Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, May 11, 2006 at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding the status of the Yucca Mountain Repository Project within the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management at the Department of Energy. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Clint Williamson at (202) 224-7556 or Steve Waskiewicz at (202) 228-6195.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. As the Senate is aware, the Southwestem United States has been devastated by a severe drought which has resulted in numerous deleterious effects to that part of the country. New Mexico's neighbor to the east, Texas, has lost 5,000 head of cattle, 5,500 miles of fence, and 4.9 million acres have burned due to recent wildfires. Severe drought also exists in New Mexico, which is currently facing one of its worst droughts in the past 125 years. It is anticipated that great hardship will result in New Mexico as a result of this drought. These conditions require emergency measures be undertaken in both States. Although the Appropriations Committee is silent on the intent of the appropriation to the Emergency Conservation Program, ECP, within the Department of Agriculture, it is my understanding that of the $17 million made available to the ECP in this legislation, $12 million is to be provided to the State of Texas and $5 million is to be provided to the State of New Mexico. The amendment did not originally include ECP funding, so I want to especially thank Senator Hutchison for her leadership in requesting that these funds be included for ECP.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, and the distinguished Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison for their consideration and explanation of this important matter.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have an amendment I am going to introduce on the pending bill. I will not speak longer than 5 minutes on the amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski.) The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.

Mr. DOMENICI. I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DOMENICI. Is my understanding correct that we are now on the supplemental appropriations bill?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I note the presence now of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I will take as little time as possible, and I know of no reason for this amendment to take a lot of time, but I want to make sure everybody knows it is pending, and that is why I put it here, and I plan to offer it now. It is a very important amendment with reference to the reconstruction of the levee system. I will quickly show three photographs. One, the photo that is up here right now shows the floodwall breach at the 17th Street Canal. As you can see, the storm surge pushed the floodwall out of alignment. The corresponding photograph shows repairs to the 17th Street Canal floodwall as of February 2006. This one shows the repairs and, believe it or not, that is what has been done already, Mr. Chairman, in the short time since the disastrous break, and it looks like that now. Third, this photo shows the failure of an I-wall section of the levee. The President has requested that we replace I-walls with stronger and more substantial T-walls. These I-walls fell down all over parts of the area, letting water come through as they fell down, and became more like waterways rather than water containers. That is what we are replacing, and we are replacing them with what is shown in a fourth photograph I have here, which shows work taking place elsewhere in the area. The amendment I am submitting in behalf of the President is going to authorize this kind of construction occur in an area described in the amendment. This is the construction of T-walls along the inner harbor navigation canal. The foreground shows the reinforcing steel that goes into these T-wall sections driven into the ground at an angle. The T-wall is then cast in place on top of the pilings. With this, we will have as strong a containment as can be expected and can be done, according to the experts. We will take this photograph down because we don't need to have this up while speeches are given. Amendment No. 3769

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3769 and ask that it be considered immediately.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, the amendment has been made available to the other side. The President of the United States, after consultation with the man he placed in charge of this program, the project of renewal, and with the Corps of Engineers' leadership, has asked us for $1.46 billion. An additional $2.2 billion is requested in this amendment, and that makes the total $3.7 billion. Previous supplemental funds provided last year enable restoration of current levee systems to the authorized strength as well as to complete the system as originally envisioned. The proposed supplemental funding takes us to the next logical step in this rebuilding process. The requested funding will provide for the improvement to the obvious weaknesses in the existing levee system. These include, $1.6 billion for replacement of I-wall design that failed during Hurricane Katrina with better designed, stronger flood walls; $530 million for temporary closure of the interior drainage canal, with permanent closure and integrated pumping stations; $250 million for storm-proofing of interior pump stations; $170 million for armoring critical elements of the levee system; and $350 million for navigable closures to improve protection of the inner harbor navigation canal. The requested funding will also allow for increased protection from storm surges. These improvements include $215 million to incorporate the West Bank levee in Plaquemines Parish into the Federal levee. That will incorporate it into the levee system and upgrade the levee to the Federal standards; $100 million for restoration of coastal wetlands to reduce the risk of storm surge. And $493 million for increasing the levee heights of Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity project and the West Bank and Vicinity project. These levee improvements will be a cost shared with the State of Louisiana, and everybody understands that. Based on the vulnerabilities demonstrated to our Nation's infrastructure by Katrina, $20 million is included for an inventory and assessment of Federal and non-Federal flood and storm damage projects nationwide. Currently, no reliable information is available to determine reliable flood risks across the country; $25 million is included for studies of the Louisiana coastal area to determine how best to provide long-term comprehensive restoration of coastal wetlands, to reduce storm surge in the New Orleans and south Louisiana areas. In addition to the President's request, we have also provided additional funding for other emergency and disaster-related recovery efforts in California, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, and Texas. All of the funding proposed above the President's request is provided subject to a specific request from the President designating it as an emergency. Without an official Presidential request, these funds cannot be used. In February 2006, the President submitted a request for supplemental appropriations for the Army Corps of Engineers totaling $1.46 billion. The funds will provide increased protection to obvious weaknesses in the New Orleans levee system and will improve storm proofing of interior pumping capabilities within the city to mitigate flooding. Prior to Hurricane Katrina, FEMA had initiated a reevaluation of the 100-year flood plain in the New Orleans and other gulf coast areas. Post Katrina, the analysis was revised to include Katrina impacts. The revised 100-year flood plain maps show the existing levee system will not provide 100-year protection. These new flood plain maps will have a tremendous impact on where and how redevelopment of New Orleans can occur. Additionally, the Corps has determined that roughly 36 miles of the 56 miles of I-walls that are part of the levee system protecting the greater New Orleans metro area should be replaced with more stable T- Walls or L-Walls as a result of the I-Wall failures during Hurricane Katrina. Due to the need to bring some rationality and stability to the redevelopment of New Orleans, the administration submitted a revised request to provide 100-year level of protection to New Orleans proper. The request specifically excludes improvements to roughly 8 miles of I- Walls in lower Plaquemines Parish and increasing levee heights in lower Plaquemines Parish to provide 100-year level of protection. Raising the height of the levees will improve the level of protection to New Orleans proper and allow for continued participation in the National Flood Insurance Program administered by FEMA. On April 25, the administration requested an additional $2.2 billion for the following: $1.6 billion for replacing I-walls with T-walls or L-Walls in New Orleans--roughly 30 miles. Replacing the I-walls with stronger T-Walls or L-Walls is necessary to improve the performance of the levee system due to the failure of the I-Walls during Katrina; $495.3 million for the Federal share of raising the levee height in New Orleans to the newly determined 100-year flood plain level. The current cost share mandated by 33 U.S.C. 2213 requires a 35 percent local cost share; $215 million for incorporating certain non-Federal levees by replacing or modifying these existing levees on the west bank of the Mississippi River in Plaquemines Parish. Incorporating, replacing or modifying these non- Federal levees will provide a hurricane protection system commensurate with the level of protection authorized for the Federal New Orleans to Venice hurricane protection project in order to protect the evacuation route. This is an increase above the original February request of $155 million. The President's original $1.46 billion request will provide critical storm protection to New Orleans and is still necessary despite the new request. The February request includes the following: $530,000,000 is provided to modify the 17th Street, Orleans Avenue and London Avenue drainage canals, and install pumps and closure structures at or near the lakefront. The closure structures will help prevent storm surge from Lake Pontchartrain from entering the canals, and the new pumping stations will convey water from the canals to the lake; $350,000,000 is provided to improve protection at the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal. The Corps will construct two closure structures, one at Seabrook where the IHNC enters Lake Pontchartrain and another on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway; $250,000,000 will be used for storm-proofing interior pump stations to ensure their operability during hurricanes, storms and high water events. Storm-proofing measures will provide more protection against hurricane force winds, storm surge and inundation so the drainage pumps and equipment can remain operable during hurricanes, storms, and high water events; $170,000,000 shall be used for armoring critical elements of the New Orleans hurricane and storm damage reduction system. Armoring will be selectively used on levees and floodwalls at critical portions of the New Orleans hurricane and storm damage reduction system, including structural transition points such as pipeline crossings or junctures between levees and floodwalls; floodwalls susceptible to scour and erosion; and certain sections of levees exposed to extreme surge and wave wash; $100 million to the Corps of Engineers to reduce the risk of storm damage to greater New Orleans by restoring the surrounding wetlands. Since the President has revised his request following Appropriations Committee action, a floor amendment is necessary to accommodate the additional funding. The amendment will provide the following: General Investigation--$48.75 million to support investigations of nationwide flood project inventory, Louisiana coastal area ecosystem restoration studies, Delta Islands and Levee studies in CA, developing a Delta risk management strategy in CA and for flood hazard and hydrologic investigations in flood prone areas of HI; $595.3 million for levee raising and wetland restoration; $3.1 billion for I-wall replacement; drainage canal improvements; storm proofing pumps; and armoring of levees. The committee was aware the administration was considering a change in the request and tied to accommodate the President based on the original request. The committee provided $624 million in added funding, subject to request by the President. However, the new request significantly expands the scope of work and will require new language. Amendments adopted in committee have been included as well--subject to the same terms and conditions. As to Corps action to date, in the second supplemental $400 million for immediate disaster response to Katrina; $200 million for dredging operations and $200 million to repair existing projects. In the third supplemental the President's request was $1.6 billion. Congress provided $2.89 billion--$1.3 billion above the request for recovery efforts from all fiscal year 2005 hurricanes. Of the amount provided in the third supplemental, about $1.9 billion went to LA. In the fourth supplemental, $3.6 billion total: In the first request, $1.46 billion for levee upgrades and flood mitigation activities in New Orleans; In the second request, $2.2 billion to raise levee height, replace I- walls with T-walls. To date, the administration and Congress have aggressively addressed hurricane damage to provide a higher level of protection for New Orleans and southeast Louisiana. The Corps is working to restore hurricane protection for the start of hurricane season, on June 1, 2006. The Corps is completing new sections of storm protection that were not in place when Katrina struck. The latest request increases levee height in New Orleans to provide 100-year storm level protection, based on FEMA's new 100-year flood plain elevations, and improves flood mitigation capabilities within New Orleans to prevent severe flooding that occurred as a result of Katrina. The Corps continues to evaluate existing structures to determine weak points and study and recommend necessary storm protection measures southeast Louisiana as provided in the third supplemental. The Corps should have initial recommendations by June 2006 with additional solutions provided over the next year. This information will be used to make informed decisions about future storm protection measures. I believe we make our case. I do not think we have to talk more. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Monday, May 8, 2006 at 3 p.m. in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding issues associated with the implementation of the provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 addressing licensing of hydroelectric facilities. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Kellie Donnelly at (202) 224- 9360 or Steve Waskiewicz at (202) 228-6195.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have 5 minutes. I would like very much for anybody who is trying to fix this parliamentary problem to just listen for a minute. First of all, most of the problem that has been discussed by the distinguished Senator in terms of royalties that are allegedly not being paid by oil companies which are indeed drilling successfully offshore--most of those have occurred during the years of 1999 and 1998. Let me repeat, there are oil companies which are drilling and would otherwise owe some kind of royalties, and those are companies that did business during the years 1998 and 1999. They got leases those years, and mistakes were made. I am not accusing the Clinton administration because it is Democratic. The truth is, they made the mistakes. They issued them without the right to collect royalties on behalf of the Federal Government. Along comes an auditing company that finds them and says: Look at these companies. They are getting away with hundreds of millions of dollars. Yes, they are. But read their contracts. They are not obligated to pay any because the U.S. Government messed up. We didn't obligate them to pay any. I don't know what to do about that. I can come to the floor and yell and cry that we are losing revenue, but these companies are going to have to gratuitously decide to pay or they do not owe it. So we can come down here and talk forever about that. Obviously, the amendment by my good friend from Oregon will do nothing about the leases of 1998-1999, for if you tried to do something about them you would be doing nothing. You cannot come to the floor of the Senate and say leases already issued upon, which the work has been done upon, which the Government sought not to charge anything, we have changed our mind, and we are going to make them pay. That is not the subject of his amendment. Read it. It doesn't purport to do that. That is point No. 1. Point No. 2, the amendment doesn't do what the Senator says it does. This year, the Secretary--this Secretary--stopped royalty relief at $35.86 per barrel. The amendment by the distinguished Senator is talking about $55 a barrel. He is saying the same thing--that we will stop royalty relief at $55 instead of $35. Obviously, his amendment in today's market is a malady. It doesn't do anything. The Secretary has already one-upped his amendment. The Secretary has put the relief line at a lower price per barrel than his amendment. I don't know, again, what he is trying to do with the amendment. First, he can't affect the so-called Clinton year lease which he has been talking about. And he deserves to tell the public that the companies have gotten away with a lot of money there. That is a nice speech. And it deserves to be given, but he isn't fixing that because you can't fix it. He isn't fixing the existing leases because he is setting a threshold that is higher than the price that the Secretary had set, and the price of oil is higher than both of them. So we are going to collect all the royalties we can get, and I do not know how we are losing anything. I don't know what the speeches are about in terms of losing that much money, nor do I know what the amendment is doing. What I do know is that from this point forward the Energy bill that we passed has some language that could be fixed. I have an amendment that fixes it. It makes it permissive. It says the Secretary may in the future set these limits. The Secretary may in the future set the dollar amount from which you base royalty relief. I have an amendment that I think sooner or later we should adopt that says it should not be made, but the Secretary shall set these limits. That is an amendment that I have that I think the good Senator from Oregon ought to take. I will give it to him. He ought to put it in instead of his, and he will have solved one of the problems by making it mandatory. I thank you profusely for the 5 minutes which has turned into 7\1/2\. I talked too long, but I thank you for it.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to fellow Senators and Senator Wyden, if you would please lend me your ear because I would like to be helpful.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the kind words. I think we are wearing the patience of the chairman thin, so we ought to get on with doing what we can. I want to ask the Senator--I want him to take this fairly and squarely, and when I am finished, if you don't believe what I am saying, then I would like very much for you to have your staff go take a look to see if I am right or not. First of all, Senator, I think you made a mistake with your amendment. I think the amendment is wrong in that under current law-- and what the Secretary has done under current law--the oil companies will pay more royalties than they are going to pay under your amendment. You set a threshold, for instance, on oil of $55, if I read your amendment correctly. Your staff is there and they can confirm this: $55. The Secretary has already established the threshold for oil at $36. So the difference is that at $34, they start--that is the break point, and you have made a mistake in taking it all the way up to $55. It shouldn't be $55 when it is much lower. It means that the oil companies are going to pay much more at a much lower level of the price under existing law than under your amendment. So your amendment should not be adopted. I want to be fair, but I just want to tell you it shouldn't.

Mr. DOMENICI. I will ask: Do you know that? I started off by asking if you know that.

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, first of all, I don't quite know how to ask the question, but I am going to try. Are you aware that the years of 1998 and 1999--for 2 full years, all the leases that were issued had no thresholds in them? Are you aware of that, Senator?

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Would the Senator yield in a different way, so I could speak for 5 minutes and return the floor to you and you lose none of your rights?

Mr. DOMENICI. I just heard the Chair say what it would take for this to be appropriate. I ask unanimous consent that which he has just articulated be the unanimous consent request before the Senate, and I ask that the Senate grant it.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I say to the Senator, I have no question at this point. I thought the Senator was getting close to a point where he was going to withdraw his amendment, after which time I was going to speak. If that is not the case, then we will do something else.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, while you have been here many hours, I have been here a few this afternoon. This is a very unusual setting. You speak of your rights. We have rights, too. You have the floor. We cannot debate the issue the way things are. If you would like to debate this, I would like to debate it because you have had some free time here to talk about something that is not so. I have already asked you once, and I will ask you again--I will ask you whether or not--I will ask it a different way: How much do you think the Congressional Budget Office says your amendment--this great amendment that is going to stop all of this thievery--can you tell us how much it is going to yield to the taxpayers of the United States? I will tell you the answer. The Congressional Budget Office says zero. You understand, this great amendment that has been spoken of, this process that he has--I don't know what it is. It is an amendment that sets a threshold. It sets a threshold that is higher than the threshold that exists that was already established by the Secretary of the Interior. I don't know how in the world, I ask the distinguished Senator, that is going to yield anything to the people of this country. Maybe you can explain it to us. I believe it is going to yield zero because the amendment is meaningless the way it is drawn. It is not a program. It is not a process. It is an amendment that sets a new threshold, I say to Senator Salazar, a threshold that is not even needed because the Secretary has already set a threshold that does more for the taxpayer than his amendment. So I don't know what we are down here arguing about. I have been waiting my turn until I cannot wait any longer. So I have just violated the rules. I didn't ask a question, I gave a speech. I hope you listened. The speech is: The Congressional Budget Office says this grandiose amendment that is going to stop the grandfather of all thievery is going to yield zero dollars to the Treasury of the United States. I assume that means that it is not effective, it does nothing. It does nothing because--I just told you why it does nothing. It sets a threshold that is higher than the existing threshold; therefore, it yields nothing. I don't know what else we can do. Why should we let you have a vote on that? I am going to offer an amendment to that, a second-degree amendment that is very simple. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to offer a second- degree amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI. I withdraw the request and yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to talk candidly about rising gasoline prices and what we can do about them. I have been deeply concerned about our reliance on foreign oil and the rising cost of energy for many years. That was one of the reasons I gave up my post as chairman of the Budget Committee in the Senate to become chairman of the Energy Committee. I saw energy dependence and rising energy prices as a big problem for this great Nation, and I wanted to help solve it. Last year, we passed a bipartisan policy act called the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It was the first comprehensive Energy bill in 12 years. It took Republicans and Democrats 5 years and a lot of hard work to get this bill passed. It is an excellent bill and one I am proud of. This bill fixed a lot of our energy problems, and in a year or two from now, it will fix a lot more. Let me highlight a couple of the remarkable accomplishments which our Energy bill has put before the American people. We create a pilot program in seven Western States that will streamline the permitting process so oil and oil developers won't have to wait years to develop their leases. Some people wonder: Are we doing anything to help America solve our problems? One thing we must do is develop our resources where we have them and where we can. We cannot sit by and be naysayers about developing what we have that we can use, so we don't have to buy it from others. In this bill, we require 8 billion gallons of ethanol be included in the gasoline by 2012. This provision will help ethanol displace 2 billion barrels of foreign oil over the next 6 years. There are those on the other side who say the President proposed nothing to help the farmers of the United States and the ranching community. I just discussed with you what the Energy bill will do with reference to ethanol, and all of that creates a new market for the products of our farmers, makes them wealthy, gives them alternatives to sell their product so they can be used to ultimately go into the tanks of our automobiles in lieu of crude-oil derivatives called gasoline. We provide several incentives in this bill for new nuclear power that have prompted nine utility consortia to plan at least 19 new nuclear powerplants in the immediate future. We had zero, we are already moving toward 19, and some think it is 22. The bill encourages wind, solar, and geothermal sources. Our incentives will bring more than 14,000 megawatts of wind energy that could be on line by the end of next year, which is enough energy to power roughly 5 million homes for 1 year. Those are the things we did. Those are the things that would have all been front and center had Katrina not hit us and taken away all of the positives we were thinking of and put us in that tank that came as a result of that enormous hurricane which we are still recovering from. But all of the things I am discussing are there, actually taking place, as the United States changes because of that new energy bill. The oil and gas prices continued to climb after the Energy bill was passed, and a lot of that was due to the hurricane I have described. We still have two refineries that are down because of the storm. That accounts for 5 percent of our refining capacity. We have lost about 1.5 million barrels of oil per day because of damaged oil rigs. That is a whopping 22 percent of our domestic production. So for all of those who wonder: Did anything happen that could have caused the problems we are having that might have been otherwise? Obviously we can look at Katrina and say something very bad happened. We didn't have to have that. Things could have been better. Let me talk about the global unrest and the rising global demand that has driven up the prices of oil across the globe. Oil is a global commodity. Nobody knows what a barrel of oil is worth as it comes out of the ground. Nobody knows what it is inherently worth. Let me say to my fellow Americans, I regret to tell you, it is worth what somebody will pay for it. That sounds strange, but that is what it is. It comes out of the ground, it is gathered up, and when it finally gets on a ship, somebody buys it. And what do they buy it for? They buy it for what they think it is worth, and they bid it, and that is what it is worth. So oil is worth what people pay for it. Regrettably, they are paying more and more because they are worried about the world situation and whether oil supply is credible, whether it is going to remain reliable. So they bid it up higher and higher. Problems in producing nations such as Venezuela, Nigeria, and Iran have sharply driven up this price, along with this great, new, voracious appetite on the part of China and India. They are entitled-- they are entitled, just as we are--to use this oil, and they are buying it up, bidding it up, causing the supply and demand to have the impact I am describing with all of you here this morning. There are some things we can do to try to ameliorate this problem, and, yes, some of them are very difficult. Most of it we can't do much about, unless we either wean ourselves off foreign oil, which will take several years to do, or dramatically increase our own production of oil. I regret to say there are too many on the other side of the aisle, not everyone but most on the other side of the aisle here in the Senate and in the House who refuse to acknowledge that we must produce more of our own wherever we can. Let's talk about what we can do. President Bush proposed four things yesterday, and I endorse every one of them. Every one of those is now out there for the market to look at, for everyone to look at, and they have already had a positive effect. He wants an aggressive investigation of fraud and manipulation. We mandated a similar investigation in the Energy bill, and I absolutely support what the President called for--an ongoing investigation into the manipulation or cheating that might be taking place. Let's get on with it. Let's put the resources in. Let's make sure the American people feel comfortable that it is taking place. We are doing it. Whether it proves anything, we will have to wait and see. The President wants to do another thing. He wants to repeal certain tax breaks that are in the Energy bill. He says they are unnecessary for oil companies. I agree. Actually, I thought they would do some good, but the President has convinced me and many of us, under his leadership, to repeal those tax items that are in the bill. I am happy to take the lead, along with those who write the tax laws, and see if we can repeal and eliminate the deepwater drilling tax relief that is in the bill. The President also recommended and announced that he will temporarily halt the filling of SPR, a move I hope will free up about 12 million barrels of oil this summer, meaning we won't use it for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. So it will be available to those who are purchasing oil to be used as we have been describing it here: for the marketplace to put in refineries and be used by the great demand that is worldwide. If we had developed ANWR--and I note the presence of the junior Senator from Alaska on the floor--if we had done that 10 years ago, if we had passed ANWR legislation--we did pass it. Had the President of the United States not vetoed it--and that was President Bill Clinton who vetoed it--then what we would have had available is at least 1 million barrels of oil--American owned--that we could use every day, and it would be added to the inventory that is out there for the world to use, and for the United States it would be a dramatic reduction in the amount of oil we would have to buy from others. We have to wake up. There is nothing to be damaged. You can go look at ANWR and see what we would be doing with new drilling, new approaches to drilling, if we would get that done. It is regrettable that we won't produce our own and we will sit and talk and blame, and in particular, the other side will blame the President and blame Republicans. These Senators understand that today's gasoline prices are driven ever increasingly by long-term speculation on global production. They understand that a strong signal on supply can drive prices up today and down tomorrow. They know a vote to develop ANWR will have an immediate impact on oil prices, which in turn will have an immediate impact on gasoline prices. Look at what happened to the energy markets yesterday after the President announced his four-prong plan. Energy prices fell. Yet these same Senators fought against ANWR, fought against OCS production, and have consistently fought against new energy production almost anywhere, production they know will ease our price and supply problems. We have worked in the committee and marked up, gotten ready for a vote, Lease Sale 181 on natural gas, a bill that will develop oil and gas 100 miles off the coast of Florida. Democrats have threatened to filibuster the bill when it comes to the floor. It shows there is no desire to produce even what is our own. The Massachusetts delegation continues to block the Weaver Cove liquefied natural gas facility, a facility proposed for Fall River that would provide 400,000 mcf of natural gas per day. That is enough to ease the price and supply pressure for most of New England. Another example is if you don't want to produce energy that is our own, then you ought not be complaining about the fact that the price continues to rise because of shortages in global markets. Instead, today some on the other side propose a tax holiday. I find it interesting that it is Democrats who want to temporarily repeal the gasoline taxes since it was they who voted over the years to increase that same tax. I can support the idea of a holiday. I like the idea of helping American families keep some of their money they are spending at the gas pump. But we use that money to build roads and mass transit. The Federal Government is going to have to make up those revenues somewhere. So let me propose this idea: Let's let the oil companies make up the difference. That is what we ought to do. Anyway, I suggest we are on the right track. The President's suggestions are good suggestions, and we can come up with some more. But in the meantime, we ought to tell the American people the truth: There is no quick fix, and it is easier to blame than it is to have solutions. Let's look for the solutions and then we will all get a chance to judge who is doing the most to help America move toward energy independence. I believe I have some additional time, and I yield it to the distinguished Senator from Alaska.