Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as a Senator that not only represents a leader in renewable energy technology but also helps run the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I am pleased that we have finally reached a compromise which will allow us to extend important tax credits for renewable energy. History tells us that our most promising technologies frequently need government assistance in order to get off the ground and become economically viable. One of the most effective ways we can do this is through our Tax Code. Our Nation is facing unprecedented challenges in our financial markets and in energy. I have spent much of my time over the last few months talking about the need to build a bridge toward our energy future. I believe that bridge consists of increased oil and gas production from American lands offshore. I am pleased to note that since the time I first introduced legislation to open up lands offshore in May, there has been a sea change in both public opinion and the opinions of my colleagues on this issue. But the domestic oil and gas that I am talking about is not the entire solution. In fact, as I said, it is just a bridge to the ultimate solution, and that is the development of new technologies that will allow us to use far less oil. Those technologies include plug-in hybrid cars as well as renewable energy sources like wind, solar, biomass and geothermal. In 2005, as chairman of the Energy Committee, I was pleased to lead the Senate to pass the largest and longest tax credits for renewable energy in history. We have renewed those tax credits several times since then, but these credits are once again set to expire. Every time they get close to expiring, investments in the industry begin to dry up, and the uncertainty hurts our Nation's ability to deploy these technologies in a timely and cost-effective manner. We have struggled with the tax extensions during this Congress, because, frankly, the majority has decided to play politics with them. For the first time in history, they have demanded that they be offset through tax increases. Although the Senate voted 88-8 to extend them without those tax increases earlier this year, the House refused to consider our proposal, and the renewable energy industry has suffered as a result. At last, there appears to be a light at the end of the tunnel if the House of Representatives doesn't seek to politicize this issue once again. A reasonable, commonsense agreement to extend the tax credits for renewable energy, as well as do several other important things like mental health parity and fixing the AMT problem, has been reached. I will address those subjects in greater detail, but it should be noted that the agreement now before us does offset much of the cost of the tax credit extensions, but it does so in a way that will not harm domestic production of energy. I urge my colleagues to support this agreement in its totality, and I sincerely hope that the House will take up this entire package and pass it so that these essential tax credits will once again not be allowed to expire. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the innocent Americans who were killed in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. I ask that we commemorate the emergency responders who provided relief in the aftermath of the attacks. I also ask that we salute our brave men and women in uniform who have volunteered to serve their country in this time of need. Not to be forgotten are the families who support our troops and the families who lost loved ones on this tragic day; to them we must also pay tribute. We should continue to remember the family of Al Marchand from Alamogordo, NM, a flight attendant on United Airlines flight 175 and one of the first casualties on that horrific day. He and his family remain in my thoughts and those of my fellow New Mexicans. Since that day, many New Mexicans have volunteered to serve their country by entering the ranks of our Armed Forces. Some of these brave men and women today live with the injuries and scars they received in this fight. Sadly, some lost their lives in this war to protect our way of life. I pay tribute to Army SSG Kevin C. Roberts of Farmington, NM, and Army SGT Gary D. Willett of Alamogordo, NM, the two most recent casualties from New Mexico in the ongoing global war on terror. Seven years have passed since al-Qaida terrorists struck our homeland. Yet even after 7 years, threats against our country still exist. We must continue on with vigilance and remain dedicated to the protection and security of our great Nation. Even now, the images and shock of that day are still with me. And while I am, years later, still saddened by our losses, I am also heartened by all the heroic acts of our citizens in what was the most shocking attack on our homeland. In the months following the attacks, our brave men and women in uniform toppled the regime in Afghanistan that provided a base of operations for the terrorists who carried out the 2001 attacks. We helped that country establish a democratic government and are working with allies in NATO to bring peace and stability to a country that has spent much of its recent history in the mire of civil war. It is a dangerous mission that continues today. One of the important lessons that political and military leaders learned from the 2001 terrorist attacks was that America cannot stand by idly as threats to its security develop far from our shores. This required our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to work with friends and allies around the world and with each other to gather actionable intelligence that would help us disrupt terrorist plots at home and abroad. To help consolidate our domestic defense system, the Congress created the Department of Homeland Security. The Department of Homeland Security was organized to prevent attacks within the United States, reduce America's vulnerability to terrorism, and to minimize the damage and assist in the recovery from terrorists' attacks in America. The Congress also followed the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States--the 9/11 Commission--and passed historic legislation that reformed the agencies that make up our intelligence community. While these reforms were important and necessary, the disruption of a recent plot to hijack planes flying from London to the United States, shows us that our enemies are still bent on bringing terror into our cities. Many of my fellow citizens from the State of New Mexico have contributed to strengthening our defenses in the global war on terror. An urban rescue team traveled from New Mexico to Virginia to help recover survivors from the ruins at the Pentagon. Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories helped identify the strains of anthrax that were found in government and office buildings shortly after the terrorist attacks. They helped develop a biological threat detection system that was deployed at the 2002 Winter Olympics, the 2004 Summer Olympics, and in locations around our Nation's Capital. The National Labs have also been at the forefront in developing tools to detect and dispose of materials that can be made used as a ``dirty bomb'' or other weapon of mass destruction. Finally, the National Infrastructure and Analysis Center, NISAC, is being used to develop response strategies for government officials and first responders for large and complex crises. Over the past 7 years, we have learned a good deal more about how the attack was planned and executed, and we have spent countless man hours and resources to make our Nation safer. We can be proud of the fact that we have worked to implement most of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. We are more prepared as a nation for these types of dangers than we were prior to September 11, 2001, but this is a struggle that will not end with the same clarity and decisiveness of battles past. Therefore, even as we continue to adjust to a post-9/11 world, we must remain vigilant in our efforts to prevent such a tragedy from occurring on American soil again. I hope all Americans take time to reflect on the events of September 11, 2001, honor those that have fallen, and rededicate themselves for the struggle ahead.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the leader yield a moment?

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. I thank the leader.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, might I say to the Republican leader, I am here sitting down because you and the Senators on my side are doing such an excellent job of letting the American people know what has been going on. It has been a thrill to listen, because I would hate to be on the other side. It looks as if they are very anxious to make sure you don't finish your statements. They would like to take a little bit of your time. If I were in their shoes, I would too. Because the truth is, their leader changed the course for debate on energy, meaningful energy amendments, when he decided he would put all the amendments that the process would hold, he put them on so there could be none offered. That is why we are here today, because no amendments could be offered and voted on. Anybody who stands up and says we had a chance, what chance? If we would have offered something, the objection would have been: The tree is full. It is out of order. I already asked the Parliamentarian if an amendment would be in order, if I tendered an amendment to such-and-such amendment, and the Parliamentarian said: You couldn't offer it. So that is why none of the amendments you refer to could have been offered. There has been one area in which we can all stand up and say we legislated in the normal way and got something good, and that is the current set of rules regarding nuclear power. We now have 16 nuclear powerplant applications filed and waiting their turn to start construction. We had zero when we started this process. We need some additions to that which are in the amendment you propose to make sure it works, to make sure this wonderful start of nuclear power for America hits the few things it still needs to be competitive. You have been denied the opportunity to discuss it. We are not talking about that, but to offer a full-fledged amendment that will require a little bit of debate and then vote. That is what we have been denied. That is why I am here saying the public is going to understand this. We should have voted on the Outer Continental Shelf, opening it, with amendment and full debate. We can't do it because they won't let us. It is that simple.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I heard the leader's comments about Gregory. I just want to say I am aware of the situation. I feel the same way the majority leader feels. I thank him so much for his graciousness toward Bob and his wife. I know how tough it is on them. We don't know it until something like that happens, but that is a very young, wonderful boy who died. Bob is a wonderful man. Everybody who knows him knows he is a dedicated, devoted father. It is just pathetic that this happened. I join the majority leader in every way in extending my most sincere regrets and hope and pray that the best will come of this. I know that sounds impossible, but at least we can ask for the best and that the Lord consider them and be merciful to them.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, as I understand it, time now inures to the Senate Republicans for--is it a half hour?

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I am here to lead off for the Republicans. There are two others. Senator Brownback is here, and there may be another Senator, Senator Allard. I say to them, I am only going to make a 2-minute or 3-minute statement and then yield to whoever wishes to go first. I would like them to hear what I say. Yesterday, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, issued what I believe to be a very telling and extraordinary statement. He said: It became clear that an attempt to add language to the supplemental---- That is the supplemental appropriations---- repealing the two-decade-old ban on offshore oil and gas drilling would be successful, resulting in the necessity of having to produce 60 votes on the Senate floor to strip the repeal. And so for that reason, the markup in the Senate Appropriations Committee on two important bills that fund the government was canceled. I will say that not only does this statement contradict claims of the majority about why the markup was canceled, it also crystallizes exactly why the last 9 days in the Senate have resulted in absolutely nothing. The majority is afraid of allowing the Senate to vote on increasing American production. They are afraid to let that happen because a vote just might yield results. We have spent 9 days debating this bill. During this time, we could have considered dozens of amendments, just as we did on the energy legislation in 2005 and 2007, and without a doubt, because the majority leader has taken sole control over the process, we have been held to zero votes. So zero votes, I say to my fellow Americans, cannot yield results. When you have no votes, you cannot accomplish anything. That means you cannot add to the offshore reserve that can be made available for oil and gas production. It remains as is, no matter how much is there, no matter how much we could end up drilling for so the American people could look out and say: By producing our own, we don't have to waste all our money sending it overseas, and the price might come down. My last observation before I yield to my good friends is that I continue to hear comments from the other side that say we should not be drilling because all we say is drill, drill, drill, and that is the only thing, and we don't need to do that; we need alternatives. We can have all the alternatives we would like--and I am surely in favor--but we are going to be using crude oil or something much like crude oil for at least a generation--that means 20 years minimum-- because we cannot get off crude oil any faster. The oil products we use for our cars, our trucks, and our airplanes we cannot change over fast enough, so we have to use oil. And if we don't produce more of our own, we all know what we are going to do is buy from others and continue to send the money overseas. It is not just drilling because we want to drill, drill, drill; it is drilling because we don't have enough oil. And if we find more, we import less. That should be good, and the American people sense it is good. That is why so many of them have said let's open the offshore for drilling. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I have not seen such a thing. In fact, I have said--not as direct as this, but I have said that in 36 years being a Senator, through thick and thin and bills I have managed, bills I have amended, whatever kinds, I have never seen anything where such a simple proposition--can we open lands that we own so they can be drilled, yes or no--I have never seen where it takes 10 days and they waste 10 days of time and still say no. I have never heard of that. Yet the majority, the leader of the Appropriations Committee says in the Appropriations Committee there are enough votes to end the offshore hindrance that has been there, it says, for two decades or three decades. If the amendments do that, they are awfully scared, right? Maybe that is why we didn't get the vote. I think it is other things. I don't think Members on that side wanted to vote, win or lose. They didn't want to vote. Now the American people can judge. That is how I see it. They can judge what happened and why.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Colorado, and I will add one supplement to it because he knows this and maybe we will just say it together here. I did devote 10 years, with three or four experts, to seeing if we could bring nuclear power back to life in America, instead of leaving it dead, for others to use it as we sit around having invented it and wondering what is happening. I did work on it for 10 years, and then when we did our big bill, we put in provisions that brought it back to life. That does make you feel good. You don't do that alone. We never had a single vote, I say to my friend from Colorado, not one vote was taken on any of the bills to try to negate the provisions we put in for nuclear power. One would have thought 5 years ago it would be the most contentious issue we could have brought to the floor. In that big Energy bill, there was a whole chapter on nuclear power. Nobody sought to amend it, change it, anything. That was really a credit to the Senators who worked so hard on nuclear power, and the Senator was one of them. Senator Allard has always said he has been proud of it. I don't know about the Senator from Kansas, but I assume so. He has a good brain, and if you have a good brain and you are a reasonable legislator, you couldn't be against nuclear. You just had to be one of these fringe people against everything, scared because we had an accident once. If you are scared because you had an accident once, you would not get up in the morning. That is what the doctor told my mother. She didn't want me to get out of bed because I had a bad knee. The doctor said: The best thing to do if you don't want him to get hurt is you be his maid. He can stay in bed, and you can serve him food for 25 years. Of course, he won't amount to anything. And that is true. I am talking on. It is getting close to the end of the day. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. There are 16 applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as of the day before yesterday--16--for new nuclear powerplants; in some cases, two plants at one site, both construction and design applications. We had zero the day we adopted the new Energy bill. For once it seems as if we did something right; doesn't it?

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DOMENICI. Before I leave, I want to say to the Senator from Colorado, who is standing here patiently, that he might recall that the Senator from New Mexico went up and visited Colorado and Utah to see the oil shale before we had the big bill, where we put everything together.

Mr. DOMENICI. I was prompted to do that by you, to find out why we weren't doing anything with that shale. We found out that we didn't have any leasing laws that permitted it. I recall it was at your instigation that we put the first laws in the energy impact bill, the big bill, allowing leases for research and development. That is what has brought the development they are all worried about. It is a research and development lease. Now they don't want to have any, as you put it, rules or regulations, so they can stop it dead after we got a good start. We understood that Shell Oil was ready to try a new process. They were going to spend more than a few billion dollars on it, and we found that out and said: Well, we ought to at least give them a chance. And we did, thanks to you. But now they won't let us vote on getting rid of the moratorium, so that is dead in the water too--that great big resource. So I thank you.

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOMENICI. I note that you just used a word a minute ago-- ``bridge.'' I think you have heard me speak of the bridge. You see, the bridge is how you are going to get from where you are now, with an economy that is using hydrocarbons to move itself, to do all kinds of things; how we are going to get from there to an economy that has no more of that. That is a bridge. Most interesting, the bridge is going to be crude oil because the only way you can get there is to stay alive, to have an economy, to produce, to get things done. And to get across that bridge you have to have crude oil because there is nothing else to get you there. You cannot put everything in parking lots and in abeyance until you find what is on the other side of the bridge. The truth is, we have to produce crude oil for perhaps a decade. You said 10, 15, 20 years. That is my guess. Even if all these things work, the automobile where you can turn it on with a switch, everything that we can do, we are still going to be, what I say, stuck in the mud--the oil mud. Whether people like it or not, Americans have it right. They are saying drill some more, they are not saying drill less. Six months ago, everybody was afraid of the word. Now they are not afraid of it because people understand if you have more of that stuff called oil you might pay less. Costs might come down. I thank the Senator for his understanding, and I am pleased to be with him.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, during the previous session I introduced legislation to address the funding of Indian water rights claims that are of utmost importance in the west, and in particular, within the State of New Mexico. Since that time many parties have met for countless hours in New Mexico and here in Washington to address how these claims could be resolved and finally settled. Rather than spend countless hours in litigation, these groups have sat down and worked through these issues in a very productive manner. As a result, today I am pleased to come before you to introduce, on behalf of myself and Senator Bingaman, the Aamodt and Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 2008. This legislation will resolve these long-standing Indian water rights claims within New Mexico and authorize a source of Federal funding to resolve them. The Aamodt litigation in New Mexico was filed in 1966 and is the longest-standing litigation in the Federal judiciary system. The hard work that each party put into the settlement process demonstrates that negotiated settlements, with multiple parties working together, can best determine how to allocate scarce water supplies among diverse parties in a way that does not curtail existing uses. This bill will result in additional economic development and improved health benefits within these communities. The resolution of these claims will not only improve the lives of many within these communities by providing a safe and reliable water supply, but will also improve the ability of New Mexico to effectively undertake water rights planning in the near and long-term future. As I have stated before, the costs of not settling these claims in New Mexico are dire. The legislation before us will ensure that our obligations to these communities are met and that they will have safe and reliable water systems. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, during the previous session I introduced legislation to address the funding of Indian water rights claims that are of utmost importance in the west, and in particular, within the State of New Mexico. Since that time many parties have met for countless hours in New Mexico and here in Washington to address how these claims could be resolved and finally settled. Rather than spend countless hours in litigation, these groups have sat down and worked through these issues in a very productive manner. As a result, today I am pleased to come before you to introduce, on behalf of myself and Senator Bingaman, the Aamodt and Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 2008. This legislation will resolve these long-standing Indian water rights claims within New Mexico and authorize a source of Federal funding to resolve them. The Aamodt litigation in New Mexico was filed in 1966 and is the longest-standing litigation in the Federal judiciary system. The hard work that each party put into the settlement process demonstrates that negotiated settlements, with multiple parties working together, can best determine how to allocate scarce water supplies among diverse parties in a way that does not curtail existing uses. This bill will result in additional economic development and improved health benefits within these communities. The resolution of these claims will not only improve the lives of many within these communities by providing a safe and reliable water supply, but will also improve the ability of New Mexico to effectively undertake water rights planning in the near and long-term future. As I have stated before, the costs of not settling these claims in New Mexico are dire. The legislation before us will ensure that our obligations to these communities are met and that they will have safe and reliable water systems. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce a resolution to recognize the achievement of a major scientific milestone by two great American institutions--Los Alamos National Laboratory and IBM--to build the first supercomputer to break the ``petaflop'' barrier in supercomputing. A petaflop is a million, billion calculations per second. Think of that--a million, billion calculations in a second. If every human being on the planet were given a calculator it would take 50 years to do what this supercomputer can do in a single day. This supercomputer is called the ``Roadrunner'' and was developed cooperatively by the Los Alamos National Laboratory and IBM--two American institutions which have a long and prestigious history in delivering major technological breakthroughs for the Nation. The Roadrunner is the fastest computer in the world. It more than doubles the previous record. We can be very proud this achievement for American science and technology. It highlights the essential role our national laboratories play in advancing the state of the art for high performance computing--a vital component of our national security and scientific leadership. Every year, computing power increases at a pace set by America's national laboratories. From developing advanced computing architectures and algorithms, to creating effective means for storing and viewing the enormous amounts of data generated by these machines, the laboratories have made high performance computing a reality. These applications go well beyond security and basic science. The laboratories have worked hard to transition these capabilities to academia and industry, simulating complex industrial processes and their environmental impact, including global climate change. Collaborations with the private sector have also driven down the cost, so that now high performance does not mean high expense. This has had an enormous impact, placing advanced computing within reach of an ever wider circle of users. These achievements did not happen by accident. They required planning, commitment and follow through. Indeed, the Roadrunner began as an earmark in the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill. Congress must ensure that the world class simulation capabilities within the complex are maintained and investments are made to drive future innovation. We must continue to raise the bar, giving our best and brightest new goals to work toward, ensuring that America will retain its technical leadership in advanced computing. I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing Los Alamos National Laboratory and IBM for reaching yet another milestone in supercomputing. In particular, I want to commend the members of the Roadrunner team. From Los Alamos: Sriram Swaninarayan, Paul Henning, Adolfy Hoisie, Guy Dimonte, Darren Kerbyson, Brian Albright, Tim Germann, Ben Bergen, Ken Koch, Manuel Vigil, Randal Rheinheimer, Parks Fields, John Cerutti. From IBM: Nicholas Donofrio, Cornell Wright, William Zeitler, David Turek, Don Grice, and Catherine Crawford. Participants from academia included Steven Zuker of Yale University and James DiCarlo from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Congratulations on a job well done. Top 10 Fastest Supercomputers in the World (June 2008). Name, Location, Speed (TFlop/s). 1. Roadrunner (IBM), Los Alamos, NM (NNSA), 1026.0. 2. Blue Gene/L (IBM), Livermore, CA (NNSA), 478.2. 3. Blue Gene/P (IBM), Argonne, IL (DOE), 450.3. 4. Ranger (Sun), Univ. of Texas, TX, 326.0. 5. Jaguar (Cray), Oak Ridge, TN (DOE), 205.0. 6. JUGENE (IBM), Juelich, Germany, 180.0. 7. Encanto (SGI), NMCAC, NM, 133.2. 8. EKA (HP), TATA SONS, India, 132.8. 9. Blue Gene/P (IBM), IDRIS, France, 112.5. 10. SGI Altix ICE (SGI), Total Exploration, France, 106.1.

Mr. DOMENICI

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry: Am I correct in assuming that I have 20 minutes?

Mr. DOMENICI. I would think, if we could start using these words--we need a bridge to the future--and then we got together and thought about that and then said, What is that? Remember a while ago I told you how long it would take in the city of Austin before you would get all those cars that are using oil off the streets?

Mr. DOMENICI. Sure.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand that time is allotted to the two Senators, the senior Senator from Tennessee and Senator Pete Domenici, the old man who is leaving the Senate soon. I wish to tell the Senator from Tennessee, our new chairman of our Republican conference, what a great job he has done as we have considered whether we should produce more oil for Americans from American-owned resources. That has been an exciting 8\1/2\ days. What disturbs the Senator from New Mexico is, even with the explanations the Senator from Tennessee and others have made, people the Senator has read about, the things he told us about in terms of what we ought to be finding and saving, we ought to be producing and conserving, and we ought to use our own resources, we have not been able to get meaningful amendments offered in the Senate to have a vote. I have come to the conclusion that there are some--perhaps more than I ever imagined--Democrats on the other side of the aisle who don't want to produce more American oil. I really didn't think that was possible, but I have come to that conclusion. I am not saying everybody. There are some who are working very hard on new ideas on how we can produce. But I believe the majority leader has been bugged, bothered, and pursued by those who don't want to let a vote because they don't want to produce any oil on the offshores of America even though there is a lot of it there and it belongs to us. Having said that, I wonder if the Senator will have a comment about statements that have been made by a couple of Democrats on the other side of the aisle who have said that there are Republicans who just want to drill, that is all they want to do, is drill for more oil. Do you know of any Republicans--you know the Republicans pretty well; that is why you have your job as chairman--do you know of any Republicans whose concern is nothing other than we drill for more oil?

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.