[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 73 (Wednesday, May 13, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5399-S5409]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order and pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of 
     David J. Hayes, of Virginia, to be Deputy Secretary of the 
     Interior.
         Harry Reid, Mark Begich, Jeff Merkley, Max Baucus, Patty 
           Murray, Jon Tester, Jack Reed, Jeanne Shaheen, Barbara 
           A. Mikulski, Debbie Stabenow, Tom Harkin, Robert 
           Menendez, Byron L. Dorgan, Mark Pryor, Bernard Sanders, 
           Sherrod Brown, Barbara Boxer.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of David J. Hayes, of Virginia, to be Deputy Secretary of 
the Interior shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator 
from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 189 Ex.]

                                YEAS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--39

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Mikulski
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 57, the nays are 
39. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having not voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to 
reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the David Hayes 
nomination be considered entered by the majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the 
vote today on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of David 
Hayes to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior because I was attending a 
funeral. If I were able to attend today's session, I would have 
supported cloture on the Hayes nomination.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to expand on my vote in favor of Mr. 
David Hayes to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior. It is my 
understanding that Senator Bennett has requested answers to a series of 
substantive questions regarding the Department of the Interior's 
decision to withdraw 77 parcels in Utah from an oil and gas lease sale. 
I strongly believe that it is the prerogative of any Member of the 
Senate to have his or her questions answered in detail, especially 
concerning an issue relevant to their home State. I further understand 
that the Secretary of the Interior has indicated

[[Page S5408]]

that there will be a thorough review of the administrative record 
concerning the 77 lease parcels and the Department will provide a 
report with recommendations by May 29, 2009. I believe that this is a 
reasonable path forward on the issues at this time. With that said, if 
Senator Bennett's questions are not sufficiently addressed by that 
date, I reserve my right to object to future executive nominations to 
the Department of the Interior. I look forward to successful resolution 
of Senator Bennett's concerns.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
statement by Senator Landrieu of 4 minutes, the Senate resume 
legislative session and resume consideration of H.R. 627.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would amend that unanimous consent 
request. I wish to amend that to allow 5 minutes for the Senator from 
Louisiana, and 5 minutes for Senator Crapo, and then the Senate resume 
legislative session and resume consideration of H.R. 627; and at that 
point, Senator Menendez be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wanted to take a few minutes in 
reference to the vote we just had. I cast my vote for the nominee, 
based on not only his experience with the Department, but based on my 
confidence in the Secretary that the President has appointed to help 
lead this country to a position of energy security, a position we do 
not enjoy at this very moment.
  Despite the work that has been done here and on the other side of the 
Capitol in the last couple of years, despite the rhetoric of several 
decades, we do not enjoy energy security. We have environmental issues, 
but we have security issues.
  I wanted to express this, because there was obviously some hesitancy 
about this nominee based on an issue, I believe, involving domestic oil 
and gas production. That is what this vote was about, not about this 
personal nominee.
  This was a vote to express concern, which I share to some degree, 
that this administration has not positioned itself appropriately and 
aggressively enough in the area of domestic energy production, of 
traditional as well as alternative and new sources.
  Here I want to express that while I voted yes on this nominee, that I 
plan, and Members on the Republican and Democratic side plan, to be 
more vocal in expressing our concern to this administration that the 
tax proposals on the oil and gas industry are not going to create jobs. 
We are going to lose jobs, 1.8 million.
  While we move to alternative fuels, we are turning our back on 
traditional natural gas, which is plentiful, which makes money for lots 
of people, which secures America, strengthens our industry and creates 
jobs.
  So this was a vote to indicate an unsettling on this floor, both from 
the Republican side and among some Democrats, that this issue needs to 
be addressed more directly and more aggressively.
  I have all the confidence, as I close, in Secretary Salazar. He 
served right here with us a few years ago. I know he seeks a balance. 
So I trust that we will start seeing some aggressive comments coming 
out from the administration as we push forward to keep leasing up in 
the gulf off the coast of Alaska, opening up Virginia, other parts of 
the Continental Shelf, as well as the plentiful gas in your own State, 
and in places such as Pennsylvania and Ohio, where our industries are 
desperate for this cheap, clean energy source.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I wish first to indicate to the Senator 
from Louisiana that I agree with her comments. I think the last time I 
got up to speak on this energy issue she was here on the floor as well. 
I share her sentiments about the need for us to continue to focus on 
developing a rational national energy policy for our Nation.
  On July 30 last year, I stood before this body to talk about the No. 
1 issue in the country to the people at that time: energy. Gasoline 
prices were over $4 a gallon and surging, and Americans were wondering 
what their leaders in Washington, DC, were going to do to help. I place 
tremendous faith in the opinions and ideas of Idahoans. So in early 
July I asked my constituents to write to me and tell me what they 
thought we ought to do and to describe to me what the impact of our 
failure to have a reasonable national energy policy was having on their 
lives. Then I made a promise that I would submit their stories to the 
Congressional Record, a process I vowed to continue until all of their 
stories had been submitted. In total, I received over 1,200 responses 
from my State, 600 almost overnight. It has taken me nearly 10 months 
to get all of these stories entered into the Congressional Record due 
to the requirements of the Congressional Record limitations as to how 
much can be submitted each day.
  Today I submit the last of those stories, and I want to share with 
you what we have learned. I received touching stories from Idahoans 
about how they have been negatively impacted by higher energy prices, 
and the stories indicate that high energy prices had impacted every 
aspect of their lives. Idahoans had to cut back on family time. Many 
were unable to visit elderly relatives and had to cut back on family 
activities together outside of the home such as sports or music 
lessons. But those were just some of the less serious challenges Idaho 
families faced. Many had to cut back on their home repairs, their air 
conditioning, and their contributions to their retirements plans. Many 
had to make a decision between whether to eat food or to pay for the 
gasoline they needed to get to their work and keep their job or to 
purchase needed medications.
  I can remember one story of a young mother telling me how she and her 
husband had started eating much less so that their children could have 
enough to eat, and they could still have enough gasoline each week to 
get to work and keep their jobs.
  Many of their stories were heart wrenching. Many talked about losing 
their jobs and being forced to relocate or to make decisions between, 
as I indicated, purchasing gas or eating their next meal. Many reduced 
their expenses, cut their luxuries and found ways to economize. But the 
dramatic increase we experienced last year brought Idaho families, as 
many in other States, to their knees asking for help.
  They offered explanations about what has happened and offered links 
to various publications and videos they found helpful. They attached 
photos of their circumstances. They sent legislative resolutions from 
national, State and local entities to remind us that other legislators 
around the country were interested in finding solutions to this issue 
as well. Many of them have spent a lot of time and energy on this 
subject, researching energy options and sharing their opinions on what 
they have learned. They offered solutions. My constituents suggested we 
need more conservation, that we need more domestic drilling. They 
wanted more public transportation and more nuclear power options. They 
pushed for additional renewable and alternative energy sources and 
research.
  In short, they came through with the kind of common sense that people 
all across this country have been sharing with this Congress on the 
need for energy solutions. They want us to be less dependent on 
petroleum, and they want us to be less dependent on foreign sources of 
this petroleum. They want us to have a broad, diverse energy base of 
renewable and alternative fuels, including strong support for nuclear 
power. But above all, they were angry at Congress for not dealing with 
the issue of high energy prices. They couldn't believe the country had 
been through an energy crisis before but that Congress still has not 
managed the issue and come up with a solution. Idahoans expressed 
frustration with partisan politics and the inability to move past the 
age-old arguments and reach consensus on a comprehensive energy policy. 
Many said they were grateful I had asked for their thoughts.
  I come before the Senate to echo my constituents' comments and 
concerns about our energy policy and to offer solutions. As I stand 
before the Senate, we are no closer to a comprehensive energy policy 
than we were last July. Yet

[[Page S5409]]

economic indicators point to a rally in crude oil prices. Oil is now 
above $58 a barrel and gas prices are the highest they have been in 6 
months. We don't need a repeat of last summer. We need to work together 
to craft a comprehensive energy policy that promotes domestic security 
and creates American jobs while providing energy at the lowest cost 
possible to consumers.
  The key to the energy future is to take a balanced approach that 
includes domestic production, conservation, renewables, nuclear, and 
alternative fuel development.
  I would like to conclude my remarks by repeating my constituents' 
desire for the kind of bipartisanship that can transform this country's 
energy policy. I welcome the opportunity to work with all my colleagues 
on this issue. I encourage us not to a get into another energy crisis 
such as we faced last summer, with Congress having failed to take the 
important steps it can to help America become energy independent and a 
strong supplier of its own energy resources.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________