Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to wish Senator Jon Corzine the very best as he leaves his service in the Senate to become the next Governor of the State of New Jersey. Although we didn't always agree on all the issues, it has been an honor to work with him. He has always been courteous and professional and I have enjoyed the opportunity to know him. Senator Corzine's career has taken him to the uppermost levels in the business world. He was a partner at Goldman Sachs at the age of 33 and he became CEO of that prestigious firm at the age of 50. As someone who has been extraordinarily successful in the private sector, I am sure Senator Corzine has had many life opportunities offered to him. The fact that he has chosen a career in public service speaks a great deal to the type of person that he is. Senator Corzine's economic expertise helped him become a leader on budget and fiscal issues in the Senate. I had the privilege of serving with Senator Corzine as members on the Budget Committee. His knowledge and understanding of financial markets and economic issues will be missed. Jon Corzine has been a good Senator, and I wish him success as he leaves here to become Governor of the State of New Jersey.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the majority leader of the Senate, Bill Frist. I do not do this because he is my good friend but because I want to make sure that we all understand that we have had an exceptionally productive legislative year. I thank him especially for his critical help in passing legislation in areas where I have been primarily responsible. In addition to that, I want to summarize the things that have been done this year under his leadership. The reason I came to talk about this is because there is such an overwhelming, high-octane negativism in the air that one would hardly know the Senate was at work. There is so much politics going on that one would wonder whether the Senate is even functioning. Even on the floor there is an awful lot of polarization that has occurred. I do not say this in any real accusatory sense. It is true. In spite of that, in his own way, the majority leader has very quietly and with very mature feelings and inordinate ability grasped details of legislation and has contributed immensely to a success story. I would like to start by talking about matters that this Senator has particularly been involved in. We were able to pass in this body an Energy Policy Act. We have been working at that for almost a decade, but for the last 3 years we have tried each year and failed. This year, we got it done. Obviously, something was done differently. That is, we attempted to create a bipartisan bill in the committee under my chairmanship, with the help of Senator Bingaman, and the majority leader, as leader in the Senate, should take great pride in that accomplishment, and we should as a Senate. In addition, as it pertains to things the Senator from New Mexico works on, we sent to the President for his signature an appropriations bill that is called Energy and Water appropriations. That bill contained hundreds of millions of dollars that go to the storm-ravaged gulf coast. It is there to continue critical projects that are already started and moving along. They are projects that are needed. They are not part of the great concern about how much may be spent or should not be spent. These are public works projects in that four-State area that are important. I think that is very good. In that bill, the nuclear armament programs of the United States went through to the President of the United States and also some very important nuclear nonproliferation activities. In addition, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee was part of a reconciliation bill--let us call that the deficit reduction bill--that passed. The occupant of the chair in the committee that we served on contributed a piece of that. For the first time, we sent in such a bill for the start-up of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge activity where we will be starting to find out what is up there in terms of producing oil for the United States. That bill was a big achievement, $36 billion in deficit reduction. I guarantee that could not have been done without the help of the majority leader. So we got that done also with his very exceptional attention, his enlightened approach to getting people together. We barely did that, and without his help it would not have happened. Finally, literally scores of small bills that are part of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee have passed the Senate within the last 2 days, for various things around the country. We thank him for getting that done. Yesterday, we passed big legislation and who would have thought 6 weeks ago we could pass it. It is the tax provisions of the Budget Act. We all know that that was hard. That extended the alternative minimum tax so it affects far less Americans in a negative way on the amount they owe to the Government. It extended research and development tax credits for American business so they can continue to invest in research. That whole bill had many items in it that are good for America's future. We got it passed. There are some things in it, obviously, that I do not like, and I hope some of those are not continued, because I think some of them are negative to the production of oil in the future, but overall, by an overwhelming vote, we passed a tax measure that moves us ahead. That was the strategy, for all of that was worked out with the help of our leader and the help of other distinguished Senators, including the chairman and ranking member of that committee. I mentioned the Energy Policy Act, but let me back up to some other things people take for granted. They say, ``So what?'' We know our Founding Fathers said, with reference to bankruptcy in our country, the U.S. Government would have exclusive authority. For years we know the bankruptcy law of the Nation needed reform. How many times have we had bankruptcy reform on the floor only to see it fail? This year it finally passed. It will make those who file for bankruptcy slightly more responsible. That is, after they are finished, if they can by way of their job pay a small portion of what they owed, they will. That is all subject to criteria which the judges will administer so we are sure we are asking only those who can afford it to pay some. Finally, it was passed. I say to the Senate that was a great credit to all of the Senate, but also to the distinguished majority leader for pushing, for exercising the dedication, and most of all, there is a certain steadfastness about this leader. He doesn't give up. He says what he is going to do. He stays right on it, and this is another example. In addition, we have had the issue of excessive litigation. It still hangs over us like something we cannot quite fathom, but it is rampant. We were told the other day that American companies spend more on litigation than they do on research when you add it all up. That is a rather startling thing. This bill we passed will not fix that. Hopefully, sometime we will address it even more broadly. But we did pass a class action reform piece of legislation. We had only one part of that pass about 8 years ago. But this one makes it more difficult to abuse the class action litigation part of the Federal jurisdiction, where we use our Federal courts to accomplish class action suits. That is a great feather in the hat of the Senate because it has taken so long to get there. For that, we have to say to our majority leader: Thank you for your leadership. It is terrific. The highway bill--let's leave aside the pieces of the highway bill. Let's talk about the overall funding of the highway system of America by the gasoline tax imposed on our citizens. That was tied up. It was supposed to have been passed 3 years ago. It got passed after that period of time. I think the absolute commitment it would get done, and the power of a majority leader's office, got us there. That is very important. The Senate has passed all of its appropriation bills. It looks as though we may have been able to avoid an omnibus appropriation bill--or we are going to. Let's hope so. If we do, that will be a very big credit. But at least we are on the way. We have not gotten them all passed in both Houses, but they have all cleared this institution, which is a credit at this time of year. We don't do that very often. So that is another thing we can say that demonstrates we have had good leadership, good direction, and good pressure, the kind of positive pressure the Republican leader brings. I am going to wrap up by talking about judicial appointments. I would be remiss if I did not mention that the United States of America has a new Chief Justice. It is pretty fair to say that the extraordinary patience and persistence of the majority leader got us to this place. The country is pleased with it. That is obvious. While they do not know everything about these nominees, they learn about our Supreme Court nominees because there is much openness. This man is ultimately a credit to the President for nominating him, the Senate for finally doing what they should, and to our majority leader for pushing it as he did. Everybody has to acknowledge there are three or four things we must get done. They, too, are being looked at with the precision and the dedication and stick-to-it-iveness of our leader. They are right there on the horizon for next year. I understand the asbestos quagmire is something people wouldn't think is big enough to be listed among the most important pieces of pending legislation. Let me say there is no question it is. Asbestos liability, for better or for worse, the reality of it, brings to the American economic system a chance, an opportunity, a probability of real job loss, fantastic economic degradation, and it must be resolved. The leader has played a big role. Two Senators have been working on it on the majority side for years. Senator Specter is very close, with the help of our majority leader, to getting a package that can be bipartisan. That is next. We know broad immigration reform is right up on the screen. That is very difficult. I say, and predict, since the majority leader says it is going to get done this coming year, I believe those who have been waiting are going to be able to say it will be done. I believe so. Obviously, much more must be done. Other things we have passed are not very publicly known yet, and should be. I can't do much about it. But essentially, a bill on health technology passed last night without much ado. I say it is a giant step. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. It is a giant step in the modernization of the delivery system, which will save money. I won't take much time, except to say the majority leader had a lot to do with that. I failed to mention that while all of this was going on, that I mentioned the Senate passed an important bill, the free trade agreement, the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Who would have thought 6 months ago that this, too, would be in this litany of successes? But it is. All in all, in spite of all the noise, in spite of all the bickering, in spite of everything that seems to be moving toward polarization and politicization in the Senate, we did get a lot done. I particularly think much of that is attributable to the distinguished majority leader, Senator Bill Frist. I want to again indicate to him, from this Senator, my great appreciation for his work and my admiration for how he does that.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 307, the adjournment resolution, provided that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have been recognized. I notice that Senator Harkin is in the Chamber. How much time would the Senator like?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, am I recognized?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, does the Senator from Alaska have a question? I understand it is her time to take the chair and preside. I ask the Senator if there is something this Senator from New Mexico could do for her? What is going on?

Mr. DOMENICI. Obviously, we have to get consent because I am next. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Murkowski be given 3 minutes at this point and then the Senator from New Mexico be recognized for up to 10 minutes, followed by Senator Harkin. Is that correct, the Senator wants to be next after the Senator from New Mexico?

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, and my friend from Missouri, Senator Talent, to introduce a bill of critical importance to the security of our borders: the Border Modernization and Security Act of 2005. Securing our borders is the first necessary step towards immigration reform, and I believe the legislation I am introducing makes an enormous leap in the right direction. Our bill builds upon legislation we introduced in the last Congress to improve our port of entry infrastructure as well as a lot of good ideas proposed by other Senators in this Congress, and adds some provisions that I think are important to a comprehensive border security and immigration reform effort. The Border Modernization and Security Act increases the number of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents each by 1000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011. These personnel are necessary to improve our enforcement at ports of entry and within the United States, and increasing the number of these employees goes hand in hand with our recent efforts to increase the number of border patrol agents who are enforcing the law along our international borders. Along this same line, the bill allows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to support its border and immigration forces with National Guard personnel and volunteer retired law enforcement officers, provides for an increase in the number of DHS alien and immigration investigative personnel, and increases the number of Deputy Marshals to investigate criminal immigration matters. Increasing the number of DHS employees alone will not solve our border problems. Unauthorized aliens also cause a significant burden on our courts. For example, for the 12-month period ending September 30, 2004, 364 felony cases per judge were filed in the New Mexico District. It is apparent how burdensome this number is for my border State's court when you consider that the national average of felony cases filed per judge is 88. To help with these high caseload levels, our bill increases the number of DHS immigration attorneys, federal defenders, Office of Immigration Litigation attorneys, assistant US Attorneys, and immigration judges. Increased personnel is only one aspect of our effort to secure the border. Any border security effort must provide DHS personnel with necessary technologies and assets. To that end, our bill authorizes funds for the Department to acquire new technologies, construct roads, fences, and barriers, purchase air assets, vehicles, and other equipment, maintain temporary and permanent border checkpoints, and construct the appropriate facilities to support the increased number of DHS personnel being hired. Such assets are invaluable tools for our CBP and ICE employees, and we must make sure those men and women have what they need. We also provide for up to 15,000 new detention beds for unauthorized aliens in our bill. Another area Congress must address is our land port of entry infrastructure. No American border has undergone a comprehensive infrastructure overhaul since 1986, when Senator Dennis DeConcini of Arizona and I put forth a $357 million effort to modernize the southwest border. A great deal has changed in the past nineteen years. More importantly, much has changed since September 11, 2001. Congress has passed legislation to improve security at airports and seaports, but we have not yet addressed the needs of our busiest ports, located on the United States' northern and southwestern land borders. The Border Modernization and Security Act would change that and would prevent terrorists from exploiting weaknesses at our land ports. My bill requires the General Service Administration (GSA) to identify port of entry infrastructure and technology improvement projects that would enhance homeland security. The GSA would work with the Department of Homeland Security to prioritize and implement these projects based on needs along the border. The Secretary of Homeland Security would also have to prepare a Land Border Security Plan to assess the vulnerabilities at each port of entry located on the northern border or the southern border. This plan will require the cooperation of Federal, State and local entities involved at our borders to ensure that everyone who plays a role in border security is consulted about the plan. The Border Modernization and Security Act would also modernize homeland security along the United States' borders by implementing technology demonstration programs to test and evaluate new port of entry and border security technologies. Because equipment and technology alone will not solve the security problems on our border, these test sites will also house facilities to provide the necessary training to personnel who must implement and use these technologies under realistic conditions. We must also improve the enforcement of existing immigration laws. Our bill authorizes funds for the Department of Homeland Security to expand its Expedited Removal Procedures so DHS can expeditiously return non-Mexican illegal aliens who have spent less than 14 days in the US and who are apprehended within 100 miles of the international border to the alien's country of origin. We also allow DHS to create an automated biometric entry and exit data system at our land ports of entry so we can more accurately keep track of who is entering and leaving the US. In order for the Department to more easily identify and remove unauthorized aliens who commit crimes under State law and are held in State and local prisons, we authorize the expansion of DHS' Institutional Removal Program. Because of the burden these aliens place on our State and local prisons, DHS will be responsible for reimbursing prisons that detain an alien after the alien has completed his prison sentence in order to effectuate the alien's transfer to federal custody. Along the same line, the Border Modernization and Security Act provides additional assistance to States that are impacted by unauthorized aliens who commit crimes. I know first hand the impact such aliens have on our State and local prisons from talking to prosecutors and judges in New Mexico, so our bill reauthorizes the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program to help our States with the costs of incarcerating these aliens. Additionally, the bill allows for the reimbursement of State and local costs of processing illegal aliens through the criminal justice system and creates a new grant program for State, local, and Indian tribe law enforcement agencies who incur costs related to border security activities. I believe that these measures are an important part of addressing this nation's homeland security needs, and I am pleased to introduce this bill today with Senators Dorgan and Talent. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I don't believe I will use 20 minutes. I am here this morning to ask a few questions and make a few observations about the pending windfall profit tax amendment. I will first explain what I think the amendment is all about. This imposes a windfall profit tax on all oil sold for more than $40 a barrel. The tax would be 50 percent. Every year whatever tax is collected would be divided up among all individual taxpayers as a credit. The only way for a company to avoid the tax would be for it to spend all of its receipts above $40 a barrel on investments qualified by the Government. In other words, we know best. We know where they should invest; qualified investment for things such as pipelines, new drilling, refineries, as long as the drilling is in areas that are not already proven oil and gas property. I don't know what the intention is with reference to oil. Is it to produce more oil or not? If it is, it seems to me an investment of oil of any type that comes out of the ground would be something we should want, but by no means am I suggesting I want to add this list because I believe the whole idea is wrongheaded. I ask a few questions about what I have observed and what I noted is pretty close to right. If Saudi Arabian oil is being sold at $55 a barrel in Saudi Arabia, am I correct that any entity that sells that oil in the United States would have to pay a tax of $12.50 per barrel, even if they sold that in the United States for the same price they bought it, to wit, $55 a barrel? Is that what we have in mind? That is, if Saudi Arabian oil sells at $55 a barrel, one of our American companies has to buy oil to create gasoline for us--if, in fact, they buy it at $55--that exceeds the $40. So what if they sell it for $55? My arithmetic says that is zero. There is no profit. There is no markup. Under this amendment, they would still have to pay a tax of $12.50 a barrel, selling it at cost. How could that do anything to encourage production or investment? It would encourage the opposite. As a matter of fact, it would seem to me it would discourage selling oil bought in that manner in the United States--something we would not want. The market value in the world is $55, and they will lose money selling it in the United States. Pretty soon we would have a shortage in the United States. Who would want to sell it here? In fact, if we look at it, to avoid taking a loss on the sale of that Saudi oil in the United States, any importer of that oil, according to my arithmetic, would have to sell it at $70 just to cover the cost of the tax. It seems to me, in that case, even though the cost of oil is $55 in Saudi Arabia, Senator Dorgan's amendment would deem $30 of that sale price to be a windfall profit. So the seller would owe $15 to the Treasury and would be left with just the $55 necessary to meet the cost. That is absolutely counterproductive, the wrong thing to do and an unintended, but direct, consequence of this way to raise money and seemingly to send some kind of message to the oil companies about their profits. Another question in the scenario that I gave, isn't it true this amendment would actually raise the cost of oil from $55 a barrel to $70 a barrel, on pure economics? This amendment would tell the oil companies to sell oil higher than is happening today in order to break even because of the imposition of the tax. That would be very bad. Would it help the country? Who would it help? It hurts us. It hurts our consumers instead of helping the problem attempted to be addressed; namely, get the cost of oil down. It would cause the opposite. It seems to me, in a general way, the amendment imposes a tax on oil that would drive up the price of oil. It is not a tax on the companies. It is a tax on oil. Does the Senator have any sort of analysis? I don't have one. I wish I did. I wonder what the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Tax Committee or the Energy Information Agency would show this amendment would do in terms of the cost to our consumers? Such an analysis, which we do not have time to do, would show that American consumers would not have a decrease in the cost of gasoline. Rather, it would go up. I wish we could have that study. I believe, and I think I have a bit of credibility, the imposition of this windfall profit tax would cause the price to our consumers to go up, not down. It also means that oil companies have an option of selling their oil in the United States and paying a sizable tax in the United States. They will probably sell it overseas to avoid paying the tax. If they have an option to sell it here and paying a tax or selling it overseas, they will take the option of selling it overseas. Why not? It is pure logic. You lose money selling it in the United States. Is the amendment accompanied by analysis that shows how much less oil would be available in the United States if this amendment is passed? I truly believe it will make less oil available. If less oil is available, the price goes up, not down, for those items that come from crude oil. Does the proponent of the amendment have any kind of analysis as to what would happen to the prices if companies stop selling some portion of the current imports to the United States? That is a very interesting question. I believe what would happen is the opposite of what is intended. If this is intended to penalize the companies, rather than being a tax on oil, I assure you that if it is a tax on oil, the price will go up, not down. It seems there is no argument about that. If the price goes up because of the tax, does the gasoline coming from the crude oil go down so our consumers get a break? Of course not. The price goes up. So we do not get a break; we get the opposite. We get an increase. And under the guise of a good bill to help American consumers, we get one that clearly will scalp them. They will pay more, rather than less, and we will have some money to claim to our taxpayers that we are giving them back because we are hurting big oil, which seems to be the intention of this amendment. I also note this amendment allows the oil sellers to avoid a part of the tax if they invest it in new oil wells drilled in areas of the country that are not proven up as gas properties. That is very interesting. They cannot invest it in oilfields that are proven up that require money to drill. They cannot do that. It has to be new oilfields. I ask if the proponent of the amendment would submit a list of unproven areas in the United States where the drilling of oil is supported. Where are the fields for new production that are supported? Frankly, every field you try you cannot get it done because of some objection or another. In fact, I ask the sponsor, more particularly, would he submit to the Senate a list of unproven areas where he, the distinguished Senator, supports drilling new fields? It would be all right if he gave a list that are supported not necessarily by the Senator but by any authentic group. In its totality, let me summarize: This is not a tax on the oil companies. This is a tax on oil. It will not produce more oil to tax oil. It will not produce lower costs to the consumer by taxing oil. It is very logical if you say: Here is a product for sale for $150. That is the established price. But now the municipality says: Let's have a 15-percent sales tax or a 50-percent tax on the profits or whatever we determine. That makes the price of the product go up, not down. The same will happen with oil. Tax the product, the price goes up. Tax the company on profits, unless they do something, the price goes up, not down. It would be impossible for the energy companies to invest the money in a timely manner in the manner prescribed. I cannot imagine $3 billion or $4 billion being invested in 1 year in the items recommended by the Congress that knows best where companies should spend it. It seems to me they would have to pay the windfall. They could not do the investing. There is much more to say. There is no question this will cost the consumers more, not less. Gasoline will go up, not down. The supplies will be less, not more. All of which we do not want. All of which I would think the sponsor of the amendment would not want. It is an absolute certainty that is what will happen. I yield back the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, the Senator is offering an amendment which purports to respond to what some executives had to say about whether they needed or wanted the tax provisions in the Tax Policy Act we passed. These provisions--the principal ones--are 50 years old. They are not part of the energy package. They have been there for 50 years, upon which the energy companies rely when they drill expensive holes and invest expensive amounts. It has to do with the amortization of costs. Some of it is intangible, meaning it is not a product because part of the cost is intangible. Part of the cost that goes into producing these is seismic information and the like. That is why it is called that. But these were not adopted in the energy package. They have been part of the production of energy in the United States for eons. We want more production, and we come along and take those away. It seems to me this is the wrong time, and it is not germane.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, and my friend from Missouri, Senator Talent, to introduce a bill of critical importance to the security of our borders: the Border Modernization and Security Act of 2005. Securing our borders is the first necessary step towards immigration reform, and I believe the legislation I am introducing makes an enormous leap in the right direction. Our bill builds upon legislation we introduced in the last Congress to improve our port of entry infrastructure as well as a lot of good ideas proposed by other Senators in this Congress, and adds some provisions that I think are important to a comprehensive border security and immigration reform effort. The Border Modernization and Security Act increases the number of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents each by 1000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011. These personnel are necessary to improve our enforcement at ports of entry and within the United States, and increasing the number of these employees goes hand in hand with our recent efforts to increase the number of border patrol agents who are enforcing the law along our international borders. Along this same line, the bill allows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to support its border and immigration forces with National Guard personnel and volunteer retired law enforcement officers, provides for an increase in the number of DHS alien and immigration investigative personnel, and increases the number of Deputy Marshals to investigate criminal immigration matters. Increasing the number of DHS employees alone will not solve our border problems. Unauthorized aliens also cause a significant burden on our courts. For example, for the 12-month period ending September 30, 2004, 364 felony cases per judge were filed in the New Mexico District. It is apparent how burdensome this number is for my border State's court when you consider that the national average of felony cases filed per judge is 88. To help with these high caseload levels, our bill increases the number of DHS immigration attorneys, federal defenders, Office of Immigration Litigation attorneys, assistant US Attorneys, and immigration judges. Increased personnel is only one aspect of our effort to secure the border. Any border security effort must provide DHS personnel with necessary technologies and assets. To that end, our bill authorizes funds for the Department to acquire new technologies, construct roads, fences, and barriers, purchase air assets, vehicles, and other equipment, maintain temporary and permanent border checkpoints, and construct the appropriate facilities to support the increased number of DHS personnel being hired. Such assets are invaluable tools for our CBP and ICE employees, and we must make sure those men and women have what they need. We also provide for up to 15,000 new detention beds for unauthorized aliens in our bill. Another area Congress must address is our land port of entry infrastructure. No American border has undergone a comprehensive infrastructure overhaul since 1986, when Senator Dennis DeConcini of Arizona and I put forth a $357 million effort to modernize the southwest border. A great deal has changed in the past nineteen years. More importantly, much has changed since September 11, 2001. Congress has passed legislation to improve security at airports and seaports, but we have not yet addressed the needs of our busiest ports, located on the United States' northern and southwestern land borders. The Border Modernization and Security Act would change that and would prevent terrorists from exploiting weaknesses at our land ports. My bill requires the General Service Administration (GSA) to identify port of entry infrastructure and technology improvement projects that would enhance homeland security. The GSA would work with the Department of Homeland Security to prioritize and implement these projects based on needs along the border. The Secretary of Homeland Security would also have to prepare a Land Border Security Plan to assess the vulnerabilities at each port of entry located on the northern border or the southern border. This plan will require the cooperation of Federal, State and local entities involved at our borders to ensure that everyone who plays a role in border security is consulted about the plan. The Border Modernization and Security Act would also modernize homeland security along the United States' borders by implementing technology demonstration programs to test and evaluate new port of entry and border security technologies. Because equipment and technology alone will not solve the security problems on our border, these test sites will also house facilities to provide the necessary training to personnel who must implement and use these technologies under realistic conditions. We must also improve the enforcement of existing immigration laws. Our bill authorizes funds for the Department of Homeland Security to expand its Expedited Removal Procedures so DHS can expeditiously return non-Mexican illegal aliens who have spent less than 14 days in the US and who are apprehended within 100 miles of the international border to the alien's country of origin. We also allow DHS to create an automated biometric entry and exit data system at our land ports of entry so we can more accurately keep track of who is entering and leaving the US. In order for the Department to more easily identify and remove unauthorized aliens who commit crimes under State law and are held in State and local prisons, we authorize the expansion of DHS' Institutional Removal Program. Because of the burden these aliens place on our State and local prisons, DHS will be responsible for reimbursing prisons that detain an alien after the alien has completed his prison sentence in order to effectuate the alien's transfer to federal custody. Along the same line, the Border Modernization and Security Act provides additional assistance to States that are impacted by unauthorized aliens who commit crimes. I know first hand the impact such aliens have on our State and local prisons from talking to prosecutors and judges in New Mexico, so our bill reauthorizes the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program to help our States with the costs of incarcerating these aliens. Additionally, the bill allows for the reimbursement of State and local costs of processing illegal aliens through the criminal justice system and creates a new grant program for State, local, and Indian tribe law enforcement agencies who incur costs related to border security activities. I believe that these measures are an important part of addressing this nation's homeland security needs, and I am pleased to introduce this bill today with Senators Dorgan and Talent. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Monday, November 14, 2005, at 11:30 a.m., on Implementing Legislation for the Agreement between the Government of the United States and the Government of the Russian Federation on the Conservation and Management of the Alaska-chukotka Polar Bear Population.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Monday, November 14, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., on the nominations of Thomas Rosch and William Kovacic to be Federal Trade Commissioners.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet in open Executive Session on Monday, November 14, 2005, at 6 p.m., to consider an original bill that will include the Committee's budget reconciliation instructions pertaining to expiring tax provisions and also additional incentives for hurricane affected areas.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy, Export and Trade Promotion be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, November 14, 2005, at 3 p.m. to hold a hearing on U.S.- International Climate Change Approach: A Clean Technology Solution.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I understand the concerns of the Senator from South Carolina. I will work with the Senator to find a fair solution that does not impact existing Department of Energy programs, and in the event that the Department is unable to meet the statutory requirements for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Conversion facility, the solution ensures that South Carolina does not become the permanent storage site for defense plutonium.

Mr. DOMENICI. I understand the 1996 U.S. Geological Survey report called for a reevaluation of the dam design based on seismic data. A reevaluation should be performed using the best available science and the U.S. Geological Survey should produce an analysis integrating new data.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 5 minutes of my time be reserved intact prior to the vote at 5:30, and I object for the other side. How much time remains, and how is it allotted?

Mr. DOMENICI. I didn't understand. Do we know the names of the Senators? Reed, Domenici.

Mr. DOMENICI. All right. I ask consent to call up conference authority to accompany H.R. 2419 and ask it be considered.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President it is my pleasure to bring the Energy and Water conference report for fiscal year 2006 to the floor for consideration. The bill provides $30.495 billion, consistent with the conference allocation and $748 million above the request and the House level and budget request and $750 million below the Senate allocation. This bill is a product of extensive compromise on both sides. U.S. Army Corps; $5.38 billion: +$636 million above the House, $84 million above the Senate and $57 million below fiscal year 2005 levels and +$1.05 billion above the request. In the wake the hurricanes, this budget rejects the direction of the President's proposed budget. It is clear that we need to invest more in critical water infrastructure, not less. This also funds an $8 million study to investigate various storm protection needs for New Orleans and vicinity, as well as $10 million for the Louisiana coastal area. The report does not provide for the supplemental needs of Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas or Florida, nor does it repay any of the projects that have been tapped to support the Corps' post hurricane operations. The Congress will address this as part of the emergency supplemental. Bureau of Reclamation $1.06 billion. This is: +$53.5 million above the House, -$16 million below the Senate, +$114 million above the request. Mr. President--$24.29 billion is provided to the Department. This is $76 million above the request and consistent with fiscal year 2005 levels. NNSA received $9.196 billion. This is $217 above fiscal year 2005 levels and $200 million below the request, $348 million above the House and -$250 below the Senate. The Conferees have agreed to increase funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead Program. This innovative approach is intended to challenge weapons designers to enhance the existing warheads to improve the safety, surety and manufacturability. The conference agreement provides no funding for a modern pit facility. I do not believe the administration has made the case that this costly new project is necessary at this point. The Department must focus on improving the manufacturing capability of pits at Los Alamos rather than experimental activities. Lab Directed Research and Development, LDRD. The bill increases the LDRD amount to 8 percent. As an experiment, it applies overhead costs, but also ensures that overall LDRD funding does not fall below the 6 percent overall. NNSA's Office of Nuclear Nonproliferation is provided $1.63 billion. This is a slight decrease below the President's request. However, the conferees were able to provide needed funding for key nonproliferation programs. Mr. President, $220 million is provided to initiate construction of the mixed oxide conversion plant at Savannah River Site in South Carolina this fiscal year. This level of funding will permit the Department to move ahead with construction in fiscal year 2006. The conference report provides $309 million, an increase of $42 million above the request and $85 million above fiscal year 2005, for the Nuclear Detection Research and Development account. This is critical funding provided to the labs to stay a step ahead of terrorists and other threats. The conferees provide $427 million, an increase of $83 million, to protect nuclear materials in Russia that was negotiated as part of the Bratislava Summit in February 2005 between President's Bush and Putin. This will allow the administration to secure several new Russian weapons sites that have previously not been open to the U.S. to make critical security upgrades to protect Russian nuclear warheads. Russian sites have traditionally been poorly protected despite the fact that the sites store nuclear warheads. The conferees provide the Office of Science $3.63 billion, an increase of $170 million above the request. The conferees provide an additional $30 million for advanced computing at Oak Ridge. Fossil Energy R&D will receive $597 million, up $26 million from fiscal year 2005 and $106 million above the request. The conferees defer the use of $257 million to be used to support the construction of the FutureGen coal plant. The conference report provides $1.8 billion for Energy Supply and Conservation research and development. This is $24 million above fiscal year 2005 and $81 million above the request. For fiscal year 2006, the conferees have provided $240 million for weatherization assistance. This is a $15 million increase above the request and will provide important funding to offset rising energy costs this winter. In fiscal year 2006, the conferees provide $7 billion in funding for environmental management activities. Within this amount the defense cleanup activities receive $6.19 billion, an increase of $177 million above the request. Yucca Mountain is facing serious delays regarding the filing of the license application and the EPA established radiation standard. In addition, this facility will be too small to address all our Nation's spent fuel and defense waste needs. We need to find ways to reduce the amount of spent fuel to be sent to the repository and encourage the Department to find ways to do more through spent fuel recycling. Recently, the Secretary of Energy Sam Bodman outlined his vision for the future of nuclear power, which includes investment in commercial spent fuel recycling and to minimize the proliferation threats. The conference agreement provides $50 million for the Denali Commission, an increase of $47 million over the President's request. The conference agreement provides $65 million for the Appalachian Regional Commission, consistent with the President's request. The conference agreement provides $12 million for the Delta Regional Authority. The conference agreement provides a total budget of $734 million for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the same as the Senate bill and is $41 million above the request. NRC is charged with new security investigations, as well as supporting the filing of new reactor license requests. The conference report provides $5.4 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers. This is approximately $57 million less than enacted in fiscal year 2005. The conference report provides $1.05 billion more for the Corps than was proposed by the budget request. It also includes $636 million more than the House Bill and $85 million more than the Senate bill. This significant increase signifies a congressional commitment to restore our aging water resources infrastructure. For too long we have not provided sufficient resources for our water infrastructure and we are now paying the price. Navigation channels are not being dredged, which limits commerce. Preventive maintenance is not being performed, resulting in unscheduled outages of projects. Construction of new infrastructure is being delayed and constructed inefficiently due to funding constraints. Studies of water resource needs are being delayed or deferred due to funding constraints. This conference report attempts to set us on the right path to recapitalize our water resources infrastructure by providing $2.4 billion for construction projects and $2 billion for Operations and Maintenance of existing projects. Some of the construction highlights of the bill include: All of the Dam Safety projects are funded at the Corps' full capability; $90 million for continued construction of the Olmsted Lock and Dam; $101 million for continued construction of the New York-New Jersey Harbor; $70 million for continued construction of the McAlpine Lock and Dam, on the Ohio River; $28 million for continued construction of the West Bank and Vicinity, New Orleans, Louisiana flood control project; and $137 million for continuation of the Everglades Restoration Projects in Florida. Some of the operation and maintenance items include: $24 million for the maintenance of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway; $62.4 million for operations and maintenance of the Upper River navigation system; $55 million for operation and maintenance of the Ohio River navigation system; $17 million for maintenance of the Columbia River jetties; and dredging funds were included for most of our smaller ports and waterways as well. The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project was funded at $400 million. This project provides for comprehensive navigation and flood control improvements on the Mississippi River and its tributaries below St. Louis, MO. The conference report includes $10 million for continued studies of how to restore Louisiana's Coastal Wetlands. Additional funding and authorization for wetland recovery work is included in the administration's emergency supplemental proposal. The conference bill contains a proviso concerning a comprehensive hurricane protection study for south Louisiana that would afford protection from a category 5 storm surge and would exclude the normal policy considerations in determining the benefits of this protection level. It is my understanding that previous studies undertaken by the Corps of Engineers balanced the level of protection with the benefits that established policies allowed. None of the existing studies provide detailed analysis of what is necessary to provide Category 5 protection for south Louisiana. This study would provide that analysis. In order to expedite the work, the Corps is directed to provide a plan for short term protection within 6 months of enactment, a plan for interim protection within 12 months of enactment and long term comprehensive protection within 24 months of enactment. This study would rely heavily on existing studies with projections of necessary actions to achieve Category 5 protection. The study would also integrate flood, coastal and hurricane protection measures into a seamless line of protection for south Louisiana. On August 29, Hurricane Katrina came ashore on the Louisiana and Mississippi Gulf coast. This storm devastated the region. The conference report does not include funding that has been requested by the administration for hurricane recovery efforts along the gulf coast; rather, these efforts will continue to be funded through emergency supplemental appropriations. The administration has proposed spending $1.6 billion to restore the levees to prehurricane strength and make repairs to existing Corps infrastructure located in the hurricane's path. The conference report provides $1.065 billion for the Bureau of Reclamation. This is approximately $47 million more than was enacted in fiscal year 2005. The conference report provides $114 million more for Reclamation than was proposed by the budget request. It also includes $53.5 million more than the House bill and $16 million less than the Senate bill. The conference report provides sufficient funding to allow Reclamation to continue their mission of providing water and power to the West. Some of the major highlights include: $129.4 million for the various divisions of the Central Valley Project in California; $52.2 million for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund; $34.4 million for the Central Utah Project; $56 million to continue construction of the Animas-La Plata Project; $16 million for the Ft. Peck-Dry Prairie Rural Water System in Montana; $21 million for the Klamath Project, $37 million for the California Bay-Delta Restoration program. These ongoing water resource projects provide benefits to our citizens by making large parts of the western United States habitable. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.