Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator. Let me reciprocate. He, too, is a very significant part and plays a very important role in not only the matters he discussed but many others in this bill. I commend him for it. His State has a magnificent laboratory. They are performing some great activity in terms of the future generation of civilian nuclear power. That is important for our and the world's future. I take a moment to thank the staff and recognize their hard work, long hours, many discussions: From the majority staff, Scott O'Malia, Roger Cockrell, and Emily Brunini; on the minority staff, Drew Willison and Nancy Olkewicz. Everybody should understand that these appropriations bills are put together by a small, excellent, and professional staff. Some people think that more oversight should occur. I hope the authorizers will do that. We can't do it in detail. We do our best. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I know there is another Senator, but if he doesn't come by 5:30, I understand we are going to vote; is that correct?

Mr. DOMENICI. I must say, if the Senator from Oklahoma isn't here by 5:30, we can't yield back his time, but we are supposed to vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. I am not trying to take his time. I am going to speak because I have time. If he comes, I will give him whatever I have. Senator Reid talked about renewables. While we weren't able to do everything in each of the R&D programs, we are over the budget with reference to conservation, wind, biomass, solar, and hydrogen. We are higher than the budget request in each of those. We are pleased about that. Move over to the nonproliferation budget, which everybody says is terrifically important for our country. That is up. An area which the occupant of the Chair is familiar with, that is the MOX, the mixed oxide, which is a part of nonproliferation but is America's first significant effort in moving ahead with reprocessing. It starts by a giant step at converting plutonium that comes from thousands of nuclear weapons that have been reduced, eliminated, and the plutonium remains. We are trying to convert it. The Savannah River Project has accepted it. While the House had zeroed it out--a big mistake, in my opinion--we were able to fund it by long and hard negotiations. It was one of the items that held this bill up. It is funded not as much as it should be but sufficient to keep this valuable, almost necessary, project going. That is good. Likewise, there should be no doubt, harkening back to nonproliferation, that the President was right in his budget. He asked for a big increase, while the rest was either zeroed out, slightly reduced. There was an 11 or 12-percent increase. We retained that, and it will now see us make a very major effort in the detection, the cleanup, the safety of items that could proliferate in all the areas, but predominantly in the area of nuclear. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. I have been a forceful advocate of the permanent disposal of the 34 tons of excess weapons-grade plutonium from the U.S. and Russian stockpiles. This material equals the same amount of plutonium as contained in 8,000 warheads. This is the largest non- proliferation effort undertaken by the U.S. and G-8 partners. In the Fiscal Year 1999 Energy and Water bill, I included $200 million in emergency/funding to provide the initial investment in the Plutonium Disposition program. Excess weapons grade plutonium in Russia is a clear and present danger. For that reason, the committee considers the Department's material disposition program of utmost importance.

Mr. DOMENICI. The premise of the longtime member of the Indian Affairs Committee is correct. We do not intend this language to supersede the Northwest Power Act or the Council's fish and wildlife program. Certainly both the Bonneville Power Administration and the NPCC are expected to work closely with the State and tribal fishery managers in determining a suitable entity that could take over these functions so that the fishery managers, including the tribes, continue to receive independent analyses as they have in the past.

Mr. DOMENICI. I agree with the Senator from South Carolina that the administration needs to fully fund this project in fiscal year 2007 and thereafter. Without a viable disposal solution, the cleanup of the Hanford Site and arrangements for decreasing inventories of plutonium at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Pantex Plant will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually for storage and related security costs.

Mr. DOMENICI. I recognize the importance of that language. The appropriations bill includes a 3-year delay in the penalty payment language to reflect the delays caused by the Russians in negotiating a liability agreement. This delay does not allow DOE to withdraw support for the program. Any effort to eliminate funding for this project will likely foreclose a disposal pathway for plutonium stored at Savannah River causing the Department to pay the State of South Carolina up to $100,000,000 per year in fines starting in 2014.

Mr. DOMENICI. The Department does, indeed, have broad reprogramming authority.

Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you for highlighting this matter. Senator Reid and I agree that the programs of the Office of Science, including nuclear physics, merit appropriate consideration for additional funding under the circumstances. I appreciate the efforts of the Senators to provide examples of the impacts on one of our basic research laboratories of the funding levels provided by this conference agreement. I pledge my efforts to work with the Department and other Congressional leaders to help resolve this issue.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of Senator Feinstein, that floor privileges be granted to Josh Trapani, a legislative fellow in her office, for the duration of floor debate on the Energy and Water appropriations conference report.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the Integrity in Professional Sports Act, S. 1960. I am deeply troubled by the accounts of children and professional athletes who use anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancement drugs. The effects of taking steroids are not only physiological, but psychological. Experts have testified before Congress that steroid use creates an increased propensity for aggressive and sometimes criminal behavior. It is clear to me that the use of performance enhancing drugs reveals a number of problems, one of which is a problem of character. As many of my colleagues may know, for the past 12 years, I have been involved in a grassroots program to promote character education for our country's children. The Character Counts program is an important grassroots effort that I am proud to have supported. Most recently, on October 7, 2005, 28 Senators joined Senator Christopher Dodd and I in sponsoring a resolution to designate ``National Character Counts Week.'' The program promotes six fundamental and universal pillars of good character. Those are trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. A central premise of the Character Counts program has held that children across the country depend on social institutions and leaders for the development of good character. For children, these leaders and role models are often found on the rosters of professional sports teams. When our children see professional athletes engaging in the use of steroids, they begin to question the importance of pillars such as trustworthiness, responsibility, and fairness. Speaking as a former baseball pitcher for the University of New Mexico and the Albuquerque Dukes, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of trustworthiness and fairness in sportsmanship. As athletes, my teammates and I understood that the integrity of the game depended on knowledge that your competitors brought no advantage other than talent and hard work to the playing field. To think that your competitors used steroids to enhance their athletic performance would mean that the game itself was compromised. S. 1960 is important legislation because it makes clear that all athletes participating in professional sports will be held to the same standards of fair play. By instituting minimum standards for the testing of steroids, professional sports teams and professional athletes can regain the respect and trust of the American people. It is important that we hold adults to the same standards of character as we do our children. Young people look up to professional athletes as role models. We owe it to them to make sure that adults behave according to the same standards of trustworthiness, fairness, and respect.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today, we as Americans gather to honor all those who served, fought and sacrificed to defend our Nation throughout its history. During the 229 year history of our Nation, brave Americans have answered the call to defend their country's freedom and the freedom of people around the globe. Today, as in the past, our servicemen and women continue to embrace these twin goals. I encourage my fellow New Mexicans and all Americans to take a few moments to remember and honor the gallant men and women of our Armed Forces past and present. New Mexicans have a long distinguished history of military service. During the Spanish American War New Mexico guardsmen formed the bulk of the 2nd Squadron of the 1st Calvary Regiment which served with Teddy Roosevelt and his Rough Riders at the battle of San Juan Hill. When the United States entered the First World War, New Mexicans of the 1st Infantry Regiment served with the 40th Infantry Division in France. While participating in the Italian campaign of the Second World War, New Mexicans of the 104th Tank Destroyer battalion were awarded 8 Silver Stars, 60 Bronze Stars, and 135 Purple Hearts. Of course no one will forget the contribution to final victory the Navajos from our State made as ``code talkers'' or the bravery of the ``New Mexico Brigade'' in the Philippines. In the history of our Nation New Mexicans have served with great distinction from the swamps of Cuba, to the jungles of Vietnam and the deserts of Iraq. It is important that we never forget the sacrifice and dedication of these Americans. They left behind the comfort of home, family and friends to defend our country and its countless blessings. For this, many have paid an immense price, emotionally and physically, some enduring years of captivity and suffering, some never to return home. We Americans owe all that we have to these men and women. No praise or honor will ever be too great for these individuals. The service of veterans to our country has never ended with their departure from the Armed Forces. They have enriched every community in which they reside with their strength of character, hard work and devotion to family. For this we must also be grateful. Since 9/11, the men and women of our Armed Forces have been called away from home, and are today furthering the cause of freedom in Iraq, Afghanistan and all over the globe. Many of these individuals are National Guardsmen like the members of the 515th Corps Support Battalion that recently returned from Iraq and the servicemen and women from Holloman, Kirtland, and Cannon Air Force bases. They serve with the same courage and commitment shown by Americans of generations past and they, too, deserve our thoughts and prayers. May our United States continue to be blessed and may America forever remain the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I pay tribute to not only a fine individual, but an amazing artist, R.C. Gorman, who passed away on November 3 at the age of 74. R.C. Gorman was an artist appreciated not only by New Mexicans, but he was also well respected nationwide and internationally. Rudolph Carl Gorman was born in 1931 in Chinle, AZ. As the son of Navajo Code Talker Carl Gorman, he grew up on the Navajo reservation surrounded by the unique culture of the Navajo people. Gorman is best known for his paintings, sculptures, and lithographs of American Indian women wrapped in blankets. A long time resident of Taos, NM, R.C. Gorman's work became a fixture of Southwestern style of art. In his life, he had more than 20 one-man shows. A distinctive exhibition for Gorman was the ``Masterworks from the Museum of the American Indian'' held at New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art. This exhibit was particularly unique, because R.C. Gorman was the only living artist represented. When I pay tribute to individuals, it is important for me to make sure I am appropriately expressing who they were and the contributions they made during their time with us. I don't believe I can state it better than R.C. Gorman himself in his book, The Radiance of My People. He wrote, ``If I am remembered at all, I'd be very surprised and amused. I don't really think about it or worry about it. But I suppose I would like to be remembered that I was an earnest worker. That I cared. That I know anyone can get what they want if they work hard enough. After all, I'm just a little boy from the reservation who used to herd sheep at Black Mountain.'' I extend my thoughts and prayers to his family and friends at this time. It is my hope, that they remember the great impact he made during his time with us from his work that inspired us to his friendship that endeared us. I express to them my deepest sympathy. It is a great loss to the State of New Mexico and the Nation. I know myself and many people will miss his spirited personality and he will always have a place in our heart.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources previously scheduled for November 3, 2005, has been rescheduled. The hearing will take place on Thursday, November 10, 2005 at 10:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nominations of: Jeffrey D. Jarrett, of Pennsylvania, to be Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, Department of Energy; Edward F. Sproat, III, of Pennsylvania, to be Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Department of Energy. For further information, please contact Judy Pensabene of the Committee staff at (202) 224-1327.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me say to the Senate it is finally time. It is finally time that we decide to do something about our oil dependency. It is time that we do something for the American people about the rising, escalating price of gasoline at the pump. As I see it, this is a rare opportunity to produce substantial quantities of crude oil from our own homeland, from one of our States. Not only will it produce oil, it will produce the equivalent of what the State of Texas has in reserves. To say it has very little is to say the full State of Texas has very little reserves. It will produce jobs, up to 736,000. You see them on this list. America cries out for good jobs. We wonder why we don't have them. Then we ignore our own source of supply which would create them. Any time I have left I yield to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we had a very critical vote. You all listened to it. This is nothing but an amendment to try to come in the back door and kill ANWR. It is absolutely wrong. We ought not even be considering it. The very same people who wanted to kill it for 30 years are making this last-ditch effort. The amendment should not even be on the floor, and we ought to kill it. If it doesn't take 10 minutes we ought to do it in 8 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Is the Senator finished? I notice she is still standing.

Mr. DOMENICI. I don't think there is any agreed-upon order.

Mr. DOMENICI. Is it correct that the Senator from New Mexico may proceed on the hour in opposition to the amendment at this point?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have a number of Senators on this side of the aisle who wish to speak, and they certainly are going to have their turn. I thank the occupant of the chair for being here this morning. Obviously, this is an issue that some people think is very important to the State of Alaska, and there is no question that it is. But this is an issue that is important to the American people. Every day Americans are worried about our future. We just saw hurricanes in the States of Alabama, Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi shut down oil production in that part of the Nation. All of a sudden, America found out that when we have that much less oil--the amount that the hurricanes took off the market--everything happens for the worst for America. I want to start with a simple proposition. The minimal amount expected to be received by the U.S. people from ANWR is about equivalent to all of the oil that was shut down by the hurricanes. Just think of that. Everybody was listening to televisions were talking about and, newspapers were printing all of the oil rigs onshore and offshore that produce energy for America that were shut down causing this enormous problem for America. One estimate is that ANWR will yield that much oil or more, which is a pretty good starting point. I am not going to go into much detail about this ANWR language that was produced by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in response to a budget request made by the full Senate, and I am not going to talk about the $2.5 billion estimate, other than to say I do not believe anybody is going to challenge it successfully before the Senate. It has been arrived at by the Congressional Budget Office, the authenticator of numbers for the Senate. That number is not dreamt up. This is not the White House, this is not the Energy Committee, this is not the Alaskan Senators; this is the Congressional Budget Office, an independent entity that is supposed to do estimates that we assume should be used by us. They say the legislation, as drafted, will produce at least $2.5 billion over the period of time recommended by the budget instructions. That makes it relevant to the budget reduction bill that is before us. It will, when it happens, because of the bids that will be made, reduce the deficit by $2.4 billion. That makes it relevant to a big deficit reduction package of all of the actions that exceeds $39 billion. Having said that, let me then say, since it is important and it is relevant and it will yield revenues to the Federal Government, the next point I wish to make is how many votes are going to be required to pass this ANWR legislation. This is a majority-vote situation. Some say: Oh, this is not the right way to do it. We should leave it under what they call the normal proceedings. Normal proceedings would, I say to the opposition, require 60 votes, and we have done something that will only require a majority vote. I ask the American people who are listening and those who are concerned about this, What do you as Americans expect the Senate to do when they are voting on a measure that affects the American people? Since your first and early days of being educated about the American system, did you not assume that a majority of Senators voting would pass a measure in behalf of the American people? Isn't that what we thought was the rule, 51 votes wins? They say: No, you shouldn't let this great reserve of oil that belongs to us, that we ought to use, you shouldn't let 51 votes pass it. You ought to use 60 votes under some filibuster rule. The rules of this Senate say you do not filibuster this kind of bill. You go back to the old American way of voting, and 51 votes prevail. I hope, finally, after decades of work, that we are rid of the 60- vote impediment to getting these assets, these reserves, these resources opened up for our people, and we are back to the old- fashioned 51-vote approach, and that finally America will say: These are our resources, they belong to us, and we ought to go up there and, under as strict environmental laws as can ever apply, because they are the American laws, produce oil there. To put it in perspective as to how much property we are going to affect, if this bill, as propounded by the Committee on Energy, is passed by this Senate, we will use up to 2,000 acres. It will not be in one place. It will be in various places, but it will be 2,000 acres. Mr. President, that is 2,000 acres out of a refuge that is being talked about regularly as something that we should preserve and keep for posterity, and this Senator--and I believe everyone who favors ANWR--says: Amen, preserve it. How big is it? It is 19 million acres. And 2,000 acres, I say to the Senator from Illinois, are going to be used. The refuge is 19 million acres. I don't want to draw conclusions from that. People can see themselves, 2,000 acres. Or can they? I guess you can't even see it. Mr. President, 2,000 acres out of 19 million acres is hardly visible. We can see the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on this chart. The ANWR Coastal Plain is in green. The proposed development is that little tiny red square. I don't know if the TV cameras are good enough to see it, but that is the 2,000 acres, 3.13 square miles. It is on the green piece on the chart. That is the size of a piece of real estate out of that entire area--the green, the yellow, and the orange--that will be used for the production of oil out of ANWR. I cannot believe the American people--if they understand after this debate is finished that that is what we are talking about--could conceivably believe that this vote should fail today and we should continue to say: Everything is wonderful in America. We can get our oil from Saudi Arabia. We can get it from Mexico. We can get it from around the world. But don't bother to get it from America. It is just not what we ought to do. This country of ours has become dependent on our own States getting 80 percent of our oil from four States: Texas, 22 percent; Louisiana, 21 percent; California, 18 percent; and Alaska, 20 percent. That is just the way it is. So, fellow Americans, our future, as far as American production, is tied to those States. We do have some new finds in the West, and they are exciting, but they are not going to be anywhere close to this. Incidentally, mentioning Texas, some people say this is not very much oil. I heard somebody mention that the 10 billion barrels that are going to be produced there is not very much. Let me tell you how much it is: It is equal to the reserves of Texas. So for those who think it is not very much, maybe we ought to say to the American people the entire production of Texas is not very much. Maybe we could say we don't need the oil from Texas. If we go out there and find we don't like the way it is produced, just shut it down. It isn't important. There would be absolute turmoil in this country if somebody said, Take the oil from Texas and close it down, we don't need it; it is just what Texas produces, and we don't need it. So the American people understand, when this 2,000 acres is producing, it is estimated by reliable estimators that it will cause the reserves under the ground to be the equivalent of those in the State of Texas. That is a pretty big piece of the oil future of the United States. Let me talk a minute about a couple of other things that happen when you open ANWR. First, in the United States these days, we are all wondering what is happening to American jobs. How come everything is going overseas? How come the American working man, the American construction worker who used to make good money--how come there is not enough work in that field? How come big construction projects are not being done here anymore? How come it is just reported that out of the over 400 chemical plants that are worth more than $1 billion, each that is being built in the world, one of them is being built in the great United States of America and the rest of them all over the world? We are asking ourselves, What is happening to our country? What is happening is we do not develop our own resources, and thus they are developed elsewhere and there are no jobs in America to produce what we have. I have another chart here behind me, and then that will be all that I will use. This is one prepared by the Wharton School. Some will say, and I will answer before they do, that this chart was produced a few years ago. It was. But do you know what Wharton School did when they produced it years ago? They used $55 a barrel. People on the floor of the Senate said: Throw it way. At $55 a barrel, they have to be wrong. We just asked them 2 years ago: Would you please bring it current? They said: Now we know we are right. We estimated $55, and I will tell you today it is $59-plus on the market in the United States. So the Wharton study is certainly as good as we can get. Look what it says. If you develop ANWR, the United States of America, for Americans, will produce 128,000 manufacturing jobs; mining, including oil--all high-paying jobs--84,000; trade, 225,000 in various trade activities; the service industry, 145,000; construction per se, 135,000; and then a combination of finance, real estate, and others, which is that FIRE, 19,500. The total is 736,000 jobs. Has anybody produced such a bill on the floor of the Senate? We say let's have a jobs bill. We introduce a bill to train people who are unemployed so they can go to another job. We introduce a bill that says when people are laid off, we will train them for another job, and this will produce a big number of jobs. Has anybody ever introduced a bill, had a proposal, made a suggestion, argued in favor of--anything on the floor of the Senate that could produce 736,000 jobs, new jobs for the people of the United States? Of course not, because we do not produce jobs in the Senate. We don't produce them with bills, either, job training bills. We produce them when we do things or eliminate things that cause entrepreneurial investment activity that produces wealth, and with wealth, jobs. That is what we have here, no doubt about it. At $50 a barrel, which is the Wharton study, that is what it will yield. Anybody who thinks that by the time we get to ANWR it will not be $50 a barrel and it will not yield this I believe is hiding under their Senate desk as they vote no here in the Senate as far as ANWR is concerned. Having said that, I want to take 3 minutes and tell the Senate about an experience I had. I went to Alaska, after many years. My friend, the occupant of the chair, and our new Senator from Alaska recently pushed me to do it. I went in about March of last year. It was awfully cold. I know that. I have one great picture--I cannot believe I survived. But what I saw, every Senator who is against this proposal ought to honestly go see what is going on. There is one production pad called Alpine. In its completed stage, it is 60 acres of property. In its completed stage, it is 60 acres. On that 60 acres is the production capacity for 150,000 barrels a day. Got it? That is 150,000 barrels a day. The 60 acres, when we saw it, was solid ice. It had oil wells on it that were drilled, many of them, in less than 1 year, all close together, many of which were vertical and horizontal, meaning you drill a well down and then go out sideways and you go out for 3 or 4 miles, 5 miles. When we get around to ANWR, they are going to be drilling out 10, 15, 20 miles. So from one piece of real estate which we are worried about we will get literally scores of underground wells producing oil that is coming to the surface, unified, and then put in a distribution facility and delivered. All of that work will be done in the dead of winter--the trucks, the tractors, the moving things, the supplies, all come on winter roads. We were there, so we could see the winter roads. When the summer comes, the ice melts, the roads disappear, the tundra is right back where it was, and Alpine, the 150,000-barrel production wells are there, covered by whatever covers them from the weather, and out comes a spout from which the oil goes on stakes that hold up the pipeline, and there it is, delivered to a source to go to be used by Americans as they need oil to live, survive, make a living, and keep up their standard of living. Some say we should not be dependent upon crude oil and carbons in the future. I submit there is nobody suggesting that we know how to get off of the transportation system we are currently using, in the short term. We are going to be on that for some time, even when we engage in the largest program we can, in terms of new ways to get our mobility, whatever it is--maybe hydrogen engines. It is going to take us many years, during which time we are going to import oil from overseas in huge quantities and send American bounty to foreign countries, greatly increasing our foreign trade balance, by the billions of dollars, all because we send our money overseas to acquire oil. I beg the Senate to once and for all do the right thing regarding our future. Say no to sending more of our resources overseas. Say no to fewer jobs for the American people for the future. Say yes to the unions of the United States that represent these workers who are here en masse, begging us to pass this so they will have jobs. Say yes to American business that is frightened about our competitive future, and say at least we are going to take one step forward, not another step toward complacency, toward not caring about our future and standing on principles that are not applicable today. We know how to drill for oil without damaging the tundra, without damaging the surface to any significant degree. We ought to say yes, today, to a very good budget reduction bill which in its totality will reduce the budget $39 billion--not a little pittance--of which ANWR will yield $2.5 billion. That is not too shabby a number. It will require 51 votes for those who want to take this out. In the end, we will need 51 votes to pass the bill. I believe that is fair. It is such a huge resource for America. It should be passed or denied not by 60 votes but by 51 votes, the majority vote in the United States. Argue as you may in opposition to this. This is not the way to do it. Then what do you say the way to do it is? To require 60 votes? Who ever heard of that as an American principle? That is a procedure that does not apply here. The Senate has said it doesn't apply here. The old American way of 51 votes applies, and that is why we are here. I want to close in one rebuttal. We are going to hear a lot that this oil doesn't do much. Whenever the amount of oil produced is equated to the total American picture, I want to answer it this way: Accepting a mean calculation of 10.4 billion barrels of oil in ANWR, it would supply every drop of oil for the entire State of Florida for 29 years. Hear that, the entire State of Florida for 29 years; the entire State of Arkansas for 146 years; Hawaii, 249 years. We will not be using oil that long, but people should surely get an idea that this is a pretty significant resource for our country. I thank all those who helped put this bill together in our committee. I hope sometime during the day we will have a vote and it will be a vote where we say, for a change, we believe in America's future and we are going to do something about it. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.