Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an amendment I would have offered to the energy legislation that is before us. It should be my right as a…
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an amendment I would have offered to the energy legislation that is before us. It should be my right as a Senator to offer such an amendment. It should be the right of any Senator to offer an amendment to legislation pending before the Senate.
Unfortunately, because of parliamentary maneuvering by the majority leader, Senators, including myself, will not be able to offer our amendments to this offshore drilling legislation. In the Senate vernacular, ``the tree has been filled'' with such gimmicks as changing the bill's effective date and then changing it back again. Those gimmicks restrict this legislation to being nothing more than a special interest boondoggle for the oil and natural gas industries, and for four Gulf States that would, for the first time, get a direct cut of that bonanza.
It is one thing to limit debate on a measure, as the Senate has chosen to do in this instance, and even though I voted against cloture, I can understand the desire of over 60 colleagues to proceed; but to prevent additional amendments related to our country's domestic energy production and consumption is uncalled for and unwise.
It makes a mockery of the Republican leader's promise on May 1 of this year, 3 months ago, that the Senate would vote this year on comprehensive energy legislation. His exact words were:
We [the Republican leadership] have presented a strong
package that will give consumers relief at the pump and help
bring down the high cost of gas. I'm hopeful that we will
vote on this package in the coming days.
As we all know, the remaining days in this Congress are coming and going. In fact, they are almost gone. If the Senate were going to take up the Republican energy package or a Democratic energy package or, best of all, an American energy package, this would seem to be our chance to do so. Instead, we get a special interest boondoggle, and we are not even allowed to offer amendments that could make it the comprehensive energy bill the Republican leader promised us.
This bill's authors have entitled it the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, but that title says our future energy security is more of the same--more of the same energy sources at ever higher prices, with ever greater profits to the major oil and gas companies, and, for the first time, with 37.5 percent of the public revenues going to
only four Gulf States. Under this legislation, 50 percent of the public revenues would go into the Federal Treasury, 12.5 percent would go to all of the States under the LAWCON program. As I said before, 37.5 percent would go directly to the four States--Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi.
This virtually unprecedented arrangement is a great deal for those four States. No wonder their eight Senators strongly support it. I have to begrudgingly congratulate the Senators from Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi. They have done an excellent job in writing this legislation to benefit their States. So I certainly understand their support for this brand of revenuesharing.
What I don't understand is why the other 92 of us would agree to it. The offshore waters of the Gulf Coast belong to all Americans, as do the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Great Lakes, and other national resources. This is a terrible precedent--to allow a few States to benefit at the expense of the rest simply because of their proximity to a national resource--not their ownership of it, just the proximity to it. If Congress opens this door, watch for the stampede of parochial claims for a cut of every other Federal natural resource.
Also sadly lacking from this bill is any kind of windfall profits tax on the major oil companies that are its principal beneficiaries. It is appalling that, at a time when Americans are paying $3 or more a gallon for gasoline and the oil giants such as ExxonMobil are enjoying record high profits, there is no attempt in this bill to recapture any of those profits for the American people or for the public purposes that would benefit them.
This legislation opens a public resource, gift wraps most of its value, and hand delivers billions and billions of those dollars to special corporate interests at the expense of the American citizens in 46 States. How the elected representatives of those 46 States could allow this to happen is astonishing. I hope the residents of those States will demand some answers. Those citizens should also ask why nothing in this so-called Energy Security Act provides any energy security at all. At best, it will provide a relatively small additional supply of oil and natural gas for a relatively few years starting, at best, several years from now, supplies for which consumers will likely pay even higher prices than they are today.
Someone once said the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and hope for a different result. If so, this continuation of a national energy strategy is insane. We cannot produce our way to energy self-sufficiency when consumers have no alternatives to those traditional energy sources. This bill does nothing to provide Americans with any of those energy alternatives--not today, tomorrow, or 10 years from now. None of us in the Senate are being given the opportunity to offer any of those alternatives to this bill.
Mr. President, I have introduced legislation that would encourage the additional production and use of biofuels, specifically ethanol and biodiesel. My amendment to this bill would help give more Americans a choice every time they fill up their fuel tanks between gasoline or diesel and lower cost alternatives, such as E-85, comprised of 85 percent ethanol, biodiesel made out of soybeans, and other agricultural commodities, and even out of animal renderings.
These energy sources are not buried under miles of water or ocean floor located miles and miles away. They are right in our agricultural States. They are renewable every year. They are cleaner burning than traditional fossil-based fuels and they provide additional boosts to farmers in rural communities around the Nation, where local economies depend upon a healthy agricultural economy. They boost the market prices in the marketplace for those commodities, meaning they lower taxpayer subsidies. It is a win-win-win for all Americans; yet we are not allowed to offer these additional kinds of incentives and expansion of these and other energy fuels, conservation, and other ways that we can truly enhance our energy security.
For those reasons, I oppose this legislation and, most of all, I oppose the tactics used in this bill to prevent it from becoming what it should be, what the American people need and certainly deserve, which is comprehensive energy legislation that will provide real energy security for our country, lower cost energy supplies now and for years to come.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.