Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would just say what an honor it has been to serve with Senator Domenici. There is no more effective advocate, no more courageous Senator in terms of speaking the truth about complex matters in words that Americans can understand, and no stronger Senator in committing to a sound economic policy than Senator Domenici. We are going to miss him in this body, there is no doubt about it. I wish to briefly share a few thoughts about the LIHEAP legislation that was offered. First, I would note that the Democratic leadership has proposed two pieces of legislation at this point in time over the last few weeks that would deal with energy. One is speculation, which I am open to in seeing what we can do to tighten that up, but it produces not one barrel of energy. They also tried to move today a $2.5 billion energy subsidy to subsidize the purchase of fuel oil for people in America, and they want to spend it. There is no money whatsoever to pay for it, so it is going to be treated as an emergency, adding to the debt this Nation already has. I would just suggest that if you are looking at sound energy policy, it seems to me that Senator Alexander has it right: We should find more and use less. I would suggest it is crystal clear that the LIHEAP legislation that is designed to use $2.5 billion of the taxpayers' money--actually, money we don't have because we are already in debt--to subsidize the utilization of more energy--really some of the dirtiest energy we have in America; burning dirty fuel oil in private home furnaces--that is not consistent with a sound energy policy. So I reject the LIHEAP bill first and foremost because it is unpaid for, it adds another $2.5 billion to the national debt, and it is on top of an already $2.5 billion LIHEAP piece of legislation. This is not good leadership from the Democratic side on matters important to America. You remember the dispute we had over automobile gasoline. The prices went up, and some suggested we should cut the tax. We said no, that is not good policy. Why would you want to encourage the utilization of more gasoline by cutting this tax? It is just not good policy. We need to do something fundamental about energy. It is an even worse policy to tax the American people or add debt to our grandchildren to subsidize the utilization of some of the Nation's most dirty energy. The very people from that area of the country--the Northeast primarily--are the ones who have consistently objected to the production of more energy. Time and time--I have been here 12 years, almost. I know where the votes have come from. The very people pushing for this subsidy to burn more dirty fuel oil are the people who had objected and successfully blocked attempts to produce more, cleaner energy in America, and it is not good. We need to talk about this. We need to get serious about America's energy policy. I know my fine colleague, the great advocate from Vermont, tried to argue that this is a fair allocation of money and that it is not regionally biased in favor of Vermont or some of our Northeastern States, that it helps rural Southern States with air- conditioning. Well, I am just looking at the numbers in the bills. I have the numbers State by State right here. In Vermont, they have one Congressman. They got $17 million. I guess that is less than--$17 million under this program. Alabama, with seven Congressmen--seven times the population--got a total of $18 million. Look, this is a gimmick. It is a transfer of wealth to a certain group of people for political reasons, and we are going to send the debt to our grandchildren. It is not good policy. We ought not to go to the LIHEAP bill because we need to be talking about how to produce more energy. If we produce more energy and we produce cleaner alternative energy sources, if we build nuclear plants that some of these same people have opposed, if we were building another 100 nuclear plants instead of the 100 we have--and we haven't built one in 30 years--if we had been building them the way France has, where 80 percent of their energy is from nuclear power, we wouldn't be in the crisis we are in today, but they blocked that. So I just protest a little bit. Count me as saying no on that question. I see some of my other colleagues are here, and I yield the floor at this time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I express my deep appreciation to Senator Coburn. I believe that is one of the most important speeches I have heard in the 12 years I have been in this Senate. We are going to have a test. This body will be tested in the days to come, it appears, because some Members who run the railroad are unhappy that one Member of this Senate--the hardest working Member of the Senate and one of the most intelligent Members of the Senate and one of the most principled Members of the Senate--has an odd view about legislation. Senator Coburn believes we ought to read legislation and, if there is something wrong with it, before we pass it, we should try to fix it. He believes we are spending too much money--and we are. I will note that, according to the conservative way of figuring debt, last year our deficit was $177 billion. Already this year, we have done a $150 billion stimulus package. We have done other things. The economy is slowing down. Our deficit this fiscal year, ending September 30, is likely to be $450 billion, maybe $500 billion. If you figure it another way, it can be another $150 billion more. So isn't it good that we have a Senator who will stand up here and fight to try to contain the recklessness we have ongoing in this body? He would actually read legislation and spot the weaknesses because I have watched him. I don't know how he possibly has the time to do all that he does. And it is for America. One of the oddest things about this body I have observed--and I have been one, on occasion, to hold legislation also and object to certain parts in it. I am sure Senator Coburn has seen this. If you object to something because it adversely affects Oklahoma or Alabama or Tennessee, some special interest in your State, why, that is fine. That is quite acceptable. Every Senator has to protect their own special interest in their State. That is why you are here. But if you actually protest a piece of legislation because it is bad policy, because it does not further America's legitimate national interest, because it dumps wealth and debt on our grandchildren, then that is ridiculous. What is the matter? You are just a crank. You are just trying to slow down the machine. You are stopping the train. I am telling you, this is a big deal that is coming up. This body is famous for unlimited debate. On a number of pieces of legislation they will ask the question--the majority leader and others frequently ask a question, and this is what they say: I ask unanimous consent that this piece of legislation pass--maybe 100, 200, 500 pages--without an amendment, without any debate, and we go straight to a vote and just pass it. How many Members of this body actually read it? Very few, if any. Senator Coburn tries to read them. He tries to analyze them. He does the right thing that every Senator should do. If he sees something that needs to be debated or corrected, he objects because he is not ready to consent. Isn't that fundamentally it? He is not prepared to consent because he thinks there is something bad in it for America. He is one of the most principled people I know in committing to what is best for America--not just Oklahoma but for America. So the majority leader has gotten his back up. He just wants all these bills to go through, and he doesn't want to have them brought up. Senator Coburn has repeatedly improved pieces of legislation. I hope if we proceed with this debate--and I don't know if Senator Coburn possibly has time--but I would like to see brought out on the floor of this Senate some of the corrections and improvements to hundreds of pieces of legislation that he has achieved by standing up and saying: I am not going to consent until you fix this problem. You know it is bad, go on and agree to it. And frequently they will agree. They will say politics made us do it. We really didn't favor that anyway, Tom. But maybe if it is the only way we can pass it, we will just do it and do the right thing. So legislation is improved time and time and time again as a result of his work. I know with regard to this African AIDS piece of legislation, I met with a group from Africa--a grandmother whose daughter died from AIDS and who had her grandchild with her who has AIDS--and they objected to several different things in that bill. They said they would rather have no bill than if we pass it the way it was originally written. Senator Coburn--Dr. Coburn--understands this, and he put his foot down. He made them improve that bill before he would agree to have it come up for a vote or support it, which he did eventually. I am just saying the good government crowd is being spun around, and many in the media are being spun around that good government is on the side of those who don't like people who put holds on legislation. I would say it is crystal clear that anybody who loves this country, who worries about reckless spending, who wants integrity in government should be on the side of a Senator who will stand up and read the legislation, who is prepared to come to the floor and debate the problems he sees in it, and who will offer amendments to make it better. That is what a Senator ought to do. That is what this Senate should be. It will be a dark day, it will be a day of shame in this Senate if we cobble all these pieces of legislation together and ram it through without any opportunity to amend it. That is what the plan is, as I understand it, to just cobble up 36 pieces of legislation that people have concerns about and just file for cloture, shut off debate, and pass them all. That is not good policy. It will be a dark day for this Senate. I am so proud I had the opportunity to be here and hear Senator Coburn's speech. He is doing the right thing for this country. I am proud of him and I will be supporting him and I think a lot of others will too. I yield the floor

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, do we have a time agreement now?

Mr. SESSIONS. But it was a very recent act in the Interior appropriations bill, not fully debated anywhere.

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. 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. 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. SESSIONS. What did he say? And what power did he have to carry out what he said?

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. 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. 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. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Who gets the benefit?

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute. I do not see another colleague here. I would note that for these reasons, I think it is bad public policy. I ask my colleagues to vote against it on the merits and also because we need to continue to talk about producing more energy for America; keeping American wealth at home and not continue to transmit $700 billion a year of our wealth to nations around the world, often who are hostile to our national security interests. I reserve the remainder of our time on this side.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, first, I appreciate particularly the work of my colleague, the senior Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby, who has, for quite a number of years, fought to improve oversight of the GSE, the Fannie and Freddie agencies that are so dominant in our loan market. I am pleased, finally, now that we are in a crisis and the warnings he has raised for years, along with Senator Sununu, Senator Allard, and some others, that they now are willing to accept some significant oversight over these tremendously large institutions while, unfortunately, placing the taxpayers at risk. So I think, all in all, with the crisis we are facing, I am inclined to support this legislation; although I am not, in general, happy we are in this circumstance.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent to use 5 minutes of the time allotted to the Republican leader.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I say to Senator Alexander, I have great affection for the Democratic leader, but I just could not agree with his statement that we do not have time. We have a whole month coming up for which we are supposedly going home for recess. Our soldiers are working 7 days a week, with 15-hour days. This Congress cannot stand to stay in session a while and confront this issue and do some things we know will work? I know there are a lot of specific steps everybody in this Chamber would agree would be positive to deal with this problem. We need to take those steps, and on a bipartisan basis; but we can't get there unless we are able to bring up the bill and debate it.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I could not agree more. In fact, Senator Carper, our colleague, just 10 or 15 minutes ago emphasized plug-in hybrids as one of the key solutions. I think you and I agree from our discussions that in the immediate future, a plug-in hybrid automobile may have more potential to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels than almost any other thing that is within our technological capabilities to achieve. Would the Senator agree with that?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I certainly agree. I say to Senator Alexander, I think you have articulated that so well. I just heard most of the remarks of Senator Carper, our Democratic colleague. He was talking about ways to produce more nuclear power, biofuels. I think-- don't you--there is a basis for compromise between our parties that will have conservation plus more production? Both of those together, I am convinced, will help break this cycle of ever-rising prices of fuel. That is the direction we need to go. I do find it odd that the Democratic leader is keeping this negotiation--really, this discussion that would occur from a real Energy bill debate--keeping that from occurring and keeping progress from being made.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask Senator Alexander this. I get so frustrated when I say and Members on this side say: Well, we need to produce more oil and gas, we have blocked 85 percent of our offshore lands--not south of Alabama, we have supported that, but other areas are blocked--and they say that is because we are for oil companies. But the truth is, this idea you and I are talking about--a plug-in hybrid-- would take us from oil, would give some competition to the big oil companies, and would have a significant effect, would it not, in, hopefully, reducing the price of oil and their profits in the process?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think that is exactly right. I just want to thank the Senator for his leadership and study. One of our Members said there are few issues in which more Members of this Senate have educated themselves than on energy. I think most of our Members are deeply committed to doing something. If they are listening to their constituents, they are. I calculated out, I say to Senator Alexander, that according to the estimates of the Government, the average family travels 24,000 miles a year. That means in their budgets they will spend this year, based on the increase in gasoline prices, $1,260 more. That amounts to $105 per month. After they pay their Social Security, after they pay their taxes, after they pay their insurance, after they pay their house loan, and all these fixed expenses all of us have, they have that little remaining money that discretionary money to do the things they want to do to take care of their family and many critical needs, and they have $100 less per month. I believe we have to do something. I do not believe we should go home without confronting this question. It requires conservation, less utilization, alternatives to this high price of oil, as well as more production.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank Senator Gregg for his insights on housing and other matters. With regard to the potential LIHEAP legislation, I respect the fact that he desires it to be paid for and for it not to be one more addition to the public debt. However, as a Senator who has believed for the last 12 years I have been here that this Nation needed to produce more oil and gas at home, I have been frustrated so often by my colleagues--frequently from the Northeast, I have to say--who have opposed oil production offshore, have opposed oil production in Alaska, have opposed coal to liquid, have opposed shale oil production and other avenues of production. The junior Senator from Vermont, my colleague on the Energy Committee, declared that we needed more geothermal, we needed more wind and solar, we needed renewable energy forms, which I certainly support in every way possible. Yet it is odd to me that those very same persons now walk blithely into the Senate and want the taxpayers of America to subsidize the Northeast so they can buy more dirty fuel oil to heat their homes with--the people who objected to the production of oil and gas year after year. I have to say that. I know people in the Northeast are hurting. People all over the country are hurting. The little county where I grew up in Alabama, according to the New York Times and a national survey, found that they spend a larger percentage of their income on gasoline than any other county in America because incomes are low in the rural areas and they have to drive a long distance to work. Those were the primary factors cited. That makes sense to me. Are we going to subsidize people in Wilcox County? Who gets subsidized? What we need, without any doubt, colleagues, is an energy policy that will bring down these prices. We need an energy policy that makes sense--not subsidizing the dirtiest oil of all, burning heating oil in individual homes. We ought to be thinking about things that could actually work, such as cleaner natural gas, making those pipelines available throughout the country, instead of blocking every attempt to expand a pipeline. Or maybe we could expand nuclear power in the Northeast and other places in the country so more of our homes could be converted to clean electricity, produced by nuclear power, which produces not one drop of global warming gases or atmospheric pollution. I have to say I am disappointed that the majority leader has decided he did not have time--I believe those were his words--to deal with energy. Therefore, he filled the tree, using a parliamentary procedure that means we would go home a week earlier than we expected to go home and not stay in session next week and talk about energy and the things the American people care about. They care about energy and the economy. The economy is adversely affected by high energy costs. That is what we need to be doing right now. I think this idea, that the majority leader can fill the tree and control the amendments so we are not able to enter into a debate about how to confront the energy crisis this Nation is experiencing, is a very extraordinary departure from our classical history. In 2005 and 2006, we had an energy debate and passed an important energy bill. The Republicans had the majority at that time. I believe there were 15 days of debate, 20 or 30 amendments were offered, and many more were accepted without a full vote. Then, last year, the Democratic majority allowed an energy debate that improved our CAFE standards, and it passed overwhelmingly. I voted for that. I think it was 10 full days of debate and many votes were cast on amendments. At this time, quite a number of amendments were accepted. Why would we not do that now when we are facing an even more severe crisis? That is my question. So I note to my colleagues that energy prices are having a very real impact on the lives of our constituents. According to AAA, the average price of regular unleaded gasoline was $4.03 this morning. As a result, the typical American family, with two cars, is paying approximately--we have calculated this out, according to average miles driven--paying $1,260 more this year for the same number of gallons of gasoline they were purchasing last year. That amounts to a $105-per-month increase in expenditures for each family. Remember, people have paid taxes, they have had Social Security withheld, they have paid their insurance, their house payment, and all their basic expenses. You only have a certain amount of money. The American people are unhappy because they are paying an extra $105 per month for the same amount of gasoline they were purchasing before. When they realize that a big reason for that is because of a systematic action by Congress to block production of clean American energy, I think they are going to be unhappy with us. In fact, they are already unhappy with us. The popularity of Congress is at an alltime low. I think, on this energy question, we deserve the criticism. I have to say I have promoted more production for years. I have warned against this problem. As a result of our policies, we are now importing over 60 percent of our fuel. That amounts to $500 billion to $700 billion in American wealth which has been transferred out of this country to foreign nations. They are using it like Venezuela is right now, with Chavez in Russia closing a $2 billion arms deal. He is basically doing that with our money, with the high price of oil. He is off shopping to buy weapons and--hopefully, he will not--possibly use them to destabilize South America, since he sees himself as following in the steps of Fidel Castro, his hero. That is not a good thing. I have offered legislation that would open an area in the Gulf of Mexico on Alabama's side of the Alabama-Florida line, called the stovepipe, that has large amounts of oil and gas in it. It is in shallower water, so the wells can be drilled in a fashion that they can sit on the bottom. With the deep drilling we are doing today, you have to have a ship. The waters are so deep, they cannot anchor the ship. It has to sit in place by GPS and have propellers all around it to hold it steady, so it doesn't move, and the drilling can go on. This would be much cheaper and much quicker to bring onboard. I have offered legislation that would require the Department of Energy to examine the subsidies and incentives we have created and to see which ones are working. This legislation would also have the Department of Energy work on a recommendation of how to utilize our subsidies, incentives, and prohibitions in a way that effectively maximizes our energy capacity in this country, making us less dependent upon foreign oil. I believe strongly we need more efficiency. We need to use less energy. We need to have a breakthrough. I believe we will. In my home State, I believe we are going to see, within the next few months, a breakthrough on the conversion of cellulose to biodiesel or ethanol, and that could be a big help to us. It will certainly be more productive than that ethanol we are getting from corn today. I see my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Arizona. I wish to say more, but I will conclude by saying that I believe we need to act. Our soldiers in Iraq work 7 days a week, 12- to 15-hour days. Their lives are at risk. The majority leader said we don't have time, that we need to recess a week earlier than we projected, and we cannot possibly spend more time during August--we need to be home on recess--dealing with the No. 1 issue facing the American people in this country. I believe that is the wrong policy. I think we need to say so. I believe there are large numbers of Democratic Members of this Congress who will support more production that is safe and carefully done, that will help us deal with the crisis we are facing, but we cannot make progress, unless we are able to vote and debate. That is being denied at this time. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate many of Senator Durbin's remarks. I don't see why in the world we can't reach some sort of bipartisan consensus on how to go forward with the national crisis that is hitting us today. He and others have hinted that they are willing to produce more energy in America rather than spend $700 billion a year of our wealth exporting it to countries such as Venezuela or Saudi Arabia to purchase the 60 percent of oil we use. But they don't propose that. The only legislation they have proposed is the speculation bill. I suspect there are a lot of things we can do to deal with speculators who are acting improperly. I support that and don't have any problem with them, although I think we want to be careful and not only repeal the futures market, apparently, as some would suggest we should do. I think we should move on it, and we have a lot to do in that area. But I have been asking myself, why is it that we are not seeing any substantive effort on the majority side to deal with the clear crisis we have? And the crisis is that the entire world is using more oil and gas; Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and other countries are reducing their production, even Russia, I understand, and Mexico. As a result, we have shortages. That is how speculators manipulate. They are able to manipulate when there is a shortage. We need to fundamentally--do something about the shortage. When we have a choice--and we clearly do--we should produce our energy from America, keeping all that wealth here and not sending it abroad to countries, many of which are not our friends. That is so basic, it goes beyond logic. I had a little idea, maybe, as to what is going on here. It came to me when former Vice President, former Democratic President Al Gore, in his speech this week, renounced all fossil fuels and declared that this Nation ought to have as its policy to eliminate fossil fuels totally from making electricity in 10 years. That is one of the most breathtaking statements I have ever heard. Fifty percent of our electricity today is coal; 20 percent is natural gas. What he is saying is, we don't produce any more, and we are going to make all of our electricity in 10 years from renewables--wind, solar, and biofuels. We have already hit 5 percent of our fuel for gasoline from corn ethanol. Most people--I think everybody agrees--agree we are at about the max we can possibly get from corn. So I think there is some real potential with cellulose wood products. Senator Isakson and I have talked about that. Our States have a good bit of waste wood in the forest that could be a nice improvement, and perhaps produce a good bit more, even than corn ethanol. But I want to go back to the situation. Are our colleagues on the other side who claim to be interested in helping America get through this terrible economic time not going to discuss with us how to produce more energy at home? I can't believe that. The only thing that is consistent with that policy, which we have seen for some time now, is the consistency of former Vice President Gore's statement this week that he wants to take all of our electricity and produce it from nonfossil fuel sources, which is unthinkable. Unless there is some monumental breakthrough, it is not possible. It is not going to happen. It cannot be the basis of a sound energy policy by any responsible official in America, it seems to me. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think so. After the price of gasoline spiked, we ended up with our majority colleagues offering a cap-and-trade bill that they wanted to pass that, in effect, would be a major tax on energy, which the EPA said would raise the price of gasoline by $1.50 a gallon and could double the price of electricity. This is what we are seeing here. I don't think that is reasonable. Our goal should be to change the extent to which we have to use fossil fuels. I am for limiting them. I am for better efficiency. I am for geothermal. I am for solar, if we can make it work. I am for wind, if we can make it work. The whole Southeast is generally recognized as not a place where any wind energy can be efficiently produced. What we have to do is be realistic about the multiplicity of steps it takes to be independent and to reduce our CO2 emissions, our global warming gases, and to make our environment cleaner. I will take a moment and ask the desk how much time I have used. I would like to be notified when I have used 10 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Senator Durbin did say we need to have an opportunity to offer amendments and vote on amendments and let's talk about how to develop a national energy policy. I take that as a good statement. The only thing I am worried about is that will be one of these deals in which we on both sides say: Your amendment has to have 60 votes to pass and our amendments have to have 60 votes to pass. We do that a lot of times because we know neither side will get 60 votes. What we need is some bipartisan participation, and we need to do some things. Eighty-five percent of our offshore oil and gas is under a moratorium. We have blocked the Air Force's ability to use synthetic fuels produced from coal. We--I say ``we,'' I mean the Democratic majority, in truth--slipped that through in the last Energy bill that passed. Our colleague, Senator Obama, a Member of this Senate, the nominee of the Democratic Party for President, praised Vice President Gore's speech and has not made, to my knowledge, one specific criticism of it. In the former Vice President's speech, he did not in any way suggest nuclear power as one of the solutions to the difficulty we are in, which is pretty much unthinkable, if one gets my drift. It has to be done. Nuclear power is making a comeback around the world. According to the World Nuclear Association, 129 plants are currently on order or under construction in 41 countries and 218 more have been proposed. We have 104 in America. It makes 20 percent of our electricity. Fifty percent is coal, 20 percent is natural gas, 20 percent is nuclear, 10 percent is all the rest, with less than 1 percent coming from wind at the present time. These European countries, advanced countries, have come to clearly recognize that nuclear power is the best way to produce clean base load power without it emitting pollutants. England, the United Kingdom, has recently commissioned eight new reactors, reversing its recent policy to abandon nuclear power. Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel has also recognized the importance of nuclear power in meeting their challenges, calling for a halt to the odd plan they had to close down their existing reactors. The American people also support the expansion of nuclear power. Of course, France has 80 percent of its power coming from nuclear, and Japan is soon to pass the 50-percent mark. According to an MSNBC poll, 67 percent of the American people support building more nuclear powerplants. I see the Chair is calling my time, and other Members are here to speak. I do believe that in any component to move to clean, nongreenhouse-gas-emitting energy, nuclear power has to be a part of it. I have not seen that in my colleagues' plan, zero from the Democratic side on this issue. It is something we must do. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that the time allocated to the Republican side be limited to 10 minutes per speaker.