Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, the Senator from Tennessee is correct. Those who want to make sure our citizens have access to the great American outdoors have long advocated the principle that some of the funds from offshore oil and gas drilling should become a royalty for conservation and outdoor recreation, providing a reliable and permanent stream of funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This basic concept was proposed in 1962 by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission--also known as the Rockefeller Commission--and it was also a primary recommendation of President Reagan's Commission on Americans Outdoors in 1986. This legislation is an important first step in the right direction, one that has been 40 years in the making.

Mr. DOMENICI. No, it would not. The LWCF stateside program will continue to be eligible to receive funding in the appropriations process just as it is currently. The mandatory funding stream established under this bill would not replace appropriated funding, and does nothing to disadvantage the program in the appropriations process.

Mr. DOMENICI. I was pleased that the Senate Committee on Appropriations included $30 million for the stateside program in the fiscal year 2007 Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill. This was a significant improvement over the President's budget request and the House Interior bill, both of which zeroed out stateside for the second straight year. Still, there is room for improvement. I would share the Senator's interest in adding to the stateside funding in the Senate committee mark if appropriate offsets can be found. In fiscal year 2007, zero revenues will be allocated to stateside LWCF from this conservation royalty because it will take time for the new areas to be brought on line and begin producing. So we will need to appropriate funding in fiscal year 2007 to fill that gap.

Mr. DOMENICI

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 1 minute to ask a question.

Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, fellow Senators. First, Mr. President, and fellow Americans, for those who have watched the Senate over the last couple days, it must have been a pretty enjoyable time because Senator after Senator came to the floor-- maybe 12 or 15 versus 2 or 3 opposed--12 or 15, all positive and for something, for a change, sending a signal here in the waning days of this session before we go home for a recess when it is hot out there and the price of natural gas is going up. The people know it, and they are hearing rumors that pretty soon we are going to be importing natural gas from all over the world, where we used to be a totally self-reliant country on natural gas. We have made a mistake. In the last 17 years, every new powerplant we built--because we were frightened to death of nuclear power--we built for natural gas. We took this fantastic ingredient, this beautiful product of nature--natural gas--and we poured it into the powerplants. And we are still doing some. I did not think we were, but we are still building a couple. Rather interesting. I do not want to even insinuate by saying where, but we are building some. In the meantime, millions of American homes have done what everybody thought was right, and that was to hook on to natural gas. Then across this land we built a manufacturing base, huge in size, made up of, for example, the chemical industry. I assume the occupant of the Chair knows about industries like that. Many Senators do, and they probably have been contacted by their industries--the fertilizer industry, the plastics industry, involving thousands of workers. What raw product do they use for manufacturing so they can employ and sell products? Natural gas. So what happened? We used it up. All of a sudden, we had a big problem in the gulf and the price went through the roof. And we had some rigging and a few other things occurring that we found out about with that Houston company. But, in any event, what happened is the price of natural gas skyrocketed and the supply produced by Americans for Americans became insufficient to meet our needs, and we began to say: We are going to have to go buy natural gas around the world. What a frightening thing. We just got through this huge problem of gradual dependence upon foreign crude oil to where we are more than 60 percent dependent, and there is nothing we can do about it. We cannot produce sufficient crude oil to change that equation, the crude oil needed to run America's transportation needs. And when we complain, remember the old idea of Pogo: ``We have met the enemy and he is us.'' The transportation needs are 70 percent of the oil used. And that is your cars, ladies and gentlemen, your SUVs, the trucks and buses. That is 70 percent of the oil. Now here we grow dependent for that. And here in America we grow more and more dependent upon natural gas. And here sits--while all of this is happening--along the seaboard of America a giant sea of natural gas and crude oil which has been taken off the market by what have been commonly called moratoria or moratoriums, saying: Do not touch that because it is off the sea coast of California; do not touch that because it is off the coast of New Jersey. In this case, we have a small piece of Federal real estate. I am not going to put the maps up again today, but it is 8.3 million acres. Sounds like a lot, but, believe me, when you look at the coast, it is small. We are looking in this bill at 8.3 million acres, which we cannot put out to bid for American companies, large and small, to go drill for what is known to be there. What is known to be there? Oil: 1.2 billion barrels. What else? Natural gas, that thing I just talked about that builds an industry, that builds a manufacturing base, that keeps the price down. Right? It makes supply more rational. There sits 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in that property. Well, that does not sound like anything except it is enough energy to take care of 6 million houses for 15 years. That is pretty good if you look at that as an average American. So what we decided was: Yes, we surely, last year, passed a great energy bill--which I will talk about in a moment--but we couldn't get this one done, so let's get this one done this year for the American people. I regret to say we were moving forward with, again, locked arms with my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, to get this done when we had to break. We had to break paths because I decided to stand for the past would get us the fruits of the past, which would be nothing, so that if we did not share some of the revenue with the surrounding States, we would still get no oil and gas, we would still be in moratoria, and we would get no revenue for the Treasury and no revenue for the States. But, most importantly, that beautiful product, natural gas, and the crude oil that is there with it would still be there and nobody could touch it. So with that in mind, we worked and we worked and we worked, with the help of the great Senator, Mel Martinez, from Florida, who was courageous, and we protected his State sufficiently, I think admirably, for him to say yes. Today I understand his co-Senator said yes. Thank you, Senator. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson. He came here and said yes. Four coastal States said yes. They had been saying no more, and now we have an opportunity. We do not need to wait around and say: Let's add 20 other items for the American people. You cannot add 20 more items. They still have to go to the House. They do not have 20 items waiting around. So whatever great ideas are pending, we cannot pass them, first, because if you keep adding them, it means you will not pass this bill, and, secondly, they do not go anywhere. So let's do this one for the American people. And if this happens, it says, put that land out to the American drilling companies now, and a big portion of it will be available within a year--within a year. Now, I will respond to Senator Bingaman's points in opposition. I do believe that every point he made in opposition is refutable, and I will refute them later. But I want to say the simple fact is we had to go our own ways for one simple proposition. Both of us understood we needed to go ahead and deepwater drill this land, although with the passage of negotiations beyond the time that he and I--Senator Bingaman and I--had reached accord, we added substantial property to this arrangement. But the point of it is, we broke on the proposition of: Shall we bring a bill to the floor with no revenuesharing with the States--which I concluded will never pass; we will not get it done, and we will be right back where we were--or do we do what we have done here and say the abutting surrounding States get a portion? Now, let's get this straight: The Federal Government still gets the majority. They get 50 percent straight up of the royalty. And 12.5 percent is for the Statewide Land and Water Conservation Fund. And then 37.5 percent over time--which is not much in the beginning, but over time is substantial--is shared with the States that abut so they can say: We are sharing in the burdens while we are joining in sharing in the wealth. We believe the precedent will flow, once this is done, and we will begin to look to other States, such as the State of Virginia, perhaps the Carolinas, perhaps Georgia, et cetera, and say: What about similar arrangements later? But right now let's give the people a gift of what is theirs now by passing this measure. Now, there is one very positive thing that is happening that is big on the scene for the American people that is hard to appreciate because it takes time. That is the impact of the Energy Policy Act that is a year old this August. The energy policy bill is beginning to take hold. I regret to say the higher the price of crude oil, the more breakthroughs will occur on the part of innovators and technologists and companies that are making breakthroughs in terms of new kind of cars, new kinds of technology, because the price of crude oil is saying to them it is worth the investment and the risk in something new. So the high price is bringing on new things. But the act we passed is bringing on huge results. We are in a renaissance period on nuclear power. I wish I could come here and show you the dedication of the next plant, but that takes a while. But 25 applications have taken place since that act, 25 applications for nuclear powerplants. So the Senators who come down here and say: Why do this bill; why don't we do more things; we did more things in this huge bill we passed. We created a nuclear renaissance in the United States. Second, we have a revolution in biomass which is going to change rural areas into a more vibrant and diverse economic rural America because we are going to use farm products to fill our gasoline tanks with ethanol instead of crude oil. That is all in the Energy bill. The targets are set. The huge mandate is set. And we are rolling with 29 new plants having been built. One of our Senators implied we should not be so narrow and take just this bill. Just this bill? Just this bill is pretty much--the one we are talking about, right? It is big. It was said: We should not do this. We should do many other things. We did the other things. I am trying to tell you, we did many of them, and we probably should start with a second round next year. But if we start trying to get more instead of this, we will get nothing for the American people, nothing for natural gas supply, nothing for our consumers to rely upon in terms of bringing the price of natural gas down. And that is what I want to do and want to get done. So the Energy Policy Act did what I have described, and many more things, some of which I will describe later. But I am very proud that in the period of 12 months we will have passed an energy bill that has done all these significant things. They are moving along. Right now we are wondering about the reliability of electricity on the grid. I can tell you that in the Energy Act the studies are just about completed. Within a month to 2 months they will be ready. And they will tell us how to fix the grid so it will be totally reliable, and the exchanges between the various portions of the electricity distribution system will all be made reliable so you will not have the kind of blackouts we talk about. That is because of the Energy Act. But you cannot do it immediately. It is in the mill. That is happening, too. So when you look at it, Congress has done some important work in the energy field. Hybrid cars are coming on in large quantities because of the credit, plus the high price of crude oil. We can continue, but in a nutshell this bill is good for the people who are burdened with the high cost of natural gas, the high cost of oil. It is their property. We ought to develop it and do it now. So it has been my privilege, having served here for quite some time, to be the leader in this particular area. Of that I am very pleased, proud, and grateful. I remind everyone, while natural gas was taking a little bit of a back seat to the rising costs of energy, it has now joined a parade of increases. Today, my staff informs me that the price of natural gas reached a 5-week high, just in time for us to remind you that you better put this piece of property on the development table so that it can be rendered a productive piece which will, in fact, cause that price to continue to stop rising and to abate over time. Mr. President, I have said on a number of occasions that passing this bill is the most important thing that we can do in the short term to move toward correcting the supply and demand imbalance of natural gas. I would like to take the time to refute some of the specific criticisms made against this bill by a handful of people. First, I would tell you that if we do not develop our resources domestically, this revenue sharing question will be moot--because we will not have revenues to share. The capital will be spent overseas for foreign exploration and development and we will continue the cycle of sending our American dollars abroad for our energy sources for use here at home. The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act begins to address this problem. Now, it is argued by a few that this bill is not worth doing because the Minerals Management Service is proposing to open parts of the 181 area in its recently published 5-year plan. Critics argue that since the administration has announced intentions or plans to open parts of 181 equal to 2 million acres--containing approximately 620 billion barrels of oil and 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas--it is not worth passing this bill which opens over 8 million acres with 1.26 billion barrels of oil and almost 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Even if I were to entertain that logic as being sound, let me tell you the pitfalls of assuming that the administration lease sale will go through as planned. It starts with the very point that the critics make. In November 1996, the MMS announced and approved a 5-year plan that included an intention to offer 6 million acres known as the original lease sale 181 area for oil and gas leasing. The decision to include this area was the culmination of extensive consultation between the Federal Government and the State of Florida. However, in 2001 when the Department of the Interior went to lease this 6 million-acre area, the administration reduced the lease sale to 1.5 million acres. So recent past tells us that if we hang our hats on the draft plan as critics seek today, we will be disappointed. Critics say--trust the very process that disappointed us a few years earlier in the very same area. I say--in this bill--direct the Secretary to lease the area. I say--make it clear, make it direct and we will get all the resources, and there will be no doubt. I ask this to those who would rely on a draft plan as a certainty. Since the time you were in school, have you ever written a draft that was the exact same as the final product? A draft is just that--a draft. It represents what could be opened, not necessarily what will be opened. History shows us the peril of assuming that a draft plan will be followed out to completion. Furthermore, we should not assume that coastal states will sit by and go along with leasing without the compensation needed to fix the energy infrastructure and coastal environment that is so critical to our domestic energy survival. Last week, the State of Louisiana filed suit in Federal district court to block the upcoming lease sale 200 off of Louisiana. They did so because they claim that our flawed policies were inconsistent with their State coastal plans. This should be a warning to all of us. Today marks the beginning of the end of the days of turning our backs on our coastal States while we turn our energy dollars over to hostile regimes. The critics of this bill will also say that we took too much property off the table in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico to get the resources in 181 and 181 south. They point to the areas east of the military mission line off the Florida coast and say that we have given up access to 21 trillion cubic feet of natural gas off of Florida's coast. But this argument is illusory. We do not have access to these areas currently. With or without this bill these areas are under executive moratorium--that has been set forth by two Presidents, one Republican and one Democrat--through 2012, and these areas have been under this executive withdrawal since 1990. Furthermore, for each of the past 16 years, Congress has placed an additional moratorium on these areas without a whisper of challenge. To say that this bill locks up these areas is not forthright. These areas are locked up until 2012 and ultimately, under the authority granted to the President over 50 years ago in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the President can continue this moratorium at any time. The current executive moratorium expires in 2012 in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. This bill extends this time on certain areas to 2022. Does anyone assume that the moratorium will be removed anytime soon? Does anyone see a viable path toward lifting this moratorium in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico off Florida in the near term? The answer, for the time being, is unequivocally--no. Furthermore, Secretary Rumsfeld is on record as saying that, while the Department of Defense is fully supportive of the national goal of exploration and production of oil and gas offshore, the Department of Defense believes that any such activities east of the military mission line would conflict with essential military activities. Critics say that it is my bill that locks up these areas when in fact, these areas are deemed essential to our Nation's military needs. Until the President, Secretary of Defense, and both Houses of Congress render a different decision about this area, it is specious to suggest that this bill is locking up these areas to production. Unquestionably, this bill opens up 8.3 million new acres to development of nearly 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 1.26 billion barrels of oil. The proof of the substantive merits of this bill lie in its broad support around the Nation from America's agricultural community, manufacturing community, producers of chemicals and plastics, the textile industry, the utility sector, and small businesses. Literally, thousands of consumer groups representing millions of Americans and millions of American jobs say the same thing--that S. 3711 provides the much needed relief for the American people. I know that I only addressed a few of the criticisms of this bill, but I dismissed them, because they are not real. If I had all day to myself, I would continue to dismiss the criticisms one by one. I will leave that to my many distinguished colleagues who support this measure. But I will say this--the criticisms are not based in fact, but rather cling to a flawed philosophy of the past. Over the next couple of days, people will trot out quotes, cases, statutes, and general precedent from years gone by. Mind you, all of this data and precedent will come from a time when we did not import 13.5 million barrels of petroleum per day from unstable regions of the world. All of this data and precedent will come from a time when we did not consume 22.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and pay more than 3 times the price for it that nations competing for our jobs pay. All of this data will come pre-Katrina and Rita, when our Nation's energy coast that hosts nearly 50 percent our refining infrastructure was ravaged by natural disaster. I ask the critics to rethink their policy of the past, to reexamine this precedent in light of the facts as they exist today, not as they would wish for them to exist. This compromise agreement is the best thing that we can do now in the short term, to relieve the cost burden on the American consumer. America is watching. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I chair the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. First, I thank the Senator for supporting this measure. It is vitally important that we tell the American people that the price of natural gas rose dramatically today again. There is a big demand. I think it is exciting to see some Senator like yourself, who has a vision for other things besides this, saying let's do this because we can do it now. That is a point I want to make as chairman. Let's do this because it will break the mold, break the precedent of moratoria of no deepwater mining, deepwater drilling, and get on with great production. But I want to say to the Senator that I am aware of his bill. I am aware of some of the great ideas in it. I heard him mention it. We had a hearing on parts of it, as he probably knows. I think it is fair to tell him that the truth is, with this short session, in this Senator's opinion--I really worked hard to get energy legislation passed and was able to pass a comprehensive bill that did some terrific things. He knows that--ethanol, even in the area of cars he is speaking of. We made some giant strides with that Energy bill--I don't believe we could start with the Energy bill this late in the session with the Senator's bill or somebody else's bill without doing nothing and just getting bogged down. I thought: Let's take what we can do and do it. But I don't want the Senator to think the great ideas that he has have been forgotten.

Mr. DOMENICI. Would the Senator yield for a minute without her statement being interrupted?

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask that following the remarks of the Senator, Senator Hutchinson of Texas be recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. And that I, the Senator from New Mexico, follow her for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI

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

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand there are 15 minutes equally divided. I am not sure what equally divided means this morning, but we will do our best. I think Senator Bingaman may be here and might want the opposition's time. We will try to use our time in favor of it as judicially as we can. I start by yielding myself 6 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today is a very important day. Let me explain why that is to all the Senators and those who are interested. First, I am going to try to convince our colleagues today that this small lease sale that we are talking about is one of the most important issues spoken of in this Chamber this year. This morning, as the Sun rises over the majestic dome of the Capitol and families wake up across the land, whether it be in Albuquerque, NM, or in New Orleans, LA, or Miami, FL, as they wake up, millions of Americans around the great land find their homes cooled and after breakfast they start their cars, drive their children through their neighborhoods, in carpools or otherwise, to get some needed relief from the heat. But for these families there is no relief from the high cost of energy. For too long we have remained unable to provide a remedy for that. In the words of the man in charge of our Nation's monetary policy, ``one likely source of the deceleration [of economic growth] is higher energy prices, which has adversely affected the purchasing power of households and weighed on our consumer attitudes.'' In plain speak, that means if we don't take action, we are in trouble. I assure my colleagues, there is a growing chorus in America and this chorus demands energy relief. It demands our attention to the simple piece of property in the Gulf of Mexico. We are here to talk about whether to proceed on an item that is critical to American jobs and to our Nation's economy. In the Gulf of Mexico we have a piece of real estate owned by the Government that is the subject matter of what we choose to call the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act. We direct the Secretary of Interior to lease the area commonly known as 181 within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this bill. We further remove the moratorium or restriction on the area to the south of 181 and we direct the Secretary to lease that area also. Taken together, these are 8.3 million acres. I will explain them on the map here in a second, briefly, so I can have my fellow Senators, two of them who want to speak, have an opportunity to do so. They have been vital in getting this done. But let me summarize. This 8.3 million acres contains 1.26 billion barrels of oil, American oil, and 5.8--or rounded out--6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. These resources under the sea are American assets on American lands and the power to unleash these resources lies in the hands of the Senate. Or we can walk away and adopt an alternative and that is to continue to increase our dependence on foreign sources of energy from hostile regions of the world. As American jobs hang in the balance, I remind my colleagues that between 1999 and 2005, a period of time equal to one term in the Senate, the price of natural gas in the United States increased 289 percent. At the same time we lost over 3 million jobs in the manufacturing sector. In the words of the Federal Reserve Chairman: High prices of natural gas reflect strong demand and diminished supplies. This vote today is a step toward correcting that imbalance. Also, in this gulf coast bill we provide protections to the Florida coastline. Thanks to the skills and heart and concern of the distinguished Senator Mel Martinez from the State of Florida, we have protected the Florida coastline in this legislation. I say to those opposed to this legislation, these provisions are a compromise between those who seek additional access to new areas of development and those who do not want to develop off their shores. We struck a balance. Here in the Senate that balance has the overwhelming support of those who seek additional Outer Continental Shelf deep sea access, and the overwhelming support of those whose priority is coastal protection. I am proud of this balance and I defend it against those who challenge it and seek to undermine it. Finally, the bill is both fiscally responsible and meets the needs of the coastal States that make the sacrifice of hosting our energy infrastructure. It takes care of them in a fair way. I do not take my fiscal responsibility lightly and I do not make the fact of fiscal responsibility a light issue. I come at this issue with a vast experience in budget matters in the Senate and I can tell you this: The cost associated with sharing the OCS receipts must be weighed against the cost of inaction. I can tell you for certain, inaction would be devastating. When the destruction of the Hurricanes Rita and Katrina ravaged our Nation's gulf, it was a national tragedy, not simply a regional occurrence. Our response should continue to be national in scope and wide in its vision. We have all heard the anecdotes of how this region hosts about half of our Nation's refining capacity and infrastructure. We heard statistics from the Mineral Management Service that showed that the Outer Continental Shelf plays a major role in supplying our energy resources. Let me summarize. The Gulf of Mexico is the most prolific producing offshore region and we cannot leave one giant piece of it--one piece of real estate owned by the people that is probably more energy laden than any other piece of real estate in the lower 48--we can't leave it sit there. We have struck a fair balance in this bill and I can say for certain it deserves the sincere consideration of every Senator. When we start voting, I believe every Senator should say, in fairness, let us proceed. A few days from now an overwhelming number of Senators should say proceed to permit this property, owned by the people, with supplies of gas for the people--let it be used by the people so we don't have to spend more money overseas, sending our dollars and our hard-earned currency to buy what we own, that we can produce in the next decade. The production will be astronomical if we put our heads to understanding that it is America's property, it is America's resources. There is no risk. We ought to get on with changing 25 years of what started in California, of a fear that was irrational, and get on with reasonable, rational, safe, deepwater drilling. I yield the floor. The Senator from Louisana is here and when she is finished, I would yield the remaining time to Senator Martinez.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I have 1 hour 50 minutes; is that right? And Senator Bingaman has how much?

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Landrieu wants to speak 10 or 15 minutes. We will welcome that. If we add that up, we have plenty of time. I want the Senators to know we have a schedule. It is not me; Members have to follow each other. I take a minute and say to Senator Bingaman, I am not going to answer now the detailed allegations today. I think two or three are significant, but I am just going to say to the Senate I have the most respect for my colleague. I think everyone knows we work together, shoulder to shoulder. It is good to work with him. I think he must feel the same. We got something great done. However, I believe there is one flaw in the argument that is imperative. That is, plain and simple, do you want to hang tight with an ideology of the past and get no bill and no new development or do you want to adjust to change and get something significant? Now, he might not agree, my friend might not agree that I am correct in saying what we are getting, but I truly believe the final product of the path we were going to follow--which was to not share the revenue; and we had not made any arrangement with Florida--was doomed to yield nothing, and we would be back where we were. Secondly, if we want to wait around for MMS to do their plans and assume that they end up with what they started with, then just look at history. They hardly ever come out anywhere close to what they started with, and they probably would have done it again on this one. We are better off, in my opinion, adjusting a bit to the reality of getting something real than to stand rigid on the philosophy of the past. Revenues: If you do not drill, you do not get any revenues. We have been in a no-drill posture for the American Treasury for almost 20 years. I do not know how many more years we will be with no revenues and no drilling, so I am not worried about the fiscal policy because I am worried about the effect on the economy and on people of not using the resource. I can hardly measure that, I say to Senator Bond. It is too big for me to measure as a budgeteer. So I wanted to make that point just in kind of a summary manner, which is part of what my friend and great colleague has been arguing in derogation of this bill on the Senate floor. Then I had one more observation. As to the big piece of land we are not going to be able to drill in in the future that my friend has alluded to, if you just look at that map, the perpendicular line is a line established in a letter from the military which said they needed, for future use, everything beyond that line. And everybody had been agreeing we would not, without the military's consent, ever drill there. And that is essentially why most of that property is off limits. Now, there is more to the story than that, but that is the biggest portion of the story. Having said that, I would certainly like to say to my colleague, Senator Bingaman, I trust that we are back together soon to get another great Energy bill; and we will. I would feel much better if you and I were together on this, but I feel just as confident, or more so than I did on the Energy bill, that the way to get Outer Continental Shelf drilling is to start with this new precedent and get it going. And I think the ball will roll. If you get this, you will get offshore drilling in real quantities. You will get more than ever to the Treasury and more than ever to the bounty of production. That is what the real ball game is about. And you either do something like that or you sit around and wish. We have been wishing, and it never happens. So with that, I yield to Senators. I will be off the floor. You can take time in your sequence. I will come back in an hour and a half or so, and if there is time, I will wrap up this afternoon. Thank you very much.

Mr. DOMENICI. Sure.

Mr. DOMENICI. Sure. Senator Shelby would go right after Senator Bond on the proponents list. And they would be followed by Senator Sessions.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, before the distinguished Senator leaves the floor--I see he is still here and I am glad he is--I thank him very much not just for me or for that speech, for that statement, for that set of thoughts, but I thank him for the American people for his thoughtfulness. If anyone wants to read the text of something that summarizes from beginning to end the problems we are having and why in the areas of high costs of natural gas and crude oil and insecurity and lack of consistency and fluctuation in prices that are frightening and scaring everybody, read the speech that was just delivered by the distinguished Senator from Idaho. It is a tremendous introduction to the problem and then a total summation and wrap-up of what we can do for ourselves and why we should do it and why with the problem of energy supply in the fields of natural gas and crude oil, wherever America can, we must use our resources, especially these days when insecurity in the world causes such a problem. Even if they are supplied, the price is totally out of focus, and everybody should know that if we have our own supplies, that is what we ought to use--it is sitting right off our coast--with no damage, as the Senator from Idaho indicated. We saw the little piece of property out of acres and acres and miles--this little piece of property, 8.3 million acres. He showed it to us on a map. It is loaded with natural gas. How do they know? They have already proven it. Part of it was ready to be leased; isn't that right, I say to the Senator? Part of it was ready to be leased in the regime of the Governor of the State of Florida, a former Senator, Lawton Chiles. As a Floridian, he, years ago, acknowledged this must happen, that part of this property was prepared. We know it. When we put it to bid, it will be ready to go. Not only that, as the distinguished Senator indicated, to have an impact on the cost, we don't have to wait until they drill--right?-- because it is such a big supply that the marketplace will take cognizance, will be aware of, will respond to the fact that we are ready to do it. Once this bill leaves here, even that might have an impact. But I am not sure, until it is signed, as I think of it, that will have an impact because there is always a chance for a slip between the cup and the lip. We have to get it done, and we have to get it voted on. It is ours. It is ready to go. I once again thank my good friend and valued member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources--and many others around here--for his terrific speech summarizing the problem we have and the way this American solution to an American problem should be addressed and why. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. You bet.

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Shelby?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will yield quickly, but I want to try to get the record straight with Senators so they will know where we are timewise. We are in postcloture where every Senator has a certain amount of time. By consent today, we are taking 6 hours, 3 hours to those in favor and 3 hours to those against. I am in charge of the 3 hours in favor, and Senator Bingaman, so far, has been the only one who has spoken. But he is in charge of the time on the opposition. He might give us some of his 3 hours today if we run out, or we would ask the leader. I have a lot of speakers. In any event, Senator Bond asked to be next. He is here. Senator Sessions is speaking for our side. We will go back and forth. Senator Sessions asked he be next on our side. And the senior Senator from Alabama who is here, also, would like to speak next. How much time does Senator Bond want?

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Sessions?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me say to my colleague, that is fine. I noted your staff had apparently gone and checked, and there might be somebody. I would like to ask that they let you know as soon as possible so you do not have people with the expectation of being next because they are right here, and all of a sudden somebody drops in and says: I am next because I am in opposition. I think that would be a little unfair. I wish the Senator would work with us on that. All right, having said that, I yield the floor.