his behalf. Thank you for doing it.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. I object, Mr. President.