Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Might I ask if we are ready to proceed now? Is the chairman of the Budget Committee prepared to make his closing remarks?

Mr. DOMENICI. The appropriate word is ``recalled.''

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Parliamentarian.

Mr. DOMENICI. There is none. When you finish, we are going to vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. Equal time, 1 minute, 2 minutes; whatever you take, I take. Then we vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. I will use 2 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. I understand that we will proceed to an up-or-down vote. Mr. President, I might say to the Senate, after this vote, I don't believe either Senator from New Mexico will be here for the remainder of the votes. Senator Larry Craig will assume my role as manager of the bill. I thank everybody for their cooperation to get the bill this far. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, let me say to the Senator from New Hampshire----

Mr. DOMENICI. Of course.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before the Senator from Virginia leaves the floor, might I say to all of those who pay attention to these issues that the Senator is a new member of the Energy Committee, and I wondered when we made up the committee why the Senator had chosen to be on the committee. Then I found out that Virginia has a terrific interest in a lot of these issues, and I found that the Senator was very knowledgeable and a very good participant. The Senator helped us get a good bill. I commend the Senator on his analysis today. This is a bill that should direct us in the right way, especially in the natural gas area. Clearly, we are at our knees. People say it is the gas pump, but it is also the price of natural gas that is causing America great trouble. We have resources. We just cannot use them because we need new technology and we need to do a better job of getting them ready for the marketplace so that we do not damage the air. We are working on that, and I thank the Senator for that. Also, I want to compliment the Senator on seeing the value of the offshore resources of the United States. I am not suggesting that I understand each State's political issues, but I do understand that there is a lot of natural gas offshore. No. 2, I do understand it can be produced with little or no harm to anybody. A lot of it can be produced if it is there. I commend the Senator for realizing that is an American asset and he would like very much for the Congress to face up to that. I yield to the Senator.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will yield momentarily. I say to the Senators who are listening and to their staffs, we are in the process of trying to put together a short list of amendments that are absolutely necessary. We are getting close to the end--the end will be here when 30 hours have elapsed and then we could have a series of votes, but I don't think anyone wants that. The Democratic and Republican staffers are taking these amendments and they are working together to see how many are absolutely necessary. I ask Senators, do not wait, because we will have to go back and call you all. If you are serious about an amendment, there are people on the Democratic side and the Republican side and in the respective cloakrooms waiting to see and talk with you through your staffs or otherwise as to what you want to do about the amendments. Clearly, there are numerous amendments and I am sure they are all not going to be offered. They were submitted in good faith, but I am sure they are not intended to be voted on before we finish. Would Senators on both sides of the aisle--I think Senator Bingaman agrees--try to help by getting word to the cloakrooms whether they are serious, whether they want to work on their amendments so we can put our list together.

Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. DOMENICI. Might I say it this way. We are not going to agree unilaterally or even together what the list is. Senators have to agree. So, Senator, you and others who do not want that on the list, you will be there and you will say no, and so it will not be on that list. That is the best way to say it. It is not going to be on the list unless Senators want it on the list. If you do not want it on the list, when we get there, we will call, as you know, and we will find out. We cannot tell you now because we have a lot of amendments. Let's follow the regular order. You will be there and everyone should know that.

Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator is absolutely right. That is the way it is done. That is the way it will be done.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee has the right to raise a point of order and he did. There is also a provision in the Budget Act that says if a point of order is made, the Senate may waive the point of order. So the issue before the Senate is whether we should waive the point of order. I want to make two points. First, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which has the bill on the floor, was allotted $2 billion. People think we were allotted a lot of money. We were allotted $2 billion to be spent by the committee on matters pertaining to this bill. We have a debate as to whether we can spend it on this amendment or whether we have to spend it on the bill in committee. The Senator from New Mexico maintains that we should, as a Senate, say the $2 billion was given to the committee. We are spending it on legitimate committee business, and we ought to be allowed to spend it on this amendment. We do not break the budget, we just use the money we were allotted. So it isn't a budgetary question. It is a budget issue whether we should waive based upon whether we should have used it in the committee or whether we could use that very same amount of money on the floor of the Senate. That is the issue. I yield back any time I have.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before the yeas and nays are called, I think we have a unanimous consent agreement that everybody put their fingerprints on. I will read it, after which time we will vote. I ask unanimous consent that the list of amendments that I send to the desk be the only first-degree amendments remaining in order to the bill, including the managers' amendment, which are enumerated; provided further that this agreement does not waive the provisions of rule XXII; further, that upon disposition of the pending Domenici amendment, no further amendments relating to the issue of OCS moratorium and natural gas and oil exploration be in order to the bill, with the exception of amendments Nos. 802 and 804, to be offered by the distinguished Senator Vitter; and that upon his statements on them, the amendments will be withdrawn. I modify that to strike the amendment we have already recalled, and that was amendment No. 802. So I strike No. 802, which has already been recalled. The rest of the proposal I leave with the Senate.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from Alabama for his remarks, and I share his concern regarding additional FERC merger review authority. I look forward to working with him in conference to ensure that PUHCA repeal is not accompanied by the grant of unnecessary merger review authority to FERC.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank Senator Salazar for his support for H.R. 6 and share his interest in developing a sound and forward-looking energy policy for our Nation. I understand his concern that the West enjoy clean energy generation. I look forward to working with him to move H.R. 6 as quickly as possible. Innovative Technologies

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 on Tuesday, July 19, at 10 a.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the oversight hearing is to receive testimony regarding the effects of the U.S. nuclear testing program on the Marshall Islands. 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, D.C. 20510-6150.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 844

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield to the majority leader.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time do we have in opposition to the amendment?

Mr. DOMENICI. Thirty minutes. I yield to the distinguished junior Senator from Tennessee 7 minutes to start our debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I hope that Senators and those advising Senators listened carefully to the two arguments that have already been made. In particular, I commend both Senators. But let me say, if you listen carefully to the argument that Senator Bingaman, my colleague from New Mexico, just made, it should be clear that there is no intention in our legislation that local authorities be usurped. There is no intention that the environmental law of the land--NEPA--not be complied with. As a matter of fact, it is required. There is nothing in this law that will take a myriad of State and local requirements and do anything other than say they must be complied with. I have behind me a chart which summarizes that permit and certification approval that must take place before we get to the final stages. And you go through a myriad of activities. We are talking about California: Fish and Wildlife, the Department of Transportation, regional water quality, California State Historic Preservation, storm water discharge associated with construction--we can go on and on, all of these things, including a full analysis as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. As we wrote this bill, we were trying to write national energy policy. Our country has been accustomed to a myriad of regulatory constraints and litigation before issues that are significant to our Nation's energy come to an end. We decided that there was protection with reference to the citizens, the location, and the States in the existing law of our land, and we didn't touch it. We merely said, in the final analysis, the last step will be decided by FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. This is a national energy issue. For anyone who thinks this is purely a simple issue of whether a Governor, when this process is all completed, ought to be able to say with a pen ``I veto this,'' that is not the case. Any Governor who wants to participate and have a meaningful decisionmaking involvement has ample opportunity to do so, and they will. They will be heard. In the final analysis, this country cannot wait and sit around and say: We will wait until this matter is litigated. We will wait until we see how many Governors want to say no, until we find one that will say yes. When, as a matter of fact, out of a myriad of applications--one, two, three, or four--one will have been deemed by every single environmental, every single test, every zoning law to be safe and sound. The country is dependent upon natural gas and the price of it for our future well-being. That has been stated over and over. This is an issue about whether we have a fertilizer industry. This is an issue of whether we import what we need to grow our crops or whether we produce it here. This is an issue whether America produces the chemicals we need for our lifestyle. Why is it that? Because natural gas is the primary ingredient to all those things and more. As the Senator from Tennessee said, we had the luxury of the lowest natural gas prices. Natural gas was not in abundance when it was the lowest. Sure, we have a lot more natural gas we are producing in America. But the Senator from Tennessee indicated that we are doing everything we can to maximize our production. I want to add to his litany of what we are doing, to assure those who produce natural gas in America, we are not forgetting about them in this legislation. We are trying to give them every opportunity to produce more. We have streamlined their permitting process. We want America to produce it. But the one chance we have to bring back that competition that comes, when you have enough so that demand does not totally set the price but supply has something to do with it, is to let it be imported. I wish I wasn't here saying that. I wish I could say America is not going to have to import natural gas. I tried my best before I started this bill. The Senator from New Mexico looked at it. I found those who say we cannot survive the next 25 years without very large increases in the natural gas that we need to use. We have to add a huge amount to what we can produce to survive. What happens if we have a bottleneck of significant proportions on getting that natural gas into the country? The $7 plus per unit will go to $8. It will to go $9. It will go to $10. One prediction is it will go to $13. On the way, America will be going out of business. As it goes up, we are going out. We are going to lose jobs everywhere. All we are suggesting is, don't add to it. I would imagine if you looked in the world and you looked inside and said analyze how safe can the siting of one of these ports in an inland location, how safe can you make the site, you probably would say we have done everything that you could imagine to make sure that happens. The only thing we have said is, when it is all finished--months and months, maybe even years--you can't then say a Governor can come a long and say no. Nobody should think this is a States rights issue. This is a reasonable approach to an American problem of significance. Any Governor who is worth his salt--and probably all of them are--you can rest assured will be involved in this process. They will be involved. They just are not going to be able to say: Well, I watched it all, I have looked at it all--or, as Senator Bingaman says, perhaps they will let it all go by--and when we are finished, I will make a decision. They could say that. But I don't think that is going to happen. First of all, we are not going to let that happen. But nobody is going to do that. They are going to get involved in all of these things that are here. In California, on the local level, you have to go through the Port of Long Beach, a harbor development permit, a building permit, the Port of Long Beach Development, city of Long Beach Engineering and Public Works. All of these things have to be done. We are not going to roll anybody over. But in the final analysis, the States should be involved in that. If a Governor is concerned about his people, he should be involved. And, frankly, there is no doubt in my mind that if some mistakes are being made, they are going to get caught. Senator Bingaman just cited one. They aren't even close to a permit in one application. What has FERC said? They sent their people out to look at it. They said: Forget about it. It flunks the test. They didn't only fail their test, they would fail anybody's test. It would fail the test of any one of these entities. So it wouldn't be built. But let me suggest, we have gone through making mistake after mistake by piling regulatory authority upon regulatory authority, to the extent that we have ended up saying: OK, give up. We are just not going to do that. The best example is nuclear power. I don't mean to have a big debate on it. But we decided that we should take care of that by litigation. We said: We will purify the shortcomings by going to court. We found out, if you to go court enough times, you kill anything because you can't get the money invested. It is a business. It must be done on the basis of financial returns, probability and risk. I also want to say that something has been said here today about the risks involved in LNG. I don't want to get into a debate of risks involving LNG ports. I suggest the Sandia National Laboratory report that was alluded to earlier by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. But rather than pick one section from it and reading it, it concludes that the chances anything serious will happen are minuscule. Everything you do of significance has a risk. If you don't want to risk your legs wearing out, don't get out of bed in the morning. Lay in bed your whole life. You sure won't hurt your knees. You may not be able to do anything, but you sure won't hurt your knees. Don't worry about that risk. There is a risk in everything involved in energy, but a minor risk when it comes to LNG ports. That is throughout this Sandia report. That is an aside, just to say nobody is trying to take a risk-laden act for the location of a site and escape scrutiny. Nobody is suggesting that in this bipartisan bill that passed the committee 22 to 1. Nobody is suggesting that. Nobody is suggesting we are enhancing the risk of doing something we must do. Not at all. I will close by saying something I believe everybody should understand. It is consensus interpretation that right now, today, without this bipartisan bill, the Federal Government has a say-so about location. I can cite various commissions, various legal opinions. But understand that when such an issue is contentious, imagine how long it could take to get a decision made about something important to a country--how many years. I note the presence on the floor of a distinguished lawyer, the Senator from Alabama. I don't know where he is on this issue. As a States rights Senator, he probably thinks this is a States right issue. I am a States rights Senator, too, but I don't think it is. He knows how many years of litigation it would take. Would it take one? It could take four or maybe more. It would go through district court, Federal court, an appeal, they would redo it, and then somebody files an injunction and they take another appeal--while FERC says, why don't we locate a port and bring this LNG in here. I close by saying that we are dependent upon crude oil from overseas for our very survival. I wish I could tell you we are not going to become dependent upon natural gas from overseas, but that is not the case. We are going to be. You know, those countries are going to spend so much money making sure they develop the kinds of boats needed to bring it over here that are safe. I heard from one country that they are going to invest billions of dollars for the safety of the hulls of those ships that are going to bring it over here because they, too, know they cannot have accidents. All of this means this is profitable to somebody who produces it. We hope we don't make it such that it is more profitable because the supply is limited because we cannot act. So this is a provision in our bill which says: Act with extreme prudence. Act only after you go through every hoop you could go through. But don't, at the end of it all, say: Governor, after all, it is a national problem studied by everybody, with environmental impact statements completed, local zoning ordinances, and the Governor could get involved and argue and send his people, and when it is finished, he can take out his pen and say I veto it. I don't think that is the way to do it. I have not made my argument with as much legal precision as my friend Senator Bingaman, but I do believe I have stated the case--not the case for California, but the case for America. Let me say there is no better advocate than Senator Feinstein. But I must admit there is no State that makes more decisions against producing energy in their State for their people than California. My time is expired. I yield the floor.