[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 124 (Saturday, July 26, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7513-S7518]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 ENERGY

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, a week ago yesterday the Democratic 
leader brought to the floor an energy bill. It was limited to 
speculation. But we welcomed that, we on the Republican side. I think 
the American people welcomed it, because the most important issue 
facing our country is $4 gasoline.
  We are sending billions of dollars overseas to people, many of whom 
are trying to kill us by bankrolling terrorists. We are emptying our 
pockets to buy gasoline. I have e-mails and letters, as all Senators 
do--in my case from Tennesseans--from Marines who come home and do not 
have the money to take a family vacation, and from moms who are losing 
their jobs because they cannot afford to commute.
  So we welcomed the Democratic leader's bringing to the floor a week 
from yesterday the speculation bill. What we want to do in this 30 
minutes is let the American people know what we could have accomplished 
in this last week if only the Democratic leader would have allowed a 
full and open debate on gas prices, including proposals to both find 
more and use less.
  You hear a lot of words here on the floor. I couldn't believe what I 
was hearing a few minutes ago. I thought I must be in the United 
Nations without translators, because, I mean, what the Democratic 
leader says he said is not what any of us heard him say.
  What we heard him say, when we asked to say: Let us bring up gas 
prices, let us talk about the real problems, let us talk about 
speculation, let us talk about supply, let us talk about demand, let us 
debate, let us vote, we have said: Let's come to some agreement about a 
number of amendments on each side. Limit them to energy, limit the 
amount of time, vote on them, see if we can take a serious step toward 
dealing with $4 gasoline.
  What we have said is we want to find more and use less. Now, why do 
we say that? Because the whole problem of $4 gasoline boils down to a 
couple of things: the expected increased demand for gasoline worldwide, 
especially in places like China and India where people are becoming 
richer and driving more cars; and the decreased supply.
  The United States can make a significant contribution to both demand 
and supply. Finding more is the way you deal with supply; using less is 
the way you deal with demand. So we offered one amendment that 44 
senators agreed with that said: Let us do offshore drilling for oil and 
gas. Now, 85

[[Page S7514]]

percent of the area that should be available to offshore drilling is 
not available because of a congressional law. We said: Let's give 
States the option to do that.
  Secondly, we said: Let's take off the moratorium on oil shale in the 
western States, and proceed in an environmentally sound way to find 
more oil. Doing those two things over time, the Department of Interior 
has said, would increase by one-third United States oil production.
  On the other side, we said: Let's use less by making commonplace 
plug-in electric cars and trucks. We have 240 million cars and trucks 
in America. We use gasoline to run almost all of them. That comes from 
oil. If we instead began to use electricity to run those cars and 
trucks, we could cut in half the amount of oil we import and we could 
do it without building any new powerplants because we have so much 
electricity available at night when we are asleep. The powerplants rev 
down and they have got a lot of unused electricity. So you could 
literally, with a plug-in electric car, plug it in at night for 60 
cents--that is your fill-up--and drive 30 or 40 miles on your electric 
battery before the gasoline engine kicks in, in your hybrid car.
  This is no far-fetched idea. Nissan, General Motors, Ford, Toyota--
all will have these cars on the markets. Half of our electric power is 
unused at night. So we have got the cars coming, we have got the power, 
all we need is the cord. In the Congress we have substantial agreement 
across party lines to do that.
  We have a variety of other ideas that could help us find more and use 
less. For example, we would like to make it easier for more nuclear 
powerplants. But on the other side they say no.
  But what we are trying to say is, Mr. Democratic Leader, let us come 
to the floor and do what we could have been doing for the last 8 days 
and try to fashion a serious effort at lowering gasoline prices. Start 
saying yes, we can, instead of no, we cannot.
  I see the Senator from Alaska here, who is one of the ranking 
Senators on the Energy Committee and one of the most knowledgeable on 
this issue. I would ask her: What do you think we might have 
accomplished in these last 8 days, and what could we still accomplish?
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I say to my friend, the Senator from Tennessee, in 
terms of what is out there, the options are enormous. You mentioned a 
few that are part of our legislation, whether it is the advancement of 
nuclear or coal to liquids or oil shale or offshore.
  One of the issues we in Alaska believe in very strongly, and have 
great public support, not only in the State but growing across the 
country, is the recognition, up in an area called ANWR, a section of 
the North Slope that is very lucrative in terms of reserves, we have an 
opportunity to provide for this Nation more of a resource it 
desperately needs.
  We need the permission of the Congress to go ahead and allow for 
that. So we kind of get nailed on the Republican side by our colleagues 
who say: Well, all you want to do is drill, drill, drill. And ANWR is 
one example of that.
  I remind my colleagues--and perhaps many do not know--I do not know 
if you actually know as well in terms of what our legislation or what 
our amendment on opening ANWR would provide in terms of not only the 
resource, 10.5 billion barrels of oil is the mean estimate, but what we 
are looking to do then with our amendment is not take those revenues 
that come to the Federal Treasury, put them in the black hole of the 
Treasury, but we want to direct those toward the development of 
renewable resources, for solar power and wind. Eighteen billion dollars 
could be directed toward the advancements of those areas.
  Carbon capture and storage technology, $30 billion could be directed 
in that area; $50 billion for cellulosic biofuels; $15 billion for 
smart grid electrical technology. What we are doing is, we are taking a 
resource that we desperately need, using those revenues to direct them 
to the next generation of energy technology that will allow for a level 
of independence for this Nation. We know we can't get from where we are 
now to where we need to be with renewables only by wishful thinking. It 
is going to take a strong economy and revenues. Let's help with the 
revenues from a resource like ANWR. Let's stop sending overseas, to 
countries that are not our friends today and will likely not be our 
friends in the future, let's stop sending this incredible transfer of 
wealth. Let's try to do more here and build in a direction where we 
have technologies working for us for the future energy needs of this 
country.
  We have not been given the opportunity to advance such an amendment. 
That is unfortunate for us, unfortunate that we are not having a full-
fledged debate, and unfortunate for the people who have been denied 
this resource for some 30 years.
  We opened it. We passed legislation once through the Congress, and it 
was vetoed 10 years ago by President Clinton. If he had not vetoed 
that, we would be seeing a million barrels a day coming into this 
country from the north. We want to be able to provide that.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator. I see the Senator from South 
Dakota. No one more vigorously advocates for the type alternative 
energy that the Senator from Alaska was talking about funding research 
for. The Senator from Alaska talked about the importance of research 
for advanced biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol. I have heard you talk 
about that before. It is a very promising area in addition to the 
ethanol we already produce.
  Mr. THUNE. The Senator has correctly identified the problem. We use 
too much energy, and we don't produce enough. The solution to that 
problem is to find more and use less. That is exactly what we want to 
be discussing in the Senate, how do we increase supply and reduce 
demand in a way that will help lower fuel prices for Americans who are 
feeling the brunt of rising gasoline prices and rising oil prices.
  As the Senator from Tennessee noted, we have had great success in my 
State with biofuels. We are going to eclipse the 1 billion gallon mark 
this year in terms of ethanol production. If you couple that with next 
generation biofuels, cellulosic ethanol, there is enormous promise and 
potential for us to lessen our dangerous dependence upon foreign 
sources of energy by converting to biofuels. But having said that, I am 
for ANWR. I have voted for ANWR. I have actually been to ANWR with the 
Senator from Alaska. I am absolutely convinced that we ought to be 
accessing the incredible reserves we have there that could lessen our 
dependence on foreign energy.
  I am for more domestic supply, whether it is oil and gas, biofuels, 
nuclear, coal to liquid, oil shale. There are a lot of good options, 
none of which we are having an opportunity to talk about in the Senate 
because the Democratic leader has decided that no amendments are going 
to be allowed.
  We are stuck in the Senate on a Saturday. The American people are 
crying out for a solution to a big problem. Big problems require 
leadership. We are not providing leadership. We are not doing what the 
Senate should be doing, and that is working its will for the American 
people. The people I represent deserve a vote. They deserve a vote on 
energy issues that are important to South Dakota, as do the people in 
Alaska, Tennessee, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Utah, constituents of the 
Senators who are here in the Chamber now and want to see this issue 
debated. They want to see solutions. The only way we will get to a 
solution is by allowing an open process where we can debate finding 
more and using less. I am for all the things I have just mentioned.
  In the energy debate we had in the summer of 2005, we actually 
adopted 57 amendments. We stayed on the bill for 10 days. We had a 
full-throated debate on energy. In 2007, we debated energy again. We 
adopted 49 amendments, and we spent 15 days on the floor talking about 
it. But we had an opportunity to discuss amendments that would do 
something about the energy crisis. What we have instead now is a 
Democratic leadership that has drawn a line in the sand and said: We 
will not vote on any of these things. We will not debate any of these 
things. You take our way or the highway.
  Their way does nothing to add to our energy supply or to reduce 
dependence upon foreign sources. I appreciate the leadership of the 
Senator from Tennessee. I, along with him and my colleagues, urge the 
Democratic leadership to open the process and give us a fair 
opportunity to debate amendments

[[Page S7515]]

and find meaningful solutions to America's serious energy problems.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Before the Senator sits down, might I ask a question.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. How much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 16 minutes.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Would the Chair please let me know when 5 minutes 
remains.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wanted to ask the Senator from South Dakota about his 
speech. You just got finished telling the American people what you 
would like to do on the bill, if that bill were present now and we were 
debating it, the bill they have been talking about, the speculation 
bill. You have been saying this is what you would do. A little while 
ago, the majority leader told the American people: You all could offer 
amendments on nuclear, on offshore. It seems to me he said that, and 
you are talking as if that is wrong, that we couldn't offer amendments.
  Could you explain why you feel the way you do and why it would appear 
that what he said is not true when compared with the way you are 
reacting? You are a good Senator. The way you are reacting, it seems as 
if what the majority leader said is untrue.
  Mr. THUNE. With respect to what the Senator from Nevada said earlier 
today, indicating that we had an opportunity to offer amendments, that 
is flatly not the case. He has filled the amendment tree, which in 
Washington parlance means he has essentially prevented or blocked other 
Members from offering amendments. We are paralyzed because we can't 
have the debate we need to on all the amendments and solutions that 
Members are here to offer, all of which would add to the debate and 
most of which would actually address the fundamental problem the 
Senator from Tennessee has identified. We don't produce enough energy 
in this country, and we use too much. We need to find more and use 
less.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. The Senator from Utah is here. He has served in the 
Senate for a while. We only have about 10 more minutes, and several 
colleagues are here who would like to speak. Doesn't the Senator from 
Utah think it is a great disappointment that we have not been able, 
instead of just talking about gas prices, to do something about gas 
prices? Can he help some of us who have been here a little less longer 
in the Senate understand how that could have happened?
  Mr. BENNETT. I say to the Senator from Tennessee, the one thing we 
should remember about markets is that markets hate uncertainty. 
Whenever markets are not certain as to what is going to happen, the 
price of commodities always goes up because people want those 
commodities. They want to hold them, and they are afraid, in an area of 
uncertainty, that they might not be able to get them, so they will bid 
the price up.
  Our inability to bring certainty to the energy debate by virtue of 
the parliamentary maneuvers that have occurred contributes to the high 
price of gasoline. An airline, a truck line, an energy company dealing 
with gasoline at the pump has to have gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, 
or they will be unable to function. When they cannot see any end to the 
present uncertainty of world supply, that is when they bid for long-
term contracts. As they bid for the long-term contracts, others who 
say, we are not sure what is going to happen in the housing market or 
what is going to happen in the stock market, the one place where we are 
sure the price is going to go up is oil. They will come in and bid for 
the futures as well.
  We have had a bill on the floor that tries to deal with speculation 
as if it were a mystery. Speculation is not a mystery. The word 
``speculator,'' as Bernard Baruch said, comes from the Latin phrase 
``speculari,'' to observe. A speculator is one who observes what is 
going on and tries to make sense out of it.
  If we could say to the world market, we are serious about looking at 
oil shale, we are serious about looking at the Outer Continental Shelf, 
we are serious about doing things with respect to American automobile 
usage of oil, that would bring a degree of certainty to the 
marketplace. People would say: I don't need to buy that long-term oil 
contract because now there is a path of certainty that will mean prices 
will be stable. As prices become stable, they begin to come down. That 
is what we are trying to do. The parliamentary maneuvers entered into 
prevent us from bringing that certainty to the market and contribute to 
the constantly rising price of oil.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator.
  The Senator from Wyoming is here. He has been actively involved in a 
variety of energy issues and a member of the Energy Committee. He has 
been an active participant in the energy debate in this Chamber. Has 
the Senator not heard the Republican leader repeatedly say to the 
Democratic leader: We are ready to talk about supply and demand. We are 
ready to deal with, say, seven amendments from the Republican side and 
seven from the Democratic side and to vote on them and to have a time 
limited debate, and our whole purpose is a serious purpose to try to 
get a result; so can we not do that? Has he not heard that time and 
time again. And, if so, why does he suppose we are not doing that?
  Mr. BARRASSO. I have heard it time and time again. We are ready to 
vote and to offer amendments. Clearly, we need to deal with this issue 
of supply and demand. We need to find more and use less. The people of 
Wyoming get it. The people of my neighbors to the east in South Dakota 
know it. The people from Utah understand it completely. The people at 
home get it.
  There is a story in the Wall Street Journal from Thursday, ``Want to 
See Inflation Pressures? Try Wyoming.'' People drive great distances in 
these Western States, but they are also paying not just the price at 
the pump but also at the grocery store when they have to buy things 
shipped in because of transportation costs. They say: Hey, you are 
sending all of this money overseas to foreign countries, people who are 
not our friends. We need to be energy self-sufficient. We need to do it 
at home, which is exactly what we are trying to do with these seven 
amendments. Wyoming is an energy State--oil, natural gas, uranium for 
nuclear, and coal. The technology now with coal is there for clean coal 
technology, coal to liquids. That is energy that can be used for our 
military airplanes.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Is it not true that one of the leading environmental 
groups has said that if we can find a way to capture carbon from coal 
plants, that is the best long-term solution to climate change?
  Mr. BARRASSO. They have said that because it is the most available, 
affordable, secure, reliable source of energy we have. We have enough 
coal to last this country hundreds of years. We have ways to capture 
the carbon and pump it into the ground of old oil wells and get more 
oil and leave some of the carbon down below.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I assume that during the last 8 days, instead of just 
debating or speaking in languages that we don't seem to understand from 
each side, we could have actually considered an amendment to have 
aggressive research in carbon capture to accelerate the possibility 
that we could deal with climate change, clean air, energy independence, 
and have plenty more electricity for plug-in cars and trucks that 
everyone seems to favor.
  Mr. BARRASSO. And we could do it all with an environmental safety 
net. The opportunity has been blocked step by step.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I see the Senator from Tennessee, a member of the 
Energy Committee. He is one of the newer Members of the Senate. He has 
his feet pretty firmly on the ground. I am sure he is here to try to 
accomplish something. I wondered if he has any reflection about these 
last 8 days and our ability to try to deal with the No. 1 issue facing 
the American people, $4 gasoline.
  Mr. CORKER. The senior Senator from Tennessee provides tremendous 
leadership and certainly has done that on the issue of energy. He has 
spent time on the Energy Committee and knows of the great things 
happening in the State of Tennessee in this regard. What I would say to 
the Senator from Tennessee, someone who is a great friend, I worked 
hard to come to this body. You saw the tremendous effort I put in place 
to come to this body.
  This is the biggest issue the American people are dealing with today. 
I

[[Page S7516]]

did a townhall meeting the other night on the phone, which had about 
1,200 people, and almost every question people called in about was: Are 
we going to do anything as it relates to energy? So I know this is a 
major issue. I know it affects people.
  I go into retail stores, for instance, where somebody is working 
behind the counter, and I know they are not making a very high wage. 
They tell me: Please, is there something you can do to solve this 
problem? In my family, we are having to make decisions I thought we 
would never have to make, and I am concerned about what is going to 
happen this winter.
  So, yes, to get back to the Senator and sharing reflections, it is 
hard for me to believe we have a body of 100 adults, we have the 
biggest issue our country is dealing with, and one Senator--one 
Senator--has decided no one can offer amendments. I think it is a lack 
of responsibility to the American people. I do feel remiss that you and 
I both are not able to represent the people of Tennessee to do 
something they know makes sense; and that is, produce more and use 
less.
  I thank the Senator for this time.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee has 5 minutes.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, Senator Domenici from New Mexico has served in the 
Senate for 36 years. He is the ranking member on the Energy Committee. 
I ask him, can you help us understand why, with so many Senators 
willing today--and for the last 8 days--to deal with this issue, we are 
not dealing with it? And why the Democratic leader seems to be 
determined to avoid doing any single thing that would produce more 
American energy?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Well, Mr. President, let me say to my good friend from 
Tennessee, first, what a pleasure it is to serve with him. I am sorry 
we have not served together the last 2 years on the Energy Committee 
because the Senator moved--after we got the big Energy bill through, 
and to his State's benefit--to the Appropriations Committee. I still 
get to work with the Senator there.
  I say to the Senator, let's see if we can put it into focus. American 
people, I hope you have been watching for about 30 minutes or 40. 
Because if you go back about 40 minutes or 45 minutes, you will see 
somebody standing over there. His name is Harry Reid. He is from 
Nevada. He is the majority leader.
  You would have heard him say: Well, I have offered to you that you 
could have offered an amendment for the offshore. You could have 
offered an amendment for nuclear. He went on through five or six. You 
could have offered them, but you didn't.
  Isn't it strange that he stands there and tells the American people 
and the Senate that, and here, today, there are five Senators talking 
with you, all who, it seems to me, have good brains, who seem to be 
interested in their State and our country. What are they saying? They 
are saying: We wish we could offer an amendment. So that means they 
could not. Right?
  I will tell you, here is how I approach it. I am going to look at the 
Parliamentarian and say to the Parliamentarian: You might know, Mr. 
Parliamentarian, because I asked. I will tell you, and I hope you will 
accept what I say is true. The Parliamentarian has told me the two 
amendments Majority Leader Reid put on the so-called speculation bill--
he added them to it to fill the tree--are called amendments Nos. 5098 
and 5099.
  So, Mr. Parliamentarian, let's assume we are talking about the so-
called speculation bill. Let's further assume--because it is true--
there are two amendments that have been offered to it, amendments Nos. 
5098 and 5099.
  With that, I will ask: Is it in order for the Senators from 
Tennessee--either of them--or the Senator from New Mexico, with that 
situation, to offer an amendment that would permit the opening of the 
offshore resources of America? Would that amendment be in order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All slots are filled and the amendment would 
not be in order.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, you asked me, 
could I help you. I think I have helped you, right there. I think I 
have helped those who are listening.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask the Senator, what about the 
amendment by Senator Domenici to make it easier to build five or six 
nuclear plants a year, so we could have more clean energy; would that 
be in order?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, that amendment 
would not be in order.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Why would it not be in order?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Because in the Senate, we run on parliamentary rules. 
There is a rule that if an amendment has been filled, the tree has been 
filled, you cannot offer any more.
  Now, we have a majority leader who has used that rule more than any 
other leader in the history of America. That means he has offered two 
amendments to an amendment so you could not offer any other amendments. 
That is the way he runs the Senate. He does it not only to us, he does 
it to everybody because he does not want to have a vote on what you 
want, which you have so eloquently spoken to, or what the Senator from 
Alaska wants or what I would like. He does not want any of those. Why? 
Because maybe he will lose and maybe we will open this big parcel of 
land to the American people, open it so we can use it.
  Somehow or other, Democrats do not want more energy. I do not know 
why. It is incredible to me that with the American people clamoring for 
it, they do not want it. But they have a leader who is acting so no 
amendments can be offered. He stands and tells the American people any 
amendment they want can be offered.
  Frankly, I tell you, you can put those things up beside each other, 
and one is true and one is not true. I think I have established the 
reality that if I wanted to offer any amendments he was talking about, 
they would be out of order.
  I have lived in the Senate for 36 years. I have never had a Senate 
such as this. This Senate is run by one person. It is worse than the 
House Rules Committee. The House Rules Committee establishes the rules 
by which you work. But we do not have that. We have one person. He 
decides because he is entitled to the floor, he offers two amendments, 
and that equals a denial of the rights for either Republicans or 
Democrats to offer an amendment. That is where we are.
  Look at the good we could have done. Look at the issues we could have 
resolved. Look at what we could have told the American people: We have 
opened your property which contains billions of barrels of oil and God 
knows how many trillion cubic feet of natural gas. It is going to be 
open so we can use it. Well, we cannot tell them that. It is kind of 
strange, but I think it is true.
  I am very glad you asked me to explain it. I am glad we have the 
number. Maybe next week we can ask the majority leader, when he is 
here, if he would withdraw those two amendments so we could have 
amendments. I think if he were here, I would ask him that. I would ask 
him: How about a unanimous consent agreement, Mr. Leader, that we will 
remove your two amendments. They stand in the way of all our 
amendments. How about removing them? I would get some mumbo jumbo, and 
he would say he wants to leave them there.
  I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I say to Senator Domenici, thank you so 
much for clarifying this. It is like we are hearing two different 
conversations utterly unconnected to one another. But I notice Senator 
McConnell, the Republican leader, had offered a consent request. He 
offered and asked that we be allowed to offer seven amendments--just 
seven amendments. There was some confusion about it. But did you hear 
what the majority leader said to that offer?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I did. Surely, I did.
  Mr. SESSIONS. What did he say? And what power did he have to carry 
out what he said?
  Mr. DOMENICI. He said no. And he had the power to do it because, I 
told

[[Page S7517]]

you, if our leader would have taken any one of those seven--say, he 
would have given you one of them and said to the distinguished Senator 
from Alabama: Why don't you offer this one? If you would have offered 
it, somebody would have said that meant that amendment is out of order, 
and the Parliamentarian would have said that is out of order. You 
cannot offer amendments because those two amendments have been offered 
to fill the tree. That is a nice word. We have to understand it.
  What he has done is put those up there, which equals no one has a 
right to offer an amendment: I have done it. I have had all the 
amendments that this institution is going to have. I have the right to, 
says the leader. I put them. That is the end of the amendments.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think that is a sad event.
  I ask the Senator, would you not say that this body we take so much 
pride in as being the greatest deliberative body in the world--maybe in 
the history of the world--on an issue that is as important to the 
family budget and the entire Nation's economy that is shaky now because 
of surges in gas prices--isn't it bad policy--I say to Senator 
Domenici, you have been here 36 years, you have chaired the Energy 
Committee, you have written energy bills that have made the country 
better. Isn't it critically important right now for America that we 
start talking about and debating openly, not trying to manipulate it 
but openly to see what we can do to produce more and use less energy?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe it is absolutely what our 
distinguished chairman of our conference--who is on the floor, who was 
the leader of the colloquy that took place--has so eloquently said. It 
is right here in our hands that offshore contains more oil and gas than 
any other property of the United States, and it not only should be the 
subject matter of debate but there should be an amendment offered and 
we should vote on it and say yes or no to opening it for drilling.
  Can you imagine how happy the American people, who have followed this 
issue, would be if one of these mornings they could read: Senate votes 
on offshore drilling and says yes. I do not know why the Democrats do 
not want to do that. I would think they would be in favor of it because 
most Americans are. So I do not know where they are getting the 
messages.
  But you cannot stand here any longer, after what we have established 
today, and say you can vote on any of these. Somebody is going to be 
here with the name of these amendments, and anytime he says that, we 
are going to ask: Can we remove these two amendments that stand in the 
way of us doing that? I don't know what his excuse is going to be, but 
there will have to be one. Right?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will ask this too.
  I say to the Senator, you have watched this so closely, and we have 
the question of oil shale in the West.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Two years ago, when your Energy bill passed, we had an 
opportunity to begin to see if we could make that be successful. I 
think we can. We had testimony in the Energy Committee that indicated 
it would come in below the world price of oil.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Oh, yes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. But what happened? Wasn't it when the Democrats got the 
majority in the Congress, Speaker Pelosi put in language that barred 
any utilization of Federal lands to produce oil from shale?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Well, actually, when we did our big Energy bill--that 
is when the good Senator from Tennessee was on our committee--one of 
the things we wrote in--it went by rather easily, nobody knew it; I 
knew it because I worked on it and I put it in there--we decided that 
the Bureau of Land Management property up there in those three States 
belongs to the Government--that property. So it belongs to the people. 
There was not any provision to let the leases out so they could use it 
for research on how to develop it. We permitted that in our bill.
  Sure enough, it worked. Within 6 months after the bill was passed, 
there was interest. The interest was evidenced by one of the major 
companies taking out a lease. They wanted to spend $4 billion 
developing a technology. They were ready to move and see if it was 
going to work. Well, that is a lot of money, and it means that is going 
to take a lot of money.
  Well, you know what happened. Similar to all these other things 
around here, in the dead of night, on the Interior appropriations bill, 
an amendment was put on, a rider, you call it. It said: You cannot 
proceed to write the final regulations for the research and 
development--not for the production--for the research and development 
so people will know what they are getting into and what they can spend 
money on.
  They passed that at night, put it on there. We know where it came 
from. It came from those who want no development in the State of 
Colorado. And there we are, similar to all these other amendments that 
have been put on that take away property rights from our American 
people. That was done there. We are asking that be lifted. We have an 
amendment to do that. We cannot vote on it. Right?
  Mr. SESSIONS. But it was a very recent act in the Interior 
appropriations bill, not fully debated anywhere.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Nowhere.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Slipped in, as we say, in the dead of night. It 
reversed the option to going forward and basically denied the Interior 
Department the ability to write the regulations that would allow it to 
go forward.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. Whenever I talked about the regulations, I want to 
clarify that the first commercial rigs couldn't be developed because of 
what they did.
  Senator, I just wish to say before I sit down--and I am ready to--how 
pleased I am that you are going to stay after I leave and apparently 
stay on the Energy Committee and apparently work on something very dear 
to my heart: nuclear energy. I worked for 8 to 10 years on that, with 
marvelous staff help. I think we had a lot to do with going from no 
nuclear power in America to a very live activity where many companies 
are standing in line to offer their licenses at the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission to produce nuclear power.
  We need to finish with a recycling provision. I understand you are 
interested in that and you will probably work on that in the years to 
come, and I commend you. I will be gone.
  I think my good friend from Tennessee who is here knows we have to do 
recycling, the second phase of this activity. Right in his State, we 
have taken the lead. TVA has taken the lead in nuclear power because 
they were ready, and before anybody else they were building one, 
building a half one, turning it into a whole, and that has been a 
tremendous experience for the nuclear industry. He is to be praised 
because that happened with people being heard and all and with no 
serious complaints, and it is on its way, just like the rest of them. 
They are going to build them right next door to existing ones, and that 
is going to be a pretty good approach. Remember that when you start 
working at it, they are not building them in new places, they are 
building right next door to ones that have been there for 30 years. 
People say: Of course, build another one. You might hear some anti's, 
but they are not anti's around the existing plants because it has been 
nothing but good, and you will find that when you start to take the 
lead in that.
  I want to say I think the time is up for me, and if it isn't, 
whatever it is up here tells me I am about finished for the day. I am. 
I do want to say to both of you that it has been tremendous to talk 
here today. I think, somehow or another, we have made the point that 
there just cannot be one set of truths for the Democrats, one set of 
truths that apply to the majority leader, and another set of truths 
that apply to us. It is either true or its not true, and the issue of 
whether we have been able to offer amendments in the true way, to amend 
them and to debate them, to be amended themselves, whether we have been 
in that position is clear, clear, clear as the clearest water on Earth, 
it is that clear that we have not been able to because it has been 
denied to us.
  Anybody standing up saying: You could have offered amendments--how 
could we? I don't know how we can. Maybe next week we can offer six or 
eight or more. Senator, maybe you can stand up and offer them and let 
the Parliamentarian say they are not in order; say, why not; and we 
will get the

[[Page S7518]]

answer. Maybe somebody who put those two amendments on there to close 
everything up, maybe they would consider taking them off. I mean, if he 
says you can have an amendment, well, can we have an amendment by 
taking down your two amendments and then we will have our amendment? I 
am sure the answer would be no. Why wouldn't it be? Because they don't 
want you to offer an amendment, right? That must be it.
  I yield the floor.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator for giving me time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, do we have a time agreement now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time agreement in effect.

                          ____________________