Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

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

Mr. DOMENICI. The electricity amendment pending at the desk has 13 cosponsors. I thank the cosponsors, Senator Landrieu, Senator Thomas, Senator Murkowski, Senator Campbell, Senator Smith, Senator Alexander, Senator Kyl, Senator Nelson of Nebraska, Senator Hagel, Senator Talent, Senator Bunning, and Senator Coleman. I have a very brief statement, and I trust Senators will listen. It is to the point. We will be on this until there are no more amendments to offer to this title.

Mr. DOMENICI. I would like to do this, with your concurrence. Why don't we proceed with the Bingaman amendment, tell Senator Maria Cantwell she will be next for an hour tonight. In the meantime, would you let us work on the unanimous consent request proposal so your staff and ours----

Mr. DOMENICI. First, I thank the Senator for the hard work he is doing, trying to ascertain from Senators at this hour--although we have all been telling them we are working, and this is the work part of the day, it is not hard to find out what they want to do. I thank you for the obviously successful effort you made so far.

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Might I say to the distinguished Senator from Nevada, all I want to try to do is move this bill along, as you know, and to do that in a way that is consistent with Senators having ample time to prepare and to present their amendments properly. You indicated to me, without certainty but relatively close, that you probably--we are probably looking at eight amendments, five Senators, with one of them who has three. I might ask, Is Senator Bingaman's No. 2 included in that?

Mr. DOMENICI. No. So it is the possibility of nine amendments. I want to tell the Senator from the start that, as far as the distinguished Senator Maria Cantwell, I certainly do not have any objection to 1 hour tonight and 2 hours tomorrow morning. We can start with that. But what I do have some concern about is trying to determine when we would be finished with amendments to the electricity title. I tell you that as much because I have been hearing from your side of the aisle of the great desire to take up two amendments that have to do with climate change. I have been told the only way that can be done, and done right, is tomorrow because everybody will be here. That is two. I have been told that--and I know--Senator Bingaman wants to offer his amendment with reference to a 10 percent mandatory renewable portfolio, and that belongs in the same package. I have been told the distinguished Senator has a new source performance review; is that correct? Is that what it is called?

Mr. DOMENICI. I remember that when I was on the committee--new source review. He had that up once. A couple of Senators came back who were not here then. That may well be why. But that is another one we have to look at. I guess what I am wondering is, if it would be asking you too much to suggest the following; that Senator Bingaman offer his amendment--I am not suggesting, I am not proposing this officially--he offer his second amendment here, and that Senator Cantwell offer her amendment tonight and debate it for an hour; that you try to find one more amendment to be offered tonight, and then that we reach agreement, come back tomorrow, reconvene at 9 o'clock in the morning, at which time Senator Cantwell would have her time, and all the remaining amendments--that is 9, 10, 11--remaining amendments in this area would be finished by 1 o'clock in the afternoon.

Mr. DOMENICI. What time would you think?

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.

Mr. DOMENICI. What would you like, 2:30; 3?

Mr. DOMENICI. I want to say now--and I will say it three more times tonight before we finish--to Senators wherever they are that we are not quitting tomorrow night at 7:20. If there are Senators who want to be off the Hill, they can be off. We are going to be here tomorrow night voting on amendments that your side wants. We are just about out of amendments on our side of the aisle. I am not sure of any really important ones left. Your side has been telling me they want these very important amendments that they claim are related to this bill. A whole bunch of amendments that are left don't even belong on this Energy bill and are not even within this committee's jurisdiction. This Senator stands up and argues against them but, as a matter of fact, they ought to be argued by another committee chairman. I am not even the one who takes care of them. But I will have to do that. As long as everybody understands, Senator Cantwell will be taking 2 hours tomorrow. We are going to start at 9 o'clock. We are still going to be on these amendments to this bill. We need Senators to get ready tomorrow morning with additional amendments in this arena. Then we will proceed quickly to the amendments such as the one Senator Feinstein has and all the others. But we will be here tomorrow evening. We will be here plenty late as we take those amendments, as long as we understand we are ready to do what you recommend.

Mr. DOMENICI. We will stay right on electricity in the morning and try to finish it as soon as we can. I am hoping that it doesn't take all day so we can go to the other issues. But at this point, could we just, so as to protect you, agree that if you will move as follows tonight, we will set aside the current Bingaman amendment so that the second Bingaman amendment can be taken up. Then it will be set aside so we can take up first the Cantwell. She will use 1 hour tonight. We will answer, if we see fit. If not, we will debate it tomorrow. Nonetheless, we will come in tomorrow at 9 o'clock, and when we get on this bill, Senator Cantwell will be up and she will have an additional 2 hours on her amendment. I am merely adding as a matter of discussion that further amendments on this section of the bill will be in order at that time.

Mr. DOMENICI. Is that fair enough?

Mr. DOMENICI. Senators understand that means we are not going to vote tonight. But you certainly can look to a late night tomorrow night with votes. I yield the floor and thank the distinguished Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI. I say to my friend, Senator Bingaman, perhaps, with a little bit of time, we can work on it and see if there is some way we can avoid an amendment. If not, clearly, you understand yours, and we understand our reasoning why we do not need it; that it should not be an amendment; that it should not be raised to that level; that it is not needed in terms of the full amendment. But we will work on it. Now, I understand the time has arrived when I would make a request because I don't think I did the other in the form of a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that the second Bingaman amendment be set aside so that the distinguished Senator, Maria Cantwell, can offer her amendment, and that she would use up to 1 hour tonight and have up to 2 hours tomorrow on that same amendment. I ask Senator Cantwell, that is correct, is it not, that you would like up to an hour tonight and up to 2 hours tomorrow on this amendment?

Mr. DOMENICI. I just wanted to make it clear we are not trying to deny you anything. We just have to have some idea what comes next so other people can be ready. And if it looks as if we come in at 9, you would still have up to 2 hours for further discussion by you and others regarding that amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator is correct, except, might I say, I think it is fair, just for the Senate's sake, that we say on both of those up to 2 hours. And I do not intend to amend. But we don't have to wait here if she is finished.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to honor a remarkable and talented young man who will be sorely missed as he moves to the administration to become the special assistant on energy to the President of the United States. Clay Sell has been working for me as chief clerk for the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development for the past 4 years and while I am extremely proud of his accomplishments, I am sad to see him go. When Clay first came to the Senate, he impressed us all with his quick uptake of his new position and we were pleasantly surprised with his negotiation skills. It has been said of Clay that even when he negotiated a victory for his position, all parties involved left the negotiation table happy. His keen understanding of people and his genuine attitude are just a few of the great personality traits that Clay possesses. Clay's hard work and dedication began at an early age. Growing up in greater West Texas, he learned the value of hard work and perseverance. The Sell family settled in Petersburg, TX in the early 1900's, a small farming community that has changed very little over the past century. Clay's father George grew up to become the first person in the family to receive a college degree. The hard work that drove George to succeed was prevalent in his son Clay. Clay graduated from Tascosa High in Amarillo, TX where after he went on to receive his undergraduate degree in finance from Texas Tech University at Lubbock. Immediately following his graduation from college, Clay moved to Austin to attend the University of Texas Law School where he met and married his lovely wife Alisa. After a short stint in Amarillo, Clay and Alisa moved to Washington, DC, where Clay began his political career working as a legislative assistant for a newly elected Representative from Texas, Mac Thornberry. While working in the House of Representatives, Clay spent a great deal of time working with energy policy. He worked in all aspects of energy legislation and played a key role in formulating and drafting the legislation which set up the National Nuclear Security Agency, NNSA. This experience made Clay a prime candidate for the position he would eventually assume upon his move to the Senate. Clay's work in the House of Representatives prepared him a great deal for his new job, but his new position required a greater understanding of national energy policy. Over the past 4 years, I have gotten to know Clay and his wonderful family very well. Alisa and their two sons, Jack and Robert, have been Clay's stabilizing force. With another child on the way, that force will no doubt grow even stronger. It has been my privilege to know and work with Mr. Clay Sell, but my words today are bittersweet. I do not feel that words alone can properly show my admiration for all that Clay has done for me, but I am confident that he understands how greatly he will be missed.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand we will have a number of amendments this morning. Yesterday we had two CAFE amendments. I understand there is a third--at least a third--that will be presented this morning. We are hoping that will be the extent of the CAFE amendments and that we will eventually vote on those and the Senate will work its will, as it has already in the past on CAFE standards. I understand there is a good chance there will be a number of amendments offered this morning. There is no desire on my part to ask for votes today. Every effort will be made to work out with the minority a method of stacking them for Monday which would be far more accommodating to Senators. While we wait to untangle some matters, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I object.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.

Mr. DOMENICI. Whatever time the Senator desires. We have no objection.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I wish to make a comment. First, I was present when Senator Stevens, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, spoke, which was prior to Senator Burns. He heard him, he talked to him, and then he spoke. I wish to talk a minute about an issue that is dear to the Senator and Senator Bingaman, who sits here, and myself. We continue to have meetings in our Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Agriculture Committee of the Senate trying to analyze why it is we are unable to address the issue of thinning our forests and getting rid of blighted areas in large manner rather than taking so long and sitting by and watching the forests of America deteriorate to the point that they become tinderboxes. They are so filled with overgrowth that fires are inevitable. And when fires happen, very big trees burn because the bottom is totally filled with too many trees, too much brush, too many of the branches and leaves that have fallen. Then thousands of acres are blighted and dried and nobody is doing anything about it. Then comes a fire. Then we come along and we say: Let's put up extra money to put out these fires, so-called disaster money. Then groups across America begin to run advertisements, have meetings and say: What is the matter with Congress? We can't get our forests thinned. We can't get them fixed. We cannot get the kind of reform that will get work done. We have arguments that break along environmental and nonenvironmental lines. We can solve those, perhaps, in the next month or two. But let me say to the U.S. House, I submit to you the real problem we are having in getting any kind of real cleanup of the forests--that is, preventive work done on American forests, be it BLM forests that belong to Interior or forests that belong to the Department of Agriculture and the National Forest Service--is because there isn't any money to do it. The question is, why isn't there any money? We are always appropriating money for it. And every year there will be a bill that comes through here, Interior appropriations, and you find money for that, a lot of money for that. But guess what happens. Very shortly as the year starts, we have to put out fires. And then what happens? There is no money to put out those fires. The disaster money we are talking about today and that Senator Stevens came to the floor and told the House about, the Departments of our Government say: Well, we have a disaster. We have to spend the money. Surely, they do. What they do is, they take money from other aspects of the Government. What are those? Many of them are accounts which would be used for major prevention on the forests. If there isn't any money for that, the year will pass. The money will have been spent on the disaster, and we will be here talking about a supplemental that is too late and inadequate, and the prevention will not occur. It is so desperate that in our Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, there have been suggestions to try to set this money aside, to set up a new fund, a whole new way so that the prevention money is prevention money and nothing else. The distinguished Senator, Mr. Bingaman, has suggested such an effort. I am not sure it will work because obviously once you get a big forest fire going and you don't have any money to put out the fire, they are going to find the money somewhere within the Department, unless you took it out of Interior and put it in the Army and said: You can't get it because it isn't even there. They are going to have to use the money they have and make it fungible, take it away from prevention and use it for disaster. Somehow or another we have to stop that. While I am not today able to say to the House what they are and aren't doing because I am not privy to what Chairman Stevens is, it seems to me that something like this is occurring early in the season in this supplemental that the House is talking about. Before we even get seriously into the season, we are having more of this: Well, we are having to put out disasters. We will find the money. And if we didn't put up enough, use other money. And yes, there will be a whole blighted area somewhere in Alaska or northern New Mexico that is supposed to get money for prevention and cleanup, and they will be out of money. Essentially, this is not simple fun and games. This is serious business. We sit around and watch the forests of America change so that they no longer look like, behave like, or are like they used to be. Our people know it. We know it. They are filled to the brim with too much growth, too much underbrush. They are not even the forests of old. You can't take your children for a nice walk in the forest in most American forests because you can't even walk in them. I went up into northern New Mexico to the Jemez area and surrounding where I remember, as a youngster, we used to go. There were huge cottonwood trees, wide open, full of pine needles. And believe it or not, it was filled with beautiful growth, such as mushrooms and things that are very pretty. You find you can't even walk, much less see if there is any vegetation, because we haven't had any prevention. We haven't had any maintenance on those forests. That is minuscule, because we are minuscule in New Mexico compared to the West Coast--Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. I suspect we are talking about the wrong things in this bill over in the House. We are talking about putting money in the wrong place and not facing up to the reality that there are two very distinct needs. And you cannot continue to rob one to pay for the other unless you quickly meet up before the year is out and replenish all of the money in the Departments that are operational, that are ongoing maintenance and operation of the BLM and the Forest Service of America. I urge the House to do that and be careful not to rob those accounts so much by not appropriating sufficient money for the disaster straight out and leave that other money to be used for what it is intended. I yield the floor.