Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I will be glad to do that.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have confirmed with Senator Snowe and Senator Lott that they would permit me to set their amendments aside for 3 minutes so that I could offer a nonproliferation amendment. I ask the Senate for that privilege.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DOMENICI. I made the request and the Lott amendment was pending and I asked it be set aside for 3 minutes so I could offer an amendment. That was granted.

Mr. DOMENICI. And I said, and I ask the Senate grant me that privilege, after I made that statement to which you are referring.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I was going to say, frankly, I never withdrew it. We had a discussion about it, and you asked me something, but I do not think I ever formally said it. They said at 3:05 it was withdrawn. I do not remember at 3:05 being on the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Fine. And I have no doubt you will.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOMENICI. I want to take a minute to compliment the Senator. Actually, a lot is going on with reference to Iraq, but it seems that somehow or another, once Saddam was captured--whatever is happening to him, I hope it is humane, and we have every reason to think that it is--it seemed to pale in the background. It kind of went away--I am sure not in your mind, I am sure not in many minds, but in a sense because other things have happened that are somewhat gruesome. The enormity of Saddam Hussein's actions versus those kinds of events is actually inconceivable. We talk about a prison. We talk about, even from their standpoint, Berg being decapitated. We talk about those four people they drug down the road. But imagine what he did to his people in comparison. I think the Senator is right. To put in perspective the conduct in that part of the world and the difficulty in changing things and the difficulty in bringing people together, which we are trying to do, would begin to put itself together. If we had him there with adequate prosecutors and evidence and people, I would assume some witnesses--you would have a lot of pictures--as to what he did, it would be a tremendous improvement in balancing what is going on. I commend the Senator. I wish we had a way--this body--of expediting that. But we don't. I think what you are doing helps. I commend you for it. I don't think a resolution here urging it would have much effect. It might have the reverse effect. I don't know. I thought maybe we would have one saying what we think. But in a sense they want to do their thing, and I think that is correct. I do believe, while we turn their government over to them, turn over the governance, we ought not forget the issue of a judiciary and a criminal jurisdictional court for that purpose. That is big enough to be considered even in the transfer of governance because it has to happen. We do not want to do it, but we want it done right. I understand what the Senator from Pennsylvania is saying. They can do it right. Actually, we ought to be able, in the transfer, to in some way indicate the gravity of the situation and how we feel about it. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to remember and pay tribute to those from my home State who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. I sincerely believe we must never forget those who have given their lives to protect us all. Each and every day, law enforcement officers risk themselves to protect the rights and freedoms we enjoy as citizens of this great country. Their commitment and sacrifice make our streets and homes safer, our communities stronger, and keep our families secure. On October 1, 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed Public Law 87- 726, proclaiming May 15 of each year as Peace Officers Memorial Day and the calendar week of each year during which May 15 occurs as National Police Week. The week is a time to honor Federal, State and municipal officers who have been killed or disabled in the line of duty. This law was amended by the 103rd Congress as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in 1994 to order the United States flag on all government buildings displayed at half-staff on May 15. Since the turn of the last century, more than 60 law enforcement officers have been killed in the line of duty in New Mexico ten since 1996. I would like to bring special attention to two events in particular, while realizing that all are nonetheless significant. One occurred long ago, and the second just this past year. The first took place the year prior to my election to this body. On the night of November 8, 1971, New Mexico State Police Officer Robert Rosenbloom was gunned down after he stopped a vehicle on Interstate 40 west of Albuquerque. Three murder suspects--Charles Hill, Ralph Lawrence Goodwin, and Michael Robert Finney--fled to Albuquerque. On November 27, they forced an Albuquerque tow truck operator at gunpoint to drive them to the runway of Albuquerque International Airport. Once there, the hijackers seized control of a commercial jet and forced the pilot to fly to Havana, Cuba. Under the protection of Fidel Castro, they have avoided American justice. It has been reported that one suspect died in Cuba; however, there are still outstanding warrants for all three suspects. These men have been given asylum in Cuba and we continue to seek the extradition of these men for trial. Today, I renew my call for Cuba and Fidel Castro to return these fugitives. This shall also serve notice that those of us from New Mexico have not forgotten, and we will forever hold out desire for due justice. I would also like to remember Patrick K. Hardesty. Patrick grew up in Artesia, NM, where he established himself as a talented musician and Eagle Scout. In fact, he was one of my military academy nominees years ago. While making a career in the U.S. Marine Corps and Reserve, Patrick earned a college degree and joined the Tucson, AZ police force after retiring from the military. On May 26, 2003, about this time last year, he was brutally shot and killed while investigating a minor hit- and-run in midtown Tucson. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the unselfish dedication of Robert Rosenbloom and Patrick Hardesty, and all the brave men and women who have devoted their lives to public protection and service. We remember their dedication to protect and serve, and the tragic price they paid for that devotion. We also remember the families of these two officers and the sacrifices they have incurred because of a deep-seated commitment to duty and public service. All of us from New Mexico owe a debt of gratitude to each and every officer who has lost their lives in the line of duty. We would do well to remember to express our gratitude to the officers who continue to serve us day to day. The men and women of law enforcement, through their service, are most worthy of our thanks and highest respect. To all who have paid the ultimate price and to those who continue to serve, may we forever be grateful and never take for granted what you do. You have my utmost admiration.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I rise in support of final passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, IDEA. I would like to thank the leadership for their hard work on this issue and for making it a priority. This legislation is critical for children with disabilities. We have a special responsibility to vulnerable populations such as disabled children. We must ensure that all children, including those with special needs, are given the best education possible. By reauthorizing this law today, educational opportunities and outcomes for children with disabilities have been strengthened greatly. We have established high expectations for real educational results for disabled children. The purpose of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that includes special education and related services to meet their unique needs. More than two decades ago, when I was just in my first term as a Senator, we said to our schools, ``When it comes to disabled children, exclusion from public education is unacceptable.'' But the Federal Government has never paid its proper share of the cost of the special education mandate it imposed on States and schools. With the reauthorization of IDEA today, the Senate has reaffirmed its funding commitment to children with disabilities. But more than just increasing the funding for this program, the Senate has ensured better results for students with special needs, reduced the paperwork burden for teachers and school officials, and maximized parental involvement and choice. Prior to the passage of IDEA in 1975, many students with disabilities were provided an inadequate education or none at all. Our society has made great advancements in the way that we deal with the disabled. We have finally realized that disabled children need better results, and that parents need better information and options. The IDEA reauthorization signals another important step for education reform in the United States. This law will undoubtedly improve academic results for children with disabilities, and it is for this reason that I am supporting this legislation. I would also ask that the leadership on both sides continue to work together to get this bill to the President. Unnecessary delay could disrupt the delivery of important legislative gains for children with special needs and the school districts that provide their educational opportunities.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. First, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their kindness and generosity as we work on this bill. I am speaking now of the energy tax parts of this bill. The rest of it is the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee, and they essentially have done that. We have helped with the energy provisions because we were trying to put together a comprehensive energy package. It is good that in the Senate, after one Senator talks and states his position, there is an opportunity for somebody else to state their position, and I want to do that because actually earlier today the distinguished Senator from Arizona talked about a bill that I do not even recognize, talked about things wrong with this bill that I am not even sure are in this bill, but certainly failed to mention anything that is good about it. So I would like to talk about some of the good parts. It is estimated that this part of the bill will create 650,000 jobs. Those jobs will be in construction and the operation of infrastructure vital to the energy security of this country. Tax provisions will allow us to build an Alaska pipeline, which is supported by the Senate and will bring us American-owned gas all the way from Alaska. It will not do any environmental damage, and in the next 5 years we will add substantially to our inventory of natural gas. The package provides incentives for electricity produced from clean coal. If there is anything that we need in America, it is a vital, growing, prospering energy grid in the United States. We have to have a stronger energy grid if we are going to have a stronger America. Everybody says that. This bill provides for incentives so that will happen. Third, this package puts incentives in for biomass, geothermal, and solar. Last, but not least, we have the renewables. We have wind energy that is to break and come through in large quantity. It is all stopped now until this bill passes and the incentives in this bill are adopted. If you have a major solar energy facility, construction is stopped until this bill is produced. Then that will grow faster than any renewable we have ever had. In addition, clean coal technology is applied so that we can have other alternatives for the production of electricity. If there is anything we need, it is alternatives. Clean coal will be an alternative. If we tell the world we are producing alternatives, they will believe we are worried and they will believe we can do something for ourselves, instead of continuing to put our hands out and rely upon foreign sources of energy. There are tax provisions related to the restructuring of the electricity industry that are being imposed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It is absolutely imperative that if the Government forces utilities to sell assets as part of deregulation, it will not also turn around and punish utilities for those sales through the Tax Code. Some of the critical incentives in this package that will encourage domestic oil and gas production are in this bill. We know it. Everybody who has studied it knows it. There may be some provisions that Senators do not like because when you put a package together you just cannot have everybody liking everything. But I submit, to come here with a Time magazine that was talking about a different bill and a different time--there are things that are alluded to that are not in this bill-- is truly not something the Senate should bank on with reference to whether they vote for this. They ought to vote for this. It is half an energy package and it is better than none. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: The hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 18, at 10 a.m. in Room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to evaluate implications of a recent change in reporting of small business contracts by the Department of Energy. This change has the effect of increasing the number of small business contracts issued directly by the Department and decreasing the number of contracts issued by the Department's Management and Operating contractors. 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, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Dr. Pete Lyons at 202-224- 5861 or Shane Perkins at 202-224-7555. Subcommittee on water and power

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do we have remaining?

Mr. DOMENICI. I will do my best to be finished in 10 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I rise today to speak about a subject that is dear to the heart of the Chair because Alaska contains much of the energy that the United States needs. Yesterday, crude oil closed at $39.57 on the New York Exchange. Nationwide, the average price of gasoline is $1.84, expected to rise 5 to 10 cents over the next several days, and even more as we enter the summer driving season which begins on Memorial Day. Natural gas prices are also at a record high for this year, 70 percent higher than they were a year ago. We are increasingly dependent on imported supplies to set prices. In the Pacific Northwest, the snowpack is at 50 percent of average, and so hydroelectric generation will be at a record low this summer. We currently import 55 percent of our oil. We will depend upon 70 percent for our demand by 2025. Meanwhile, we are experiencing record temperatures in southern California where already there is a strain on the region's electricity system. I do not know what sort of psychological barriers need to be broken in the Senate to finally pass comprehensive energy legislation. We are very close to breaking through every psychological barrier related to energy policy. Oil will soon cost $40 a barrel. Gasoline will be over $2 a gallon. Natural gas will be permanently over $5 per MCF and the adequacy of our electricity generating grid this summer is now a simple calculus. Will it be hotter than usual? Because if so, we will have blackouts again. My colleagues will notice that I no longer believe that our growing dependence on imported oil will have the psychological impact necessary to motivate my colleagues into action on the Energy bill. For my part, I am alarmed. I see us becoming 70-percent dependent on imported oil. I read of terrorist threats against overseas oil infrastructure and refining capacity, and I am amazed that I have colleagues who want to stop building our emergency supplies in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve or, even worse, call on us to use up those reserves now. In the past, the result of such activity was miniscule in terms of its impact on gasoline prices. It is just something to talk about. It is not something that will do anything. Instead, yesterday a number of Senators came to the floor and called on the President to pressure OPEC to increase production and reduce prices. Does anybody assume he has not already done that? Does anybody assume they are interested in what we say today? It would be terrific if OPEC would do that, but I have to ask my colleagues, why would OPEC take us seriously? OPEC sees us for what we are. We are hooked and we cannot even do the most incremental steps to begin to address this plight. OPEC sees a Congress that has talked about passing an energy bill for 10 years. They see a Congress that has failed every year for the last 3 years to pass an energy bill. OPEC sees an America that lacks the political will to address its own crisis. Instead, we blame and complain. If you were OPEC, would you take us seriously? Some say passing an energy bill will not do a lot for foreign crude oil prices. I disagree. I think passing the first comprehensive energy bill to come out of this Congress in 12 years sends a strong signal to oil-producing nations. I think if we do more to conserve energy, increase production, diversify our energy supply, we will tell OPEC America is a country with unity, commitment, and the political will to address our most serious domestic problem, and that is our energy challenges. If Senate Democrats mean what they say when they wring their hands and lament the rising oil prices, pass this bill. When we voted last week on the authorizing portion of the bill, we got only 14 Democrats to join us, and then someone on that side had the audacity to say it was the Republicans' fault we didn't pass it. That is less than one-third of the Democrats who voted in favor of it. Yet the steady stream of Senators who come down here to speechify on energy is from the other side. They are Democrats. Some of the Democrats down here on the Senate floor yesterday wringing their hands about gasoline prices, blaming the administration yesterday, are the same Senators who voted against the Energy bill last week. Last summer we had the biggest blackout in the Nation's history during the August recess. You all remember that. When Congress returned, Senators went to the Senate floor to make speeches, to wring their hands about the problem in our power grid. Some of those same Senators turned around a few weeks later and voted against an energy bill that mandated electricity reliability. Everyone who knows anything says that must be adopted if we are to rearrange things and have power over the utility lines so we will not have blackouts. It is recommended by everyone who knows anything about it, and we sit here and fail to pass the bill that contains it. Gasoline prices have shattered all records in April. Prices could reach $3 by late September. I know that is a startling statement, but I make it because I believe it. Prices could reach $3 a gallon by late summer. Natural gas prices on average are 70 percent higher than last year. Our electricity grid is every bit as vulnerable to a blackout today as last summer, and we stand here making speeches and passing the blame: Blame OPEC, blame the President. The buck stops here. It is up to this Congress to pass a bill that stabilizes the price of oil, gas, coal, and natural gas. It is up to this Congress to pass a bill that increases our production of energy from natural gas, wind, solar, geothermal, and clean coal. It is up to this Congress to mandate electricity reliability. Let's stop politicking on this energy bill and on this energy problem. Let's stop looking to foreign shores to solve our problems. Let's stop looking to OPEC so they would have the will. Let us unify and resolve that lack of enthusiasm and unity. Let's roll up our sleeves and pass an energy bill. It is possible. The bill before us now contains about half the Energy bill. It has all the tax credits that will bring much of the energy that I have spoken about on board America. It will not do the whole job, but it will do something. We understand there are Senators who do not want to see that pass. It has broad support and it will do something significant. I trust we will pass it. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wish I could have come to the floor earlier but sometimes you are surprised to hear arguments that you never expected. All Senators on that side of the aisle who have come down here to rail against President Bush about high gasoline prices need to take a look in the mirror and blame themselves. I have been down here for months trying to get a comprehensive energy bill passed that will promote a policy of greater energy security and independence. Some of these very Senators are blocking these efforts. The Energy bill is not a silver bullet to lower prices for gasoline or for natural gas. No such thing exists. There is no silver bullet. It is disingenuous for Democrats to imply that one exists. They know better. Our bill is long term, to deal with our supply and manage our demand. That is the only responsible strategy. We need more domestic oil and more natural gas production. The Energy bill provides the open door for that to occur. We need alternative fuel sources. The Energy bill promotes for sources such as wind and solar. It promotes clean coal technology, and, yes, eventually, nuclear power. We need this broader portfolio to reduce risks of overdependence on one source. The occupant of the chair knows that as well as anyone. One source of energy is disaster for this great country. Natural gas, as the sole energy to produce electricity, is a disaster. Senator Schumer said: ``Don't think there is nothing we can do about high oil prices.'' He is right. He suggests remedies--stop filling the SPR. That is wrong. But I do agree we can do something about oil, natural gas, and gasoline prices. Changes to our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the SPR, are short term, shortsighted, and bad policy. The SPR is a national security asset. It is there to serve for an emergency, in an emergency situation, when there is a severe energy disruption. It is not a price control mechanism. If we alter the SPR practices, then we can assume that OPEC will alter their production output. This leads to more volatility in the market and a disastrous result. President Clinton tried to use SPR to deal with high oil prices. He failed. Gasoline prices--believe this--dropped by one penny. That is all, a single penny. Risking our national security by depleting or playing around with the SPR got us a total impact of one penny. I know we are all concerned about high gasoline prices. On average, gasoline demand in the United States is about 9 million barrels a day. That is roughly 378 million gallons of gasoline a day. Some parts of the country are experiencing $2-a-gallon price, and others have prices in the $1.70 range. According to the Energy Information Administration, the national monthly average regular gasoline pump prices are expected to peak at about $1.87. One of the reported reasons that we hear for high gasoline prices is the high oil price demanded by OPEC. In 2003, we imported 42 percent of our total petroleum imports from OPEC countries. Supplies from OPEC provides about 26 percent of our domestic crude oil. Senator Wyden introduced a resolution about OPEC. I agree with some points of his resolution. The resolution says the President should communicate with members of OPEC and maintain strong relations. Of course, that is a given. We need to work together in a cohesive fashion in our relations with exporting countries and send a strong message that we want reliable supplies at fair prices. Senator Wyden's resolution also says that Congress should take short- term and long-term approaches to reducing and stabilizing oil prices. If we pass the Energy bill now, in the short term, then in the long term we will see the benefits of lower oil prices. The last part of Senator Wyden's resolution lists some things that can be done to lower oil prices. I particularly agree that we consider lifting regulations that interfere with the ability of the U.S. domestic oil and coal, hydroelectric, biomass, and other alternative fuels to supply a greater percentage of the energy needs of the United States. That is an excellent description of the Energy bill pending before the Senate. Isn't it interesting, instead of passing the bill, we recommend resolutions that do the same thing but the resolution will not accomplish the same thing. We all know that. If Senator Wyden is serious that he wants these things, he should be voting to pass the Energy bill that includes the very list contained in his resolution. I thank the Senate for listening. I am ready at any time to come down and debate the Energy bill and its content, because it is time we quit talking and start doing. It is time those on the other side look in the mirror. In the mirror, they will see they are responsible for what is happening because they will not help us pass an energy bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with several of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, legislation that will protect U.S. trademarks and their legitimate owners from the effects of the confiscations decreed by the Cuban government. My colleagues and I believe in the fundamental principle that property rights must be respected and that it is wrong for governments to take property from individuals and companies, whether nationals or foreigners, without payment of prompt, adequate and effective compensation. We uphold the firmly established principle of our law and public policy that foreign confiscatory measures must never be given effect on property situated in the United States. When the Castro regime took power in Cuba, it engaged in a program of wholesale confiscation of property in Cuba, including property owned by Cuban nationals as well as by U.S. and other non-Cuban nationals. The Cuban government also purported to extend the effects of the confiscation to property, such as trademarks, that the confiscation victims owned in other countries, and took other actions in an attempt to seize control of such assets. To protect U.S. trademarks and their legitimate owners from the effects of the confiscations decreed by the Cuban government, Congress enacted Section 211 of H.R. 4328 (PL 105-277) in 1998. This law, referred to as Section 211, prohibits enforcement of U.S. rights to trademarks confiscated by the Cuban government, except with the consent of the legitimate owner. Section 211 simply made it clear that the universal U.S. policy against giving effect to foreign confiscations of U.S. property applies with equal force in the case of U.S. trademarks confiscated by Cuba. Section 211 was challenged in the World Trade Organization (WTO) by the European Union (EU). In January 2002, the WTO Appellate Body finally resolved that challenge by finding in favor of the United States on all points except one. The Appellate Body made a narrow finding that, because Section 211 on its face does not apply to U.S. nationals, it is inconsistent with the national-treatment and most- favored-nation principles under the TRIPs Agreement. The Appellate Body fully supported the principle embodied in Section 211, that is, the non-recognition of uncompensated confiscations and the protection of intellectual property ownership rights. The revision required to broaden the application of Section 211 to include U.S. nationals amounts to no more than a minor, technical fix. The legislation that we introduce today makes it clear this well- founded law applies to all parties claiming rights in confiscated Cuban trademarks, regardless of nationality. Such a technical correction will satisfy the WTO ruling and prevent the EU from applying trade sanctions against the United States at the end of this year. Moreover, this legislation does three things: it maintains protection for original owners of confiscated Cuban trademarks; it applies to all people, regardless of nationality; it clarifies that trademarks and trade names confiscated by the Cuban Government will not be recognized in the United States when the assertion is being made by someone who knew or had reason to know that the mark was confiscated. This bill does not in any way decide which party owns a Cuban trademark in the U.S. nor does Section 211 prevent the Cuban government or its various entities from having access to our courts or from registering legitimate trademarks in the U.S. As long as the trademark was not confiscated, the Cuban government can legally register any trademark it desires. Moreover, even if the Cuban government stole a trademark in the 1960s, it can still register the trademark in the U.S as long as the original owner has consented. Once revised, Section 211 is consistent with all of our international treaty obligations including the Inter-American Convention on Trademarks. The Inter-American Convention expressly in Article 3 allows non-recognition of a trademark when such recognition would be contrary to the public order or public policy of the state in which recognition is sought. There is no doubt whatsoever that allowing title to U.S. property to be determined by a foreign confiscation violates U.S. public policy. Section 211 simply makes it clear that the universal U.S. policy against giving effect to foreign confiscations of U.S. property applies with equal force in the case of U.S. trademarks confiscated by Cuba. Nothing in any treaty or in international law is inconsistent with that rule of U.S. law. I believe this piece of legislation is a simple technical corrections bill which will ensure that a fairly simple, but important, U.S. law is WTO-compliant.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate a birthday and to pay tribute to a hero and icon from my home State a New Mexican who became the renowned symbol for the Cooperative Forest Fire Prevention program. His name is Smokey Bear. Sixty years ago this year, Smokey Bear became the voice for the Forest Service public education campaign to save American forests. Since his creation in 1944, most Americans now quickly associate the name Smokey Bear with his mantra: ``Only You Can Prevent Forest Fires.'' Not many know the remarkable story of Smokey Bear or that the fire prevention program is the longest running public service advertising campaign in the history of the Ad Council. In 1950, Smokey Bear became real, sadly through an unfortunate forest fire. That spring, in Lincoln County, a little black bear cub was found clinging to the side of a charred pine tree after a forest fire swept through the mountains. After being discovered, he was briefly called ``Hot Foot Teddy,'' but was later named Smokey Bear after the Ad Council's poster bear. Since that late spring day, that cub became the living symbol of Smokey Bear and worked to remind Americans of the importance of outdoor fire safety. It is a message whose importance has not faded since the bear was discovered on a charred New Mexico mountain. New Mexico, along with other Western States, has experienced devastating fires in recent years, which is why the fire prevention message is so important. Forest fires burn millions of acres, destroy homes and businesses, and, worse yet, take the lives of wildland firefighters. As we remember all too well, 2000 was the worst fire year on record since 1957, and subsequent years have not been much better. Last year's devastating fires prompted us to finally agree to the passage of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. I have a feeling Smokey Bear would be proud of that accomplishment, and know that his wildfire program had never been more important. While we now work to improve our forests with this new law, Smokey's message must still resound. This message of forest fire prevention has undoubtedly helped to reduce the number of forest acres lost annually to wildfire. By what measure, I can never know. However, to suggest that he has not made a significant difference would be amiss. The injured cub discovered in 1950, our Smokey Bear, eventually arrived at the National Zoo in Washington, DC, where he would become the living symbol for fire prevention. He resided in the National Zoo for 26 years until he passed on November 9, 1976. Most appropriately he was returned to his old roaming grounds and to his home town to be laid to rest. Capitan is a small town in Lincoln County, nestled between those Capitan and Sacramento Mountains of central New Mexico. This beautiful place is full of wonderful people who love the land and refer to Smokey Bear as ``Capitan's favorite son.'' Each year Capitan residents celebrate his memory with the Fourth of July Smokey Bear Stampede, but this year is a special tribute. The village is hosting a special 60th birthday celebration May 7-9. Much of the 3-day festivity will take place at the historical park named in Smokey Bear's honor and along what is now aptly named Smokey Bear Boulevard. I pay tribute to the people of Capitan in this Record--they have gone to great lengths to preserve the story and meaning of Smokey Bear. I also salute the USDA, the Forest Service, the National Association of State Foresters, and the Ad Council for supporting this program all these years. May the initiative's success only be a prelude to future forest preservation and wildfire prevention, and may Smokey Bear and all he represents forever remain.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I am going to use those 5 minutes, and then we will be on the Domenici amendment. Then, I will speak a few more minutes, as I have time. I will start by using some time right now.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself up to 15 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. I hope I don't use all that time. Will the Chair advise me when I have used 10 minutes?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we cut the cost by $6.7 billion. The amendment before us is not subject to a point of order and it can proceed without any concern in that regard. We have been criticized heretofore because we had an MTBE safe harbor provision. That provided faulty product liability protection for the manufacturers of MTBE. When the conference report was on the Senate floor, I spent a great deal of time defending that position which was insisted upon by the House. I thought that provision was necessary, but because we could not get that provision accepted by the Senate, it is not in this legislation. I feel very chagrined today to note, while it has not been to my ear where I have heard it, I understand the oil companies and their major lobbying groups are opposing this bill because of MTBE not being in it. I think that is a shortsighted approach. How are they going to get MTBE if we don't get a bill? If we don't get a bill, we stay right where we are, except we don't have an energy bill for America. What we have is no change in the MTBE law, but we do not have an energy bill. I urge those who are taking that position to assume the reality of things. If they think we are going to change the original bill and get two more votes--remember, in a cloture situation on the original bill, we got 58 votes. I remind those who think we can go back and fix it that it is also subject to seven points of order. Sooner or later, it would have been defeated by a point of order. For those who are sitting around thinking that we can get that, they just absolutely are talking irrelevant, they are talking things that cannot happen. Now let's talk about the bill. I hope my friend Larry Craig comes to the Senate floor before we are finished because I could not have a better helper than he. He understands this bill. I want to suggest to all that this bill, in its slimmed-down manner, when coupled with the tax provisions that are in the tax bill that will come up in the Senate next week, will put before the American people one of the best energy bills we have ever done. The American people are watching as gasoline prices soar, and they are going to be looking today as Senators vote yes or no on keeping this bill alive. I know it is tough to get 60 votes. I know that Senators have their particular reasons--one little piece of this bill--for voting no. I know there are some Senators even on my side who are being told: Wait around until we get MTBE. We are not going to get MTBE in the Senate. It is an absolute wish that cannot be accomplished. For those who are worried about it, they ought to let us get a bill and then see what happens. Let me move to a few other issues. Senator Bingaman came to the Senate floor yesterday with a list of concerns. He does not support the hydroelectric relicensing provision, the Indian energy provisions, or the electricity title. I understand his perspective, but I contend that his views on these issues are the ones that are outside the consensus. We need consensus. We do not need what one Senator thinks we need; we need consensus. This bill has consensus. Take the hydroelectric relicensing which is so important to Senators of both parties from the Northwest. We are not trying to build new dams or change the standards. All we are trying to do is streamline the process. Senator Craig has been active in that issue, and many Senators voted for it, even though they are not from that area. Let's take the electricity provision about which many experts have said the future of America lies in the electric grid of America growing and becoming stronger and becoming better, and of all the things we can do, this is the most important. When I became chairman, I assumed that issue would be an obstacle to reaching consensus in light of the great controversy over the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's recent rulings. We worked for months to get an agreement, and the final product is, to my amazement, supported by almost all the players in the industry across this land. It is by far the greatest achievement of this bill that we could reach such an agreement in the months since we completed that conference. The agreement has held, and it is here. There are parts of this bill that some criticize, just as there are parts of this comprehensive legislation that, taken alone, I would criticize; however, on balance, this package is a middle ground in this Congress. We know this bill is before us in an extraordinary way. We know that if after this vote the McCain vote succeeds, we are wiped out, we are removed from the calendar. We understand that. I guess the probability is that we cannot get cloture, but we are not giving up because we understand there is some kind of bipartisan support for getting cloture. This bill also has that most attractive part for many Senators, the ethanol provisions, which 31 Republicans voted for when it was introduced. Senators can look at that and see if they voted for it or not, and if they did, they should vote for the Domenici bill. I hate to call it ``mine'' because it is the result of so many Senators working on both sides of the aisle. I think I would call it the ``consensus bill,'' but maybe people would not like that because they do not think it is consensus for them. This bill provides great quantities of natural gas from American sources over the next 5 to 10 years--from Alaska and from underground off our shores without in any way violating the moratorium. It produces a modernization which addresses the drilling activities in our country so we can get more oil and gas without harming the environment. It solves the electric problem. In addition to the grid I talked about, believe it or not, this bill provides that when there is gridlock, when you cannot proceed any further because you run into State lines or you run into somebody else's right-of-way, believe it or not, we got a consensus, including Republicans, that after negotiations that occur in the States or between the companies that are at loggerheads, we have a provision that eminent domain can apply. Nobody thought we would get that. That is an extraordinary position to get and bring before the Senate. I know it does not sound sexy, as some political issues, but it is good. This bill is filled with very good things. I hope those who are looking at this bill with a microscope, and want to make sure every single provision meets with their satisfaction, understand that the American people are not looking at this bill with a microscope. They are looking at this bill to see if the Senate wants to pass an energy bill. This will be a signal of whether we want to put something together that will help America in this energy crisis. If we do not want to, then we can send a signal that we do not like this provision and we do not like that provision, but at some point in time the American people are not going to look at that. They are going to see where were the Democrats, where were the Republicans, where were the leaders in trying to get a bill that will help solve America's energy problem. I see the minority leader in the Chamber, and I understand his great concern on the ethanol front. I suggest that he has been very helpful in the past in trying to get a comprehensive bill which would include ethanol, and I understand that, but I submit there are an awful lot of people who are very shortsighted.