Floor Statements

The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The PRESIDIENT OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the leadership has been continuing to consult with our colleagues who are working on this legislation, and I have the impression, from talking to Members who are involved, that they have done a lot of good work and perhaps have made some progress that will lead to being able to get a conference and act on it. They have been discussing some very significant issues.

One of the problems that I recall is that this legislation went well beyond what was just in the 9/11 Commission recommendations, and that is a major part of the problem. There was some other language that was of great concern and could lead this bill to be vetoed by the President, but he does not want to veto it, and we want to get a bill that we can agree on that can become law. We all want to strengthen our homeland security, but, as quite often is the case in the Congress--the House or the Senate or the both of us--we put language in these bills that is problematic and, in my opinion and others, counterproductive. So we don't want to get to a point where we can't get an agreement or get a bill signed into law and have to start back at square one.

I wish to emphasize that the impression of the leadership--and that is whom I am speaking for here--is that they are working and making progress, and we hope they will continue to do that and get a good, productive, and bipartisan agreement.

At this point, I must object.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senate bill is not yet available. I think the bill will be filed at some point soon so that Members can review it, but at this time, until Members see the legislation, I will object, and maybe we can revisit this when the bill is reported. Therefore, I object.

If I could ask the indulgence of the majority leader briefly.

With regard to the effort on the homeland security, 9/11 Commission recommendations, I think the concerns we have on this legislation were made very clear, laid out in the Congressional Record when the legislation was being considered. We want homeland security in America, but we also want to make sure the money we provide and what we authorize is done in a responsible and appropriate way. There is the possibility of gorging the system without getting a lot of results.

I have flown to the different ports in this country and looked at port security and all the intermodal activities and the security that goes on there. More is being done than maybe some people realize. But also there were some labor provisions in this legislation that clearly needed to be worked out in order for this legislation to make it through the process.

But I agree, hopefully we can get something worked out here where this legislation could perhaps get into conference and get it done before we leave for the Fourth of July. The conferees know where the problems are; if they would meet and get those problems worked out, then I think probably this legislation could be cleared.

I just wanted to respond to the majority leader's concern. I understand how he feels and what he is trying to do, but I did want to put those comments and those thoughts on the record.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. President, I have not spoken on this energy legislation. There is no question in my mind that we need a national energy policy. I do not think this bill, in its current form, does what we need to do. I have always believed what we need to do in America is produce more energy here at home. More supply--that is the answer--not try to do with less, try to shrink what we have in terms of energy or conserve ourselves into an energy policy. I want more. This is America.

We can produce more of everything. More oil? Yes. More natural gas? Absolutely, and do a lot of innovative things with it. More coal? I am for clean coal technology. I am for changing coal to liquids. I am for doing whatever we can with coal. I am for hydro. We should have more hydroplants, but we have people who have reservations about that. It has environmental or conservation problems. And more nuclear. It is clean. It is safe. But what are we doing to get more of them on line? Nothing.

This bill has turned out to be really about alternative fuels, conservation, and green policies.

Now, for years, I have said I do not want any of that. I want production. By the way, in my State, we can do it. We can have more of everything: oil, gas, coal to liquid, lignite coal, ethanol. We are trying to do it all. We are going to be energy independent. In fact, we are going to wield our power to other parts of the country. So that is what I wanted, but I am over that. I want a national energy policy. I am prepared to accept alternative fuels, some renewables if they make sense, if they are justified in the market but not paid for by outrageous tax credits that don't produce anything. I am for conservation. We should encourage that. Get different light fixtures, look at the utilities we have in our houses, the appliances, are they using too much electricity; insulation, I am for all of that.

So let's have the grand compromise on energy. Let's do it all. This bill doesn't do it. To my colleagues, I want to say I believe America is in great danger because of our inability to come together and do it all.

I was in Russia 3 or 4 weeks ago. I had a chance to see their transmission network of gas and to look at their fields in Siberia, the oil and natural gas. I met with the leadership of Gazprom, the Russian Government-controlled energy company. It was scary. I have no doubt in my mind they intend to use gas as a weapon. They are going to be shipping natural gas that provides the power to all of Europe, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, all the way to Ireland. By the way, if they don't get what they want, they will cut it off.

Here we are in America. We are dependent for our energy sources, 80 percent on foreign oil. Is that good? No, that is bad. Look at whom we are depending on: Russia, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela, and then some who I guess are more stable for now: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. Is that what we want? No, we don't want that. This is a dangerous situation.

So we should encourage and facilitate the whole package. Flexible fuels, I am for that. We should try to see what we can do with renewables. I don't believe for a minute we are going to get 15 percent of our energy needs from wind. Come on now. Wind and solar. There are people who think we are going to heat, power, and supply all our energy needs in the future from wind and solar. For heaven's sake, get real. We have already sunk billions of dollars into some of these ideas that might work or might not. I am willing to try them. I will buy the deal, but

this is not the deal. This is another tax increase: $28.6 billion. I thought it would be $15 billion.

By the way, let me make it clear. There is some good stuff in here. Some of it I supported, some of it I voted for. But overall, what we have is an energy bill that came out of the Energy Committee that now doesn't amount to very much; it is all about renewables and green policy. It is not going to produce another drop of oil, 1 cubic foot of natural gas. In fact, now, we are going to discourage oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico.

By the way, I should be able to talk about this because this is in my neck of the woods. I have lived in the shadow of oil and gas rigs for years in the gulf. The best fishing in the gulf is around the rigs. We have oil and gas out there. Our policy in America is we don't want to drill where it is. We don't want to drill in the gulf, we don't want to drill on the west coast, we don't want to drill on the east coast, we don't want to drill in ANWR. I have a novel idea of where we ought to drill: Drill where it is, and do it safely. We can do that. Finally, after a lot of huffing and puffing and stroking and scratching last year, we finally said: Yes, we are going to have more oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. It is going to be in a defined area. It is not going to be close to the shore, which I think it should be, much closer to the Florida coast, for instance--and my coast, too, for that matter--but we did it for control in a responsible, acceptable way. The States, by the way, are going to get some royalties out of it for the first time ever, or for the first time in many years. We came up with a good deal.

Now, in this bill, we are going to go back, and we are going to levy a 13-percent tax on oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico that will cost $10.6 billion on the oil companies. Now, look, I am not going to cry any tears for oil companies. I have a populist streak in me. I don't like gasoline prices. But, buddy, let me tell you, this bill is not going to reduce anybody's gasoline prices. This bill is not a national energy policy.

This bill will lead to less American production in the critical areas where we could do something quickly. By the way, we are going to tax them. Are we never going to learn when you tax something, you get less? If you get less, what do you think it is going to do to the price of gasoline? By the way, we are going to ride these cats--these companies--offshore. They are not going to put up with all these taxes. They are going to go get it somewhere else. They can do business internationally. The biggest company in the world, ExxonMobil--they are not the biggest company in terms of oil or gasoline in America, no; there are other companies that fit that role--much of their business is overseas.

So there is about $21 billion more on the oil companies, and I think it is being done in the wrong way. But we can't come out and talk about how we are going to make such great changes and that we are going to do something about energy prices and the price of gasoline, when the reverse is true. This bill would say that--exactly, it would effectively strike all the tax increases unless and until such time as the Energy Secretary can certify they will not result in increased gas prices or increased dependence on foreign sources of energy.

You are right, you know, they would not be able to certify that. This would not be good for the country.

Yes, again, I wish to say the Wyden amendment is in there. I support it. I voted against the amendment awhile ago that Senator Kyl had. I am not pure either. I am over trying to be pure. But I do expect us to not do the wrong things on energy policy--don't do the bad things, even if we can't do the right things.

I am extremely upset about what we have come up with out of the Finance Committee and on the energy package as a whole. This is not going to do the job. It is not going to become law.

So here again, the Senate is spinning its wheels. Yes, well, we are making a statement. Maybe we will feel better. But in terms of addressing an energy policy, this will not do it.

I yield the floor. Thank you for the extra time.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).