Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask, who has time next? How much time does the Senator have?

Mr. DOMENICI. All right. I yield the floor and hope later on to talk some more with the Senate about this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, I understand the remaining time until 10:30 is already allocated, half of it to the Democrats and half to us. From our side, I intend to claim our half, and I will use it when the time arises.

Mr. DOMENICI. Does the Senator from Illinois desire to speak now? Is that what he is saying? I am glad to let that happen.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. He can't yield the floor to the Senator. He either uses it or it is there made available for the Republicans to use. He can't yield to someone. Mrs. McCASKILL addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have no objection to her speaking. I understand that the time is allocated specifically. Who has time?

Mr. DOMENICI. I understand there is 3 minutes left for the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I don't know where to begin. So many things are being said by the other side. In particular, the Senator from Illinois spoke for 10 minutes, and it is impossible for me to answer all of the falsities he indicated to the American people in his remarks. I want to say that yesterday afternoon I got word from the floor of the Senate that the American people are not going to be permitted to have a vote by the Senate on an amendment that would open the offshore lands owned by the American people, because the majority leader has seen fit to use a parliamentary process--and I know the people are confused and tired of us talking about parliamentary processes around here, but the truth is that Senators are also getting fed up with it. The majority leader comes along--and we all understand he has the right to be recognized--and, when he was recognized, he offered amendments, so that yesterday evening, as I sat preparing for today, I was told to change your thoughts and your approach because you cannot offer any amendments. That is an undeniable fact. The majority leader has cloaked this bill in amendments and that is called ``filling up the tree.'' I don't know where such an interesting concept came from. If it were Christmas time, filling up the tree would seem like a nice event. When you are here trying to get the Senate to vote on whether a giant asset that belongs to the American people can be open for drilling, it is not a very good-sounding series of words. ``Filling up the tree'' means that those who want to offer amendments, who want to let the Senate determine the future of that 85 percent of the offshore lands of America, cannot do so. Those Senators, on behalf of their people--every Senator represents people and all of the people have an interest in the ownership of this land; it is a huge piece of land. It is very valuable in terms of crude oil and natural gas. Americans should probably have woken up this morning to go to breakfast and to read in the paper: United States Senate permits drilling in the offshores of continental America so the price of gasoline can come down. That is what they should have read in the newspapers across the land. There is no question that more than 50 Senators--Democrats and Republicans--favor opening all of those lands to exploration; that is, drilling, and to let the Governors of the States participate in that process so the States can share in the royalty. That is a very simple proposition. That is the bill and that is the issue. Now we have been told, for their own reasons, the Democrats have said you cannot do that, we have filled the tree. You will come to us and prayerfully ask for permission to do anything on this bill. You will have to seek our permission. So the Senator from Nevada can stand here and say you can do this or that, but the truth is, what he is saying is: If I want to let you do it, you can, because the rules of the Senate do not permit it. So we are unable to get a vote. That doesn't mean we are going to quit. We are going to stay here on this floor. If, in fact, the majority leader tries to close off debate, he will lose, because we believe the biggest issue confronting the American people, bar none, today is the price of oil. We think the biggest opportunity to lower the pressure and bring down gasoline prices at the pump and cause us to import less is to open the offshore of the United States to drilling, plain and simple. The majority started this issue with a bill they put in, which is supposed to have something to do with the price of oil. It has to do with speculation. I send to the desk to be printed the statement of several prominent Americans, all of whom say the problem is not speculation; the problem is supply and demand. To affect supply and demand, you ought to be opening the offshores, which affects supply in a big way. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have been here for 36 years. I chose this year to leave. When an energy bill came forth on the floor and we were going to be able to amend it, I thought we were going to be able to talk about all of the issues, get together with the Democrats and see how many would join us in a major piece of legislation, and I was rather excited. I thought the American people might be pleased with us again, because we were going to do something good. Do you know what. This 9-percent approval rating of the Senate is not there for no good cause. We are, today, adding to that negative image when the American people try to understand what is going on. We were told--and we applauded when we heard it--that this great big piece of property we own--everything 3 miles out from the shoreline of America is owned by the people. There is oil and gas there. For some reason, we closed it down 27 years ago, and every year we put that moratorium on again. It is time to open that and say to the world that we don't have a total solution, but we have a lot of oil and gas we ought to put into the mix and let our companies get to work on, trying to drill and see how it will affect the price of oil. Some people are saying, well, there are already a lot of oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf; why don't we force those oil companies to do better at using it? Let me make that proposition clear. Eighty-five percent of the offshore land is tied up in the moratorium and 15 percent is being used. That 15 percent that is being used is all subject to leases which say that if you don't produce on time, you lose the lease. We don't need any further management in that regard. It is already managed by a ``use it or lose it'' clause in every lease that anyone has on any of the lands that are currently on lease to American companies, or a consortia of American companies and others. So that is a joke when we talk about the fact that we will get more by rearranging that. We need to open the portions that are closed. We need a thorough debate on a number of amendments, and our leaders have said there are at least five or six of them. We don't need a long period of time, but we need an open and free amendment process that we could use. We could go to the other side and get some bipartisan things going. I believe there are many Democrats who want to join us. It serves the wishes of the majority leader to close off debate, because even Democrats cannot join in amendments to do anything now, because the tree is filled--and it is not with Christmas presents. It is filled with amendments so we cannot offer any more amendments. In other words, we are dead in the water in trying to offer what Americans expected--amendments that will open the offshore to drilling. Mr. President, as I understand it, I have how much time, 3 minutes?

Mr. DOMENICI. I think Senators understand that this Senator from New Mexico, as part of the last 6 years while serving on the Energy Committee, has been party to producing three major energy bills that have all been good for the country. They all have ended up being bipartisan. They all required a lot of time on the floor. I could not come down here and put in an amendment and say it is done. It took some time. We wanted to use this time to thoroughly debate the appropriate options to opening the offshore for drilling. We thought Americans, who are watching the price of crude oil come down since the President lifted the Executive closures that existed, would like to see the job finished. We thought they would like to see it opened totally, taking off all of the congressional hangups, the congressional moratorium. I think Americans deserve that. They deserve something positive. They are very worried. The economy is suffering because of the $700 billion a year that goes to foreign countries. It is taken from us for the crude oil we buy. While that foreign country grows, America dwindles. We get poorer; the world gets richer. I don't know how much longer we can stand it. We didn't want to stand it too much longer. We wanted to put in our offsets offshore and let them join in this war we are in, instead of letting us die by attrition as we send our money overseas. It doesn't seem anybody in America should get confused. Democrats can make laundry lists of things that happened and put up a sign in the Senate saying we are the ones blocking this. How could we be blocking this when we are not in control? The majority leader stood up and locked this bill up with his amendments, so we cannot offer amendments without his approval. We don't intend to do that. That is not the way to do business. The American people expect us to have debates and up-or-down votes on this issue, with every Senator expressing his or her will on what happens to this big asset. That is what we want. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I will not use her time, I will use mine. It has been a pleasure since I first met the Senator. I don't always remember all of the new names, but the Senator has the same name as one of my daughters. We have become friends. I admire the Senator from Missouri too, and say I do believe she is learning to be a Senator very fast. I am proud to be her friend. I thank her for her kind words. Audit Report

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that during the 30-minute block of time for our side 5 minutes be allocated to me, 12\1/2\ to Senator Vitter, and 12\1/2\ to Senator Enzi.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, let me first ask that I be permitted to use 1 minute upfront that is not allocated to my 5 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. I say to my good friend before he leaves the floor how good it is to see you in action again. I think you probably feel you are back being a Senator. Remember the days when we, together, passed that one piece of legislation where we overrode the veto of President Clinton, when you were the chairman of the Democratic Party and we had a bill going here? It was the right bill; class action. Do you remember that one? It started us moving where that whole process was cleaned up. I regret to say, with the lawyers we were fighting with in our committees, one of them ended up in jail, I noticed recently. That was the fate he had. I saw that coming as he was conducting his law practice in the days we were investigating class action litigation. I wanted to say what a pleasure it was then. I know from what you are saying that you have had a lot of opportunity to debate, share ideas, work with other Senators, and I think that is what makes the Senate great. I compliment you for it.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, it is obvious I just finished telling the good Senator how we work together to make good laws when we have important issues. I also want to say, in the year 2005 we passed an Energy Policy Act. The Senate took 19 rollcall votes on amendments and agreed to 57 of them. Last year on the Energy Independence and Security Act we took 16 rollcall votes on amendments and agreed to 49. We can look back further, if you would like to, to the successful legislation on the Clean Air Act of 1990. I was here. I was working on it. The Senate acted upon 131 amendments and took well over 3 weeks here on the floor of the Senate. Let me say to my fellow Senators, that is not what is happening today. Today an issue just as important, as I view it, as important as any of the legislation I talked about--any legislation that my good friend from Connecticut talked about here on the floor, any legislation that we have considered in the field of energy--is before us today during a critical time, a time more critical than at any other time we were considering energy legislation that I have alluded to, and a couple of other times that are similar. What did we do then? We had time for important legislation and we must have time for this, for the one who is saying: What are you going to do to the offshore inventories of American oil and gas that are locked up that we cannot use and have not used for 20 to 27 years and now they are there, ready to help the American people? The price of gasoline must come down and that is one way to do it. We have to open the reserves that belong to the people. It is interesting the distinguished Senator from Connecticut could talk about working together and how that has taken place in this important housing bill. It is important that we understand how we did the previous Energy bills. But here today, let it be known that bill which the American people have been wanting us to vote on, wanting us to do something about--that is to open up these reserves that belong to the people and see how much that might affect the price of gasoline--we cannot get a vote unless we do what the majority leader wants us to do. One person, the majority leader, decides whether we can have an amendment, what it will say, what it will be about. It is completely different than the way we have discussed here for the last 5 minutes, the way legislation takes place here in the Senate. Remember what has happened in this bill. You can throw away all the words and look at where are we today. There is a bill pending that the Democratic leader brought to the floor on the subject matter of whether there is speculation going on that affects the price of crude oil in a bad way, with bad conduct on the part of those who are participating. He brought a bill down to cure that. We have been told that is a small part of the problem. But the big part of the problem is supply and demand. We, the Republicans-- joined by some Democrats, I am sure, if we ever had a chance to do it-- are addressing the issue of supply and demand. That is the big issue. That is the issue that might indeed make some Americans smile instead of being so worried about their future because of the price of gasoline and what it is doing to them and to the American economy. We must have the right to freely amend that bill until we come to a consensus. That is how we get things done. But, remember, plain and simple, no matter what is said, we cannot do that.

Mr. DOMENICI. That is because the majority leader has precluded us procedurally from doing anything other than what he wants, what he will let us do. We cannot act the way the Senate should act on important issues. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I was a bit late arriving. I ask unanimous consent for 10 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, fellow Senators, let me say to you that I rise to speak again on what may be one of the most important issues facing the American people. Let me repeat, today we have before us a bill that addresses speculation in the energy business in the United States. I regret to tell you that the high cost of gasoline is straining our Nation's family budgets. The American people are looking to us to do something. Instead of providing some needed relief, the majority has brought a speculation-only bill before the Senate with limited debate and minimal, if any, opportunity for amendments. I am forced to say that in my 36 years in the Senate, I have never seen a problem so big met by a proposal or a solution that is so small. The other side suggests that at this particular time in our history, there is no need to move beyond this, the one bill which the majority leader, using extraordinary rules, has brought before us under our rule called rule XIV. It has not been before committee, it has not been reported out by a committee; just put together in his office. And it is the Energy bill supposedly for the end of this year; it is all we are going to do, with the American people clamoring for us to do more since they are so burdened with the high price of gasoline. The American people, by an overwhelming majority, want action. They are getting nothing except excuses and evasion. Yesterday, the majority continued to trot out a baseless proposal that they are calling ``use it or lose it'' in an attempt to convince Americans that despite all the evidence to the contrary, they are actually in favor of some domestic production. Make no mistake, if the Democrats wanted more production, they would have included in the underlying bill, the one I just described that the majority leader got before the Senate, if they wanted to address some real energy issues, then there is no question that all they had to do was add those issues to that bill, and those issues would be before the Senate. If we needed any more evidence that most of my colleagues on the other side opposed new domestic energy production, it came in the form of a canceled Appropriations Committee markup. In the news this morning, we read that the majority's spin on this decision is: On the Interior Appropriations bill, the Republicans had threatened to strike the ban on offshore drilling that has been in effect for nearly 20 years, even though they have been offered a separate vote to strike this ban on the Senate floor. Their rejection of this offer makes it clear that they are more interested in playing political games to score cheap political points than to complete action on the bills that fund America's priorities. Can you imagine? I beg to differ. Republicans are not trying to score cheap political points, we are trying to get something done--something done to deal with the supply and demand imbalance at the heart of this energy crisis. Our rejection of the so-called offer to bring up a single amendment tells you more about the majority's decision to avoid, at all costs, a solution that measures up to the scale of the energy problem than it does about the Republican's desire to get our work done here in the Senate. This ban on production of our own energy resources can no longer stand in the face of a growing crisis. What we are talking about now, Senators, is that starting 20, 25 years ago, some 27 years ago, the Congress of the United States decided, 1 year at a time, in the appropriations bills, that they would put a ban on drilling off the shores of certain States, until we got to the point where 85 percent of all the coastal areas of America have a ban, a congressionally imposed ban. You cannot go into those areas using the lease proposals of the U.S. Government and give oil companies, large and small, leases to drill and find oil and gas for the American people. Now, obviously this ban on production of our own energy can't stand with today's problems. Those bans started when we were worried about oil spills, and they started when we didn't worry about the price of oil. They started when oil was so cheap that we did not care about producing our own. We could, with reckless abandon, put bans and prohibitions on drilling anywhere we wanted and nobody would get hurt and the American people would not suffer. Such is not the case now. That is why I beg to differ with Democrats who say we are here playing some kind of politics. If there is any politics being played, it is the politics that is trying to prevent Republicans from presenting here on the floor amendments that try to do the people's business, that try to use this oil and gas that is ours in such a way that it will reduce the price of gasoline at the pump. They have called hearings on their own proposals; they have canceled them. They have called for markups on their own bills which would include these same issues; they have canceled those hearings. They can avoid hearing testimony on their own policy proposals. They can avoid production votes on their own appropriations measures. They can even avoid real production votes on the Senate floor. However, my colleagues will not be able to avoid their constituents during the August recess. Thus far this week, instead of action, we have heard a great deal of talk from the other side. We have heard tales of how Republicans are ``blocking another bill.'' I mean, it is really hard for a Senator like this one, who has been here 36 years--this is my last year--I have been in charge of energy legislation, been in charge or ranking member only for the last 4 or 5 years. Prior to that, I did budget work and other work. But in terms of being chairman or ranking member, it is only a few years. We got a lot of things done in those few years. We are here since the Democratic leader brought a bill to the floor. It was his choice to bring it here. He brought the bill here in an extraordinary manner. It is now here, it is pending, and it should be treated the same as any ordinary bill that is pending. It is a bill which allows for any responsible provision to be added to it as an amendment and a responsible provision, as we see it, that will help with the crisis confronting America and we say any amendment that will produce more oil, more gas that will be added to what America can drill for and use. That is important. We are not blocking anything. Can you imagine, they bring down a bill that does one little thing that has been said by most experts to not even be needed. If anything, it is a minor problem. And they want to vote on it and go home and tell the American people they have done something about the energy problem? We turn around and say: Yes, let's do something about it, and we are the ones ``blocking'' another bill. The majority has said they want something done on energy. This would be believable if the leadership on the Democratic side had not clearly stated in December that they would pivot away from highlighting accomplishments in the coming year, abandoning any attempt at accomplishments, and a staged attempt to manufacture the appearance of obstruction is transparently political. This strategy of campaigning from the Senate floor has weakened the institution and left the American people without much needed leadership during this energy crisis. Instead of impugning the name of the American President from the Senate floor, instead of reading poll numbers on the Senate floor, instead of providing daily opinions on the status of the Presidential campaigns--Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Instead of providing daily opinions on the status of the Presidential campaign and special elections, the Senate could have been legislating. We have been told that Republicans may be allowed to offer one amendment; I repeat that, just one amendment. And I repeat that in my 36 years, I have never seen a problem so big met by a proposal or a proposed solution that is so small. The offer of a single amendment was accompanied by a baseless assertion from the majority that they are willing to compromise and work together on energy legislation that both sides can live with. We were told that one amendment from the majority and a competing proposal from the minority is how the legislative process is supposed to work. I disagree. The Senate passed bipartisan comprehensive energy legislation in 2005 and 2007. I was here every moment of it. The process for those bills, which passed both Chambers in the Congress and were signed by the President, was quite different. Take the Energy Policy Act of 2005, for example. And now I will go through the history of that one and the two that followed it. We devoted 10 days of the Senate's time to debating that measure. There were 19 rollcall votes held on amendments, 23 rollcall votes on the legislation itself, there were 235 amendments proposed, and 57 of them were agreed to. There is a similar story to be told of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Over 15 days, the Senate voted on 16 amendments, held 22 votes on the bill itself, saw 331 amendments filed and 49 of them agreed to. We can look back further, of course, to a time when the Senate successfully moved legislation focused purely on environmental protection. During consideration of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the Senate devoted 5 weeks to a thorough and open debate. A total of 180 amendments were offered and 131 were ultimately acted upon by the full Senate. And yet, we are told that one amendment from each side is how the legislative process is ``supposed to work.'' This approach is more accurately described as a lesson in how to steer the legislative process towards failure. The American people want action, not excuses; they want real proposals, not political ploys; and they want genuine solutions, not small measures. During the recent climate change debate, perhaps it was good that the majority undertook a process that was doomed to fail. The cap-and-trade bill would have increased gas prices by more than a dollar per gallon, and energy prices across the board would have increased as well. But now, as a growing majority of Americans from all political camps demand more energy production here at home, we have to get serious about doing the work that we have been elected to do. Advancing a bill that focuses on such a narrow part of the energy crisis we face, stifling the ability to offer amendments to that bill, cancelling markups, and abandoning hearings are not what the American people want from the Congress. I am disappointed that we will not be offered the opportunity to act in a real way this week on the most important issue facing the American people. Despite the majority leader's assertions about the recent decline in the price of oil, talking will not solve what all experts say is a supply and demand imbalance. Solving this problem requires action and leadership. I hope we will see both before we depart for our home States in August. It is pretty clear to me, and I think we are able to make it pretty clear to anybody who is interested, that now is the time to pass meaningful legislation that will help the American people through the crisis of the high prices of gasoline. While we are building a major plan and have come along with a minor plan, in a couple weeks we could knock out a very good bill. I am willing to sit down, bipartisan. If the majority side is willing and the chairman of the committee is willing to invite me, I will be there. Maybe we can do it. Thus far, it seems it was not possible. So we are trying the best we can to do the work for the American people. That means good amendments to a pending bill which we did not bring up, but it is there for us to use, pursuant to our rules. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to use the remaining time, including the remaining leader's time.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is good to be with you today to talk about this. Before we begin a vote on a serious subject matter, it is good to talk to you about a few issues and thoughts I have about what is happening and what should be happening during the next 2 weeks in the Congress. This morning millions of Americans woke up to another costly commute to their workplace. They paid over $4 per gallon to fill their tanks. You will recall that 18 months ago it cost them about $2.60 to purchase the same amount of gasoline. Family budgets are hurting. On average, the American family will spend $2,200 more for gasoline this year compared to last year. A number of surveys suggest that Americans are driving less because the increased price at the pump is too much a strain on their lives. They are turning to us, their elected representatives, and they are looking for real leadership. Sometimes I wonder whether they have given up or whether they actually expect us to do something. I suggest we ought to do something, and any effort on the part of the majority to make this a couple a day event with a vote on each side or perhaps no votes or no amendments by Republicans, let me say that will not be accepted with very much enthusiasm by the minority, and the Republicans will insist that we stay here until we have had an opportunity to vote on significant amendments that we think the American people are entitled to have put before the Senate. It seems to me the American people are turning to us, their elected representatives, and asking and looking for some leadership. In overwhelming majorities, the American people are clamoring for more energy production at home. If any oil production or natural gas production exists that we own, which we are not allowing to be produced, the American people are saying: Why not? In fact, they are saying why not open it; let's see what it yields, what it does for us. The message is clear: Americans are saying we need to drill for more American oil. Now, anything short of allowing up-or-down votes on amendments that will determine whether we honor the request of the American people to drill for more American oil--whether we are going to be permitted to do that is obviously in the hands of the Democratic leader. But I believe we will do our share as the minority--49 of us-- to make sure the American people understand whether they are getting a fair shake by us getting a fair shake here on the floor on amendments that would inure to the benefit of the American people. The majority has offered a speculation bill, so far, and that is all we have seen. In the midst of this clarion call from the American people, it now appears my friends on the other side of the aisle might have to be dragged kicking and screaming to even debate whether we need to produce more energy. After a litany of stale proposals that were rejected--including a windfall profits tax, price gouging, manufacturing taxes, cap-and-trade taxes, and lawsuits against OPEC--the majority seems content to hang its hat on the speculation bill, and a possible ``use it or lose it'' policy. As I speak, it appears that the majority drafts in secret a policy that claims to advocate lower prices while not actually increasing production, and the American people, I believe, will grow more and more impatient, and it will not be hard for them to understand what we are saying as we tell them their impatience is justified. I wish to address the ``use it or lose it'' issue. You understand that the other side is saying, as far as offshore drilling, there are already leases that exist, where we have given oil companies, large and small, the right to drill for oil or gas under the conditions of the leases that went forth. They were obtained by the oil companies, large and small, by bids. Some bids were very high, some were not so high. All in all, there are a lot of oil companies that have the right to drill. So the other side is asking, how many acres do they have the right to drill upon? And now they are sitting around trying to draft legislation that says they are not using that land they leased from us; they are not using it as much as they should, and we want to pass a law that says: Use it as we prescribe in this new law or lose it. They are going to try to tell the American people that is the way to get more oil out of parts of the coastal areas of America-- understanding they are already leased. Oil companies already have paid money and oil companies are probably already doing everything they can to maximize their return on those leases. Yet, since there are a lot of acres, some of which have not yet produced, they are saying let's look at them and that is where we can get this new oil for America. We say that is not true. Those leases are time-certain leases, all of them. They are either 5-year or 8-year or 10-year leases. However many millions of acres it is, that is what they are. If you don't produce within the timeframe allowed in the leases--5, 8, or 10 years--then you lose the lease. That is already the law. You already lose it based upon the leases you have. Let's talk about this idea a little more. This idea was dreamed up in an argument first originated by the Wilderness Society. They claimed that oil companies were sitting on leases, and that if those companies developed those areas, we would not need to open new ones. If only that were true, what a wonderful bonanza we would have for the American people. It is not true. The other side is now saying oil companies must use it or lose it when it comes to these leases. They have proposed adding a tax on companies to punish them for not producing fast enough. This Wilderness Society argument demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how we explore for oil and gas in this country. And the fact that this argument originates with a group that has led at least four major lawsuits in the past 4 years to prevent development in these very same areas speaks to how disingenuous it is. Part of the reason it takes so long for companies to produce is because groups such as the Wilderness Society keep throwing up roadblocks. Companies are paying lots of money for the right to explore on a lease and are given a short period of time to produce oil. That is the way it is today already. We don't need a new law for that. We don't need new legislation now, when we have a limited amount of time-- perhaps 2 or 3 weeks--to debate energy legislation. With the cost of oil at $135 per barrel now, why on Earth would a lessee intentionally sit on a lease and choose not to make money on it? Why would a company pay money essentially to rent a tract of land and then not use it? I heard the claim that 41 million acres is leased on the Outer Continental Shelf and that acreage, 33 million acres, is not being produced. The use of this statistic shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the long, risky process that begins even before bidding on a lease and hopefully ends with production. The other side is saying that unless oil is literally coming out of the ground on an acre, it doesn't count. Even if the acre is being explored or is in the process of getting an environmental permit or is in any way part of a process that is going on, it doesn't count. Additionally, the use of this argument by groups that consistently go to court to prevent development on existing lease areas speaks volumes about the intent here. Congress currently restricts access to 574 million acres in the Outer Continental Shelf. It actually is clear by any measurable assessment that the majority in Congress is ``sitting on'' far more oil than the oil companies themselves. There are many different steps toward producing oil, and that, at any given moment, may not be producing but is active and under development. In the 5, 8, and 10 years that a company holds a lease, environmental assessments could be underway. Lessees could be trying to secure permits. The leasing agency could be challenged in litigation and could be reviewing seismic data. All of this takes time. So you look out there and say: It is leased, but it isn't producing yet. Of course not. If somebody tried to produce too quickly, they would be challenged for not spending enough time under the environmental permit laws doing what is required before one can drill. There are many upfront costs that leaseholders take, that they have to do if they are going to acquire an oil and gas lease. Bonus payments and production, rental payments often cost millions of dollars, and these capital investments are only being made for the ultimate development and production of oil to return a profit on their investment. Simply put, if oil is not produced from a lease, the companies lose money on it. To claim that companies are ``sitting on'' $135 oil simply ignores the historical fact that because you lease lands does not necessarily mean you are able technically or economically to produce on them or even that there is oil under your lease. But you are entitled to keep it and try to make it productive for the length of time that the lease prescribes within the contents and terms of the document--5 years, 8 years, or 10 years. Finally, we should point out that the majority already has a ``use it or lose it'' policy. If you are not producing when the term of the lease expires, you turn it back. So this argument really is a fallacy. I have said this before on the floor. It seems as if the more it is said, the more it is documented, the more the other side claims that there are many leases that we should force the lessees to give the land back or produce under some new slogan called ``use it or lose it.'' As the specter of a limited debate lingers with minimal or no opportunity for amendment on this bill, the American family budget continues to be squeezed. Mr. President, 83 days after introducing the American Energy Production Act of 2008, I continue offering a new direction. In 2006, we opened 8 million acres in the Outer Continental Shelf for leasing. This area contained an estimated 1.2 billion barrels of oil and nearly 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. In March of this year, two lease sales on the eastern and central Gulf of Mexico attracted more than $3.2 billion in high bids, upfront bids--a very high payment. The first sale in the central gulf was the largest sale in the history of deepwater OCS leases. This area is America's new frontier. Today, there are more than 7,000 leases in the Gulf of Mexico that provide 25 percent of the oil produced in the United States and 15 percent of the natural gas produced in the country. The Department of Interior estimates that 300,000 jobs are directly related to gulf energy exploration and the production that comes from that exploration. As a result of the Gulf of Mexico Security Act, the coastal States stand to reap great benefits from the production of gas through revenue sharing of oil and gas. The following rough estimate provides a window into the opportunity available to other States. According to the Minerals Management Service, Gulf States could receive more than $425 million in oil and gas revenues by 2013, $2.6 billion over the coming decade, and over $30 billion over the next 30 years. Yes, those are accurate estimates. That is what other States--not all of them but some other States--that are on our coasts that might agree to let us look in exchange for giving them the same kind of return we gave Louisiana, Mississippi, and the surrounding States, that is what they could look for. These are huge sums that will be raised and returned to the States through the production of our own energy resources. They seek to allow coastal States on the Atlantic and Pacific to share in the energy opportunity. I know there are various opinions as to how many we will find there, but we will never know so long as we keep it locked up, which we have done for 26 to 27 years, where nobody would know and tried to hide it from the American people as if it did not belong to them and it was not any good. The truth is, it is theirs in absolute honest-to-God ownership, and it can produce crude oil of the best type and oil in large quantities. Let's hope that what we do in this area is equal to nearly all the oil produced in the Gulf of Mexico in the last 50 years and is greater than all the oil imported into the United States from the Persian Gulf in 15 years. This is a big opportunity for the American people, but the majority seems content with small ideas. Within two Congresses, we have passed two major pieces of energy legislation. These two bills were monumental undertakings and required months of deliberation to bring to fruition. Last Congress, we had EPACT05 on the floor of the Senate for 10 days. We had 23 rollcall votes on the bill, including 19 just for amendments. We had filed 235 amendments to that bill; 57 of them were accepted. That bill took 4 months from the introduction before we sent it to the President. Last year's Energy bill took almost a year before we had something we could send to the White House. That bill was on the Senate floor for 15 days and had a total of 22 rollcall votes. We filed 331 amendments to that bill and accepted 49 of them. The majority leader seeks to limit the amendment process in a significant way. I trust we will have the staying power to at least have an opportunity for multiple amendments in the area we are speaking of because the American people deserve it and the American people should have it. I have completed my remarks. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

Mr. DOMENICI. Is the Senator from New Mexico recognized at this point?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when I have completed my remarks, the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois be recognized.