Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Monday, May 8, 2006 at 3 p.m. in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding issues associated with the implementation of the provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 addressing licensing of hydroelectric facilities.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact Kellie Donnelly at (202) 224- 9360 or Steve Waskiewicz at (202) 228-6195.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the kind words. I think we are wearing the patience of the chairman thin, so we ought to get on with doing what we can. I want to ask the Senator--I want him to take this fairly and squarely, and when I am finished, if you don't believe what I am saying, then I would like very much for you to have your staff go take a look to see if I am right or not.

First of all, Senator, I think you made a mistake with your amendment. I think the amendment is wrong in that under current law-- and what the Secretary has done under current law--the oil companies will pay more royalties than they are going to pay under your amendment. You set a threshold, for instance, on oil of $55, if I read your amendment correctly. Your staff is there and they can confirm this: $55. The Secretary has already established the threshold for oil at $36. So the difference is that at $34, they start--that is the break point, and you have made a mistake in taking it all the way up

to $55. It shouldn't be $55 when it is much lower. It means that the oil companies are going to pay much more at a much lower level of the price under existing law than under your amendment.

So your amendment should not be adopted. I want to be fair, but I just want to tell you it shouldn't.

I will ask: Do you know that? I started off by asking if you know that.

Senator, first of all, I don't quite know how to ask the question, but I am going to try. Are you aware that the years of 1998 and 1999--for 2 full years, all the leases that were issued had no thresholds in them? Are you aware of that, Senator?

Yes.

Would the Senator yield in a different way, so I could speak for 5 minutes and return the floor to you and you lose none of your rights?

I just heard the Chair say what it would take for this to be appropriate. I ask unanimous consent that which he has just articulated be the unanimous consent request before the Senate, and I ask that the Senate grant it.

Mr. President, I say to fellow Senators and Senator Wyden, if you would please lend me your ear because I would like to be helpful.

Mr. President, I have 5 minutes. I would like very much for anybody who is trying to fix this parliamentary problem to just listen for a minute.

First of all, most of the problem that has been discussed by the distinguished Senator in terms of royalties that are allegedly not being paid by oil companies which are indeed drilling successfully offshore--most of those have occurred during the years of 1999 and 1998. Let me repeat, there are oil companies which are drilling and would otherwise owe some kind of royalties, and those are companies that did business during the years 1998 and 1999. They got leases those years, and mistakes were made. I am not accusing the Clinton administration because it is Democratic. The truth is, they made the mistakes. They issued them without the right to collect royalties on behalf of the Federal Government.

Along comes an auditing company that finds them and says: Look at these companies. They are getting away with hundreds of millions of dollars. Yes, they are. But read their contracts. They are not obligated to pay any because the U.S. Government messed up. We didn't obligate them to pay any. I don't know what to do about that.

I can come to the floor and yell and cry that we are losing revenue, but these companies are going to have to gratuitously decide to pay or they do not owe it. So we can come down here and talk forever about that. Obviously, the amendment by my good friend from Oregon will do nothing about the leases of 1998-1999, for if you tried to do something about them you would be doing nothing. You cannot come to the floor of the Senate and say leases already issued upon, which the work has been done upon, which the Government sought not to charge anything, we have changed our mind, and we are going to make them pay. That is not the subject of his amendment. Read it. It doesn't purport to do that. That is point No. 1.

Point No. 2, the amendment doesn't do what the Senator says it does. This year, the Secretary--this Secretary--stopped royalty relief at $35.86 per barrel. The amendment by the distinguished Senator is talking about $55 a barrel. He is saying the same thing--that we will stop royalty relief at $55 instead of $35. Obviously, his amendment in today's market is a malady. It doesn't do anything. The Secretary has already one-upped his amendment. The Secretary has put the relief line at a lower price per barrel than his amendment.

I don't know, again, what he is trying to do with the amendment. First, he can't affect the so-called Clinton year lease which he has been talking about. And he deserves to tell the public that the companies have gotten away with a lot of money there. That is a nice speech. And it deserves to be given, but he isn't fixing that because you can't fix it. He isn't fixing the existing leases because he is setting a threshold that is higher than the price that the Secretary had set, and the price of oil is higher than both of them. So we are going to collect all the royalties we can get, and I do not know how we are losing anything.

I don't know what the speeches are about in terms of losing that much money, nor do I know what the amendment is doing. What I do know is that from this point forward the Energy bill that we passed has some language that could be fixed.

I have an amendment that fixes it. It makes it permissive. It says the Secretary may in the future set these limits. The Secretary may in the future set the dollar amount from which you base royalty relief. I have an amendment that I think sooner or later we

should adopt that says it should not be made, but the Secretary shall set these limits. That is an amendment that I have that I think the good Senator from Oregon ought to take. I will give it to him. He ought to put it in instead of his, and he will have solved one of the problems by making it mandatory.

I thank you profusely for the 5 minutes which has turned into 7\1/2\. I talked too long, but I thank you for it.

Madam President, I say to the Senator, I have no question at this point. I thought the Senator was getting close to a point where he was going to withdraw his amendment, after which time I was going to speak. If that is not the case, then we will do something else.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I say to the Senator, while you have been here many hours, I have been here a few this afternoon. This is a very unusual setting. You speak of your rights. We have rights, too. You have the floor. We cannot debate the issue the way things are. If you would like to debate this, I would like to debate it because you have had some free time here to talk about something that is not so.

I have already asked you once, and I will ask you again--I will ask you whether or not--I will ask it a different way: How much do you think the Congressional Budget Office says your amendment--this great amendment that is going to stop all of this thievery--can you tell us how much it is going to yield to the taxpayers of the United States? I will tell you the answer. The Congressional Budget Office says zero.

You understand, this great amendment that has been spoken of, this process that he has--I don't know what it is. It is an amendment that sets a threshold. It sets a threshold that is higher than the threshold that exists that was already established by the Secretary of the Interior.

I don't know how in the world, I ask the distinguished Senator, that is going to yield anything to the people of this country. Maybe you can explain it to us. I believe it is going to yield zero because the amendment is meaningless the way it is drawn. It is not a program. It is not a process. It is an amendment that sets a new threshold, I say to Senator Salazar, a threshold that is not even needed because the Secretary has already set a threshold that does more for the taxpayer than his amendment.

So I don't know what we are down here arguing about. I have been waiting my turn until I cannot wait any longer.

So I have just violated the rules. I didn't ask a question, I gave a speech. I hope you listened. The speech is: The Congressional Budget Office says this grandiose amendment that is going to stop the grandfather of all thievery is going to yield zero dollars to the Treasury of the United States. I assume that means that it is not effective, it does nothing. It does nothing because--I just told you why it does nothing. It sets a threshold that is higher than the existing threshold; therefore, it yields nothing. I don't know what else we can do. Why should we let you have a vote on that? I am going to offer an amendment to that, a second-degree amendment that is very simple. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to offer a second- degree amendment.

I withdraw the request and yield the floor.

Parliamentary inquiry: How much time do we have now?

Mr. President, I understand I will get a part of that time, and I will yield part of that time to the Senator from Alaska when she arrives.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk candidly about rising gasoline prices and what we can do about them. I have been deeply concerned about our reliance on foreign oil and the rising cost of energy for many years. That was one of the reasons I gave up my post as chairman of the Budget Committee in the Senate to become chairman of the Energy Committee. I saw energy dependence and rising energy prices as a big problem for this great Nation, and I wanted to help solve it.

Last year, we passed a bipartisan policy act called the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It was the first comprehensive Energy bill in 12 years. It took Republicans and Democrats 5 years and a lot of hard work to get this bill passed. It is an excellent bill and one I am proud of. This bill fixed a lot of our energy problems, and in a year or two from now, it will fix a lot more. Let me highlight a couple of the remarkable accomplishments which our Energy bill has put before the American people.

We create a pilot program in seven Western States that will streamline the permitting process so oil and oil developers won't have to wait years to develop their leases. Some people wonder: Are we doing anything to help America solve our problems? One thing we must do is develop our resources where we have them and where we can. We cannot sit by and be naysayers about developing what we have that we can use, so we don't have to buy it from others.

In this bill, we require 8 billion gallons of ethanol be included in the gasoline by 2012. This provision will help ethanol displace 2 billion barrels of foreign oil over the next 6 years.

There are those on the other side who say the President proposed nothing to help the farmers of the United States and the ranching community. I just discussed with you what the Energy bill will do with reference to ethanol, and all of that creates a new market for the products of our farmers, makes them wealthy, gives them alternatives to sell their product so they can be used to ultimately go into the tanks of our automobiles in lieu of crude-oil derivatives called gasoline. We provide several incentives in this bill for new nuclear power that have prompted nine utility consortia to plan at least 19 new nuclear powerplants in the immediate future. We had zero, we are already moving toward 19, and some think it is 22.

The bill encourages wind, solar, and geothermal sources. Our incentives will bring more than 14,000 megawatts of wind energy that could be on line by the end of next year, which is enough energy to power roughly 5 million homes for 1 year. Those are the things we did. Those are the things that would have all been front and center had Katrina not hit us and taken away all of the positives we were thinking of and put us in that tank that came as a result of that enormous hurricane which we are still recovering from. But all of the things I am discussing are there, actually taking place, as the United States changes because of that new energy bill.

The oil and gas prices continued to climb after the Energy bill was passed, and a lot of that was due to the hurricane I have described. We still have two refineries that are down because of the storm. That accounts for 5 percent of our refining capacity. We have lost about 1.5 million barrels of oil per day because of damaged oil rigs. That is a whopping 22 percent of our domestic production.

So for all of those who wonder: Did anything happen that could have caused the problems we are having that might have been otherwise? Obviously we can look at Katrina and say something very bad happened. We didn't have to have that. Things could have been better.

Let me talk about the global unrest and the rising global demand that has driven up the prices of oil across the globe. Oil is a global commodity. Nobody knows what a barrel of oil is worth as it comes out of the ground. Nobody knows what it is inherently worth. Let me say to my fellow Americans, I regret to tell you, it is worth what somebody will pay for it. That sounds strange, but that is what it is. It comes out of the ground, it is gathered up, and when it finally gets on a ship, somebody buys it. And what do they buy it for? They buy it for what they think it is worth, and they bid it, and that is what it is worth. So oil is worth what people pay for it. Regrettably, they are paying more and more because they are worried about the world situation and whether oil supply is credible, whether it is going to remain reliable. So they bid it up higher and higher.

Problems in producing nations such as Venezuela, Nigeria, and Iran have sharply driven up this price, along with this great, new, voracious appetite on the part of China and India. They are entitled-- they are entitled, just as we are--to use this oil, and they are buying it up, bidding it up, causing the supply and demand to have the impact I am describing with all of you here this morning.

There are some things we can do to try to ameliorate this problem, and, yes, some of them are very difficult. Most of it we can't do much about, unless we either wean ourselves off foreign oil, which will take several years to do, or dramatically increase our own production of oil. I regret to say there are too many on the other side of the aisle, not everyone but most on the other side of the aisle here in the Senate and in the House who refuse to acknowledge that we must produce more of our own wherever we can.

Let's talk about what we can do.

President Bush proposed four things yesterday, and I endorse every one of them. Every one of those is now out there for the market to look at, for everyone to look at, and they have already had a positive effect. He wants an aggressive investigation of fraud and manipulation. We mandated a similar investigation in the Energy bill, and I absolutely support what the President called for--an ongoing investigation into the manipulation or cheating that might be taking place. Let's get on with it. Let's put the resources in. Let's make sure the American people feel comfortable that it is taking place. We are doing it. Whether it proves anything, we will have to wait and see.

The President wants to do another thing. He wants to repeal certain tax breaks that are in the Energy bill. He says they are unnecessary for oil companies. I agree. Actually, I thought they would do some good, but the President has convinced me and many of us, under his leadership, to repeal those tax items that are in the bill. I am happy to take the lead, along with those who write the tax laws, and see if we can repeal and eliminate the deepwater drilling tax relief that is in the bill.

The President also recommended and announced that he will temporarily halt the filling of SPR, a move I hope will free up about 12 million barrels of oil this summer, meaning we won't use it for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. So it will be available to those who are purchasing oil to be used as we have been describing it here: for the marketplace to put in refineries and be used by the great demand that is worldwide.

If we had developed ANWR--and I note the presence of the junior Senator from Alaska on the floor--if we had done that 10 years ago, if we had passed ANWR legislation--we did pass it. Had the President of the United States not vetoed it--and that was President Bill Clinton who vetoed it--then what we would have had available is at least 1 million barrels of oil--American owned--that we could use every day, and it would be added to the inventory that is out there for the world to use, and for the United States it would be a dramatic reduction in the amount of oil we would have to buy from others.

We have to wake up. There is nothing to be damaged. You can go look at ANWR and see what we would be doing with new drilling, new approaches to drilling, if we would get that done. It is regrettable that we won't produce our own and we will sit and talk and blame, and in particular, the other side will blame the President and blame Republicans. These Senators understand that today's gasoline prices are driven ever increasingly by long-term speculation on global production. They understand that a strong signal on supply can drive prices up today and down tomorrow. They know a vote to develop ANWR will have an immediate impact on oil prices, which in turn will have an immediate impact on gasoline prices.

Look at what happened to the energy markets yesterday after the President announced his four-prong plan. Energy prices fell. Yet these same Senators fought against ANWR, fought against OCS production, and have consistently fought against new energy production almost anywhere, production they know will ease our price and supply problems.

We have worked in the committee and marked up, gotten ready for a vote, Lease Sale 181 on natural gas, a bill that will develop oil and gas 100 miles off the coast of Florida. Democrats have threatened to filibuster the bill when it comes to the floor. It shows there is no desire to produce even what is our own.

The Massachusetts delegation continues to block the Weaver Cove liquefied natural gas facility, a facility proposed for Fall River that would provide 400,000 mcf of natural gas per day. That is enough to ease the price and supply pressure for most of New England.

Another example is if you don't want to produce energy that is our own, then you ought not be complaining about the fact that the price continues to rise because of shortages in global markets. Instead, today some on the other side propose a tax holiday. I find it interesting that it is Democrats who want to temporarily repeal the gasoline taxes since it was they who voted over the years to increase that same tax.

I can support the idea of a holiday. I like the idea of helping American families keep some of their money they are spending at the gas pump. But we use that money to build roads and mass transit. The Federal Government is going to have to make up those revenues somewhere. So let me propose this idea: Let's let the oil companies make up the difference. That is what we ought to do.

Anyway, I suggest we are on the right track. The President's suggestions are good suggestions, and we can come up with some more. But in the meantime, we ought to tell the American people the truth: There is no quick fix, and it is easier to blame than it is to have solutions. Let's look for the solutions and then we will all get a chance to judge who is doing the most to help America move toward energy independence.

I believe I have some additional time, and I yield it to the distinguished Senator from Alaska.

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend paragraph 4 of rule XVI for the purpose of proposing to the bill H.R. 4939 the attached amendment, as follows:

On page 253, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will take place on Thursday, May 4, 2006 at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nomination of: Dirk Kempthorne, of Idaho, to be Secretary of the Interior, vice Gale Norton, resigned.

For further information, please contact Judy Pensabene of the Committee staff.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Monday, May 1, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding the economic and environmental issues associated with coal gasification technology and on implementation of the provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 addressing coal gasification.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact John Peschke 202-224-4797 or Shannon Ewan at 202-224-7555.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, at the request of the Department of the Interior, legislation to extend the authorization for the National Park System Advisory Board.

For the past 70 years, the National Park System Advisory Board has provided guidance and recommendations to the Director of the National Park Service and the Secretary of the Interior regarding management of America's national parks. The authorization for its existence will expire on January 1, 2007. The attached legislation will extend the authorization to 2016 and modify the composition of the board to include representation from a broader diversity of interests.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, at the request of the Department of the Interior, legislation to extend the authorization for the National Park System Advisory Board.

For the past 70 years, the National Park System Advisory Board has provided guidance and recommendations to the Director of the National Park Service and the Secretary of the Interior regarding management of America's national parks. The authorization for its existence will expire on January 1, 2007. The attached legislation will extend the authorization to 2016 and modify the composition of the board to include representation from a broader diversity of interests.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding the economic and environmental issues associated with coal liquefaction technology and on implementation of the provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 addressing coal gasification.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact John Peschke 202-224-4797 or Shannon Ewan at 202-224-7555.

committee on small business and entrepreneurship

Mr. President, I wish to express my dismay regarding the collapse of the Senate's work on border security legislation.

As a border State Senator, I know first-hand the need to secure our international borders because every day I hear from constituents who must deal with illegal entries into our country. We have a crisis on our borders and the status quo is not acceptable. We need to address this situation but are not being allowed to because of Democrats' refusal to allow votes on amendments to border security legislation on the Senate floor.

Their refusal to allow votes means that my amendments, which are very important to New Mexico, the southwest border, and the Nation, cannot be considered. Those amendments would have provided for two more Federal judges in New Mexico to deal with immigration cases, provided 250 new deputy U.S. Marshals to transport and guard criminal illegal aliens, authorized $585 million for land port of entry infrastructure and technology, and called for Mexico's cooperation on border security.

My amendments are based on needs that are imperative to border security. I have been told of the need for new Federal district judges in New Mexico by the Chief Judge for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Chief Judge of the New Mexico District, and several other Federal district judges in my home State. In fiscal year 2005, more than 1800 immigration cases were filed in the District of New Mexico. We must have more Federal judges to handle this caseload that the Judicial Conference has referred to this situation as a ``crisis.'' I have been told of the need for new deputy U.S. Marshals by the U.S. Marshal for New Mexico. His deputies are responsible for transporting illegal aliens to court and guarding them when they appear in Federal district court. I have seen firsthand the need for port of entry improvements in New Mexico, and since I worked with Senator DeConcini on the last major land port of entry overhaul in 1986, I know that the time has come to again address our land port needs. Lastly, I am convinced that we must have Mexico's cooperation to secure our porous southwest border, and my amendment

would have provided a path to secure that cooperation.

The refusal of Democrats to allow consideration of these amendments is nothing short of irresponsible behavior towards the security of America.

The Democrats' refusal to limit debate on the majority leader's border security bill today confirms their lack of understanding regarding the need for border security. Senator Frist's Securing America's Borders Act includes 1,250 new customs and border protection officers, 1,000 new DHS investigative personnel, 1,250 new DHS port of entry inspectors, 1,000 new Immigration and customs enforcement inspectors, and 2,400 new border patrol agents. The bill authorizes funding for new border security technologies and assets, including new unmanned aerial vehicles, vehicle barriers, cameras, sensors, and all- weather roads. This bill would have addressed many of our border security needs, and I am frustrated that we were not allowed to vote on this bill.

As it stands now, we will not see any of the comprehensive border security improvements that New Mexico and other States desperately need. I could not be more disappointed.

On February 10, 2005, I introduced legislation to create additional Federal district judgeships in the State of New Mexico.

On November 17, 2005, I introduced the Border Security and Modernization Act of 2005, S. 2049, with bipartisan support. That bill calls for improvements to our port of entry infrastructure, increased Department of Homeland Security, DHS, and Department of Justice personnel, new technologies and assets for border security, increased detention capacity, and additional Federal assistance for States.

On February 17, 2006, I introduced the Welcoming Immigrants to a Secure Homeland Act. That bill calls for an increase in the number of DHS personnel who investigate human smuggling laws, employment of immigrants, and immigration fraud and increased penalties for violations of immigration laws. It also creates a new guest worker visa that lets individuals who want to, come to the United States to work. Lastly, it creates a way to account for the millions of undocumented aliens residing in the United States without creating an automatic path to citizenship.

I supported the efforts to jointly address border security and immigration reform legislation, but I am convinced that if we cannot agree regarding immigration reform, we must still secure our borders. The President must budget for our border needs, and Congress must appropriate for those needs.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 at 10 a.m. in the Salon Ortega at the National Hispanic Cultural Center of New Mexico located at 1701 4th Street SW in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding the drought conditions facing the state of New Mexico and S. 2561, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make available cost-shared grants and enter into cooperative agreements to further the goals of the Water 2025 Program by improving water conservation, efficiency, and management in the Reclamation States, and for other purposes.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact Nate Gentry at (202) 224-2179 or Steve Waskiewicz at (202) 228-6195.

Mr. President, an excerpt from John Steinbeck's classic The Grapes of Wrath recounting the conditions preceding the great Dust Bowl is eerily similar to the conditions currently faced by the Southwestern United States. ``The sky grew pale and the clouds that had hung in high puffs for so long in the spring were dissipated. The sun flared down on the growing corn each day until a line of brown spread along the edge of each green bayonet. The clouds appeared, and went away, and in a while they did not try any more. The weeds grew darker green to protect themselves, and they did not spread any more. The surface of the earth crusted, a thin hard crust, and as the sky became pale, so the earth became pale, pink in the red country and white in the gray country . . . Every moving thing lifted the dust into the air. . . . The dust was long in settling back again.''

As of April 5, 2006, statistics provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the United States Department of Agriculture indicate that my home State of New Mexico is facing one of the worst droughts in the past 100 years. Historic snow pack data indicates the 2005-2006 snow season is the worst in more than 50 years. Several river basins in New Mexico, including the Rio Hondo and Mimbres river basins currently have no snow pack. This fact is particularly troubling when one considers that we rely on spring run-off for our surface water. Moreover, lack of snow pack indicates that our reservoirs, already depleted after years of drought, will remain at alarmingly low levels. According to the NRCS, ``Record low snow packs in several of the major basins have water managers scratching their heads, wondering how best to manage the water resource, with no real hopes of realizing any significant runoff to refill the reservoirs.'' These facts, taken together, are particularly ominous.

Unseasonably warm temperatures in New Mexico have resulted in the start of the runoff season in early March, something that usually starts in middle to late April. The early beginning of the run-off season will be particularly damaging to the agriculture industry which relies on spring run-off for irrigation during the early growing season. The lack of precipitation will also be devastating to our ranchers and dairymen. Because drought has hindered local production of hay, it has to be hauled from great distances. As a result, hay is approximately twice as expensive as usual, placing a great economic strain on the ranching and dairy industries. I fully anticipate that the drought will interrupt municipal water service. Although early in the year, the Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico has contacted my office seeking emergency Federal assistance to address looming water shortages. In addition, numerous New Mexico communities are under severe water restrictions.

The current drought illustrates how perilously close we are coming to having serious and widespread water shortages and the need to make more efficient use of the water we do have. The competing demands of agriculture, industry, municipalities and environmental needs have placed an enormous strain on available supplies of water. This is particularly true with respect to our interstate rivers that are governed by compacts. These interstate agreements require that a certain amount of water be delivered to downstream States. Meanwhile, enormous amounts of water are lost because of antiquated water infrastructure. In many instances, relatively cheap water infrastructure upgrades can minimize water losses. For example, by lining dirt canals, large amount of water can be saved that otherwise would have been lost to seepage. For the past 3 years, Congress has made available efficiency and conservation grants through the Administration's Water 2025 program. The goal of this program is to make more water available in water-short river systems through infrastructure conservation and efficiency upgrades. The bill I introduce today would authorize the Water 2025 program. While not a panacea to our water woes, I believe that this legislation will help us maximize the water available to us during times of drought.

I would like to thank Representative Heather Wilson, our Congresswoman from the First Congressional District of New Mexico for introducing the House companion to this measure. She fully appreciates the breadth of this problem and I look forward to working with her on this critically important issue.

Ensuring adequate water supplies for the Southwestern United States is as important a matter as any I can contemplate. As Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction over this legislation, I assure it will receive prompt Committee consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today, on behalf of myself and Senator Inhofe, to introduce, at the request of the administration, legislation to further the development at Yucca Mountain of the national repository for nuclear spent fuel and defense nuclear waste. This bill is a good start on the road to enactment of legislation that will resolve issues critical to the construction, licensing and operation of the facility.

I hope to begin hearings on this issue in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee shortly after the conclusion of the upcoming recess. I look forward to working with the administration, Senator Inhofe, and other interested Senators to facilitate the construction and operation of the repository, a project so important to the continued development of safe, clean, and efficient nuclear power in this country.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, an excerpt from John Steinbeck's classic The Grapes of Wrath recounting the conditions preceding the great Dust Bowl is eerily similar to the conditions currently faced by the Southwestern United States. ``The sky grew pale and the clouds that had hung in high puffs for so long in the spring were dissipated. The sun flared down on the growing corn each day until a line of brown spread along the edge of each green bayonet. The clouds appeared, and went away, and in a while they did not try any more. The weeds grew darker green to protect themselves, and they did not spread any more. The surface of the earth crusted, a thin hard crust, and as the sky became pale, so the earth became pale, pink in the red country and white in the gray country . . . Every moving thing lifted the dust into the air. . . . The dust was long in settling back again.''

As of April 5, 2006, statistics provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the United States Department of Agriculture indicate that my home State of New Mexico is facing one of the worst droughts in the past 100 years. Historic snow pack data indicates the 2005-2006 snow season is the worst in more than 50 years. Several river basins in New Mexico, including the Rio Hondo and Mimbres river basins currently have no snow pack. This fact is particularly troubling when one considers that we rely on spring run-off for our surface water. Moreover, lack of snow pack indicates that our reservoirs, already depleted after years of drought, will remain at alarmingly low levels. According to the NRCS, ``Record low snow packs in several of the major basins have water managers scratching their heads, wondering how best to manage the water resource, with no real hopes of realizing any significant runoff to refill the reservoirs.'' These facts, taken together, are particularly ominous.

Unseasonably warm temperatures in New Mexico have resulted in the start of the runoff season in early March, something that usually starts in middle to late April. The early beginning of the run-off season will be particularly damaging to the agriculture industry which relies on spring run-off for irrigation during the early growing season. The lack of precipitation will also be devastating to our ranchers and dairymen. Because drought has hindered local production of hay, it has to be hauled from great distances. As a result, hay is approximately twice as expensive as usual, placing a great economic strain on the ranching and dairy industries. I fully anticipate that the drought will interrupt municipal water service. Although early in the year, the Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico has contacted my office seeking emergency Federal assistance to address looming water shortages. In addition, numerous New Mexico communities are under severe water restrictions.

The current drought illustrates how perilously close we are coming to having serious and widespread water shortages and the need to make more efficient use of the water we do have. The competing demands of agriculture, industry, municipalities and environmental needs have placed an enormous strain on available supplies of water. This is particularly true with respect to our interstate rivers that are governed by compacts. These interstate agreements require that a certain amount of water be delivered to downstream States. Meanwhile, enormous amounts of water are lost because of antiquated water infrastructure. In many instances, relatively cheap water infrastructure upgrades can minimize water losses. For example, by lining dirt canals, large amount of water can be saved that otherwise would have been lost to seepage. For the past 3 years, Congress has made available efficiency and conservation grants through the Administration's Water 2025 program. The goal of this program is to make more water available in water-short river systems through infrastructure conservation and efficiency upgrades. The bill I introduce today would authorize the Water 2025 program. While not a panacea to our water woes, I believe that this legislation will help us maximize the water available to us during times of drought.

I would like to thank Representative Heather Wilson, our Congresswoman from the First Congressional District of New Mexico for introducing the House companion to this measure. She fully appreciates the breadth of this problem and I look forward to working with her on this critically important issue.

Ensuring adequate water supplies for the Southwestern United States is as important a matter as any I can contemplate. As Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction over this legislation, I assure it will receive prompt Committee consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Senator Specter, would you yield for 1 minute?

I didn't want to ask you because what I was going to say you wouldn't like.

Thank you very much. I tell you, I really cannot believe what I heard here today. I have been here 34 years, and I cannot believe what I have heard today. I have heard

a minority leader say we are peeved because we have not had what we think is a fair shake over the last couple of years since you have been running this place, so we are going to manage this bill from the minority leader chair, and there are going to be no amendments considered unless the minority, the ranking minority Member of the Senate puts his imprimatur on them.

No matter how important the bill is--imprimatur, no matter what it is. I said it the Italian way. You said it the French way. You all know what it meant: stamp of approval. Stamp of approval.

I have never heard of such a thing, never saw Senators standing around--they were in awe. What is he talking about?

The bill that is before us, he likes. He has had a caucus, and those Senators on the other side said this is a neat bill, this is what we want to pass, and we sure don't want any amendments offered and voted on that stir up that thing we like so much to any extent because we don't want to get our Senators in any trouble. We don't want them voting on any of these kinds of things that muddle up this bill. So our leader is going to stand up here and say we have just changed the Senate, and we are going to do it this way. There will be no amendments unless Harry Reid, elected as the minority leader of the Senate, says, ``OK.''

Fellow Senators, I don't believe it. As a matter of fact, I thought when the distinguished leader of the other side, who is my dear friend--dear friend, he knows that--when he got up and answered our leader and started with this business about minimum wage and these other things--I thought he had a nothing case. I thought, my God, he's dreaming them up. He has nothing to say.

What does that have to do with this bill, the minimum wage, the way we didn't let amendments come up on that? It has nothing to do with this bill, one of the most important bills confronting America. It has been said that it is at the turning point of relationships between Mexico and America. And we have one Senator who has looked at the bill and said: It is good for our side of the aisle. We like it just like it is, and we don't care what the rules of the Senate are, there will be no amendments. We are in charge.

I am sorry, Mr. Leader. You were right. You said it too mildly. I goofed up some words, but I said it right, and Senator Reid is not right on this one. He is right many times. This is not right. He is not right. He should not do this. The Senate should not let him do it.

If there is some way to not let him do it, he should not be permitted to do it. He knows we can't do that. He knows we cannot do that. He is too smart about the rules of the Senate. He knows we cannot say he cannot do it. But the Senate should say he cannot do it. I am telling you Senators, Democrats and Republicans, you should say he cannot do that.

I yield the floor.