John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might just speak for 2 minutes. I thank my colleague from California. I say to her, it has been a pleasure to work with you and to continue to work with you in the Senate. Our primary responsibilities are on the Intelligence Committee, but you are a very diversified Senator and can seize many subjects and provide your expertise for the benefit of this Chamber. I thank you for your thoughtful, personal remarks and your very informative speech given this morning.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to commend our distinguished colleague from Georgia. I listened very carefully, and I appreciate his reference to the fact that I will be offering at the earliest possible time an amendment to lay some foundation in this proposed legislation addressing nuclear power. As I listened to what the Senator from Georgia said, I basically agree. But as the Senator well knows, if we were to have included these provisions, either during the course of the committee markup or indeed now in the amendment process, we would get blue-slipped. This type of legislation, which I support, I say to the Senator, must originate--as he well knows having served--in the House of Representatives and then come to the Senate. So as colleagues follow this and say to themselves: This Senator brings forth very constructive proposals, why didn't the managers put that in the bill, I think you would have to agree with me we would be faced with a blue-slip problem and our bill would come to a dead halt.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. I would say to my good friend from Georgia, I have talked extensively with a wide range-- as you have--of the industrial individuals who represent nuclear plants today and are forthcoming. The chairman is quite correct. A number of these companies are planning to go ahead boldly and courageously and build new plants. Given the uncertainties of where they are going to get the parts, can they be manufactured in the United States; given the uncertainties as to whether there are enough trained people to operate these plants, they are going ahead. So I don't believe it is just a profit motive. But as I talk to these individuals, it is clear to me they are watching the jurisdiction of the Energy Committee as having a great proportion of the nuclear responsibility; the Tax Committee, and they cautioned against trying to do too much in this bill for fear of interrupting a process that is in place with the Energy Committee, the Tax Committee, and such other committees as deal with nuclear power because that responsibility does spread over quite a number of committees within the Senate. So we could not simply put into our bill, recommended by way of amendment at this time, such a comprehensive amendment because we know it is disruptive to the work that apparently is going on in other committees as it relates to nuclear power. But perhaps I will reflect on this as to whether I could add in my amendment, or the Senator from Georgia might wish to modify my amendment and take those portions of his which do not impact blue slip--I think that is something we don't want to get tangled up with-- and doesn't infringe on the jurisdictions of the other committees and see if we can make it work.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, again, I commend our colleague for a very constructive contribution to the dialogue on this bill.

Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, I thought I had 2 minutes.

Mr. WARNER. Then at the appropriate time the Chair directs me, I will use the 2 minutes.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I say to my good friend, this has been an excellent debate he engendered on this floor. This is what we should have. This is the only way we are going to resolve this issue of global warming. I urge the managers to consider building in a little block of time after speakers, such as there can be some colloquy taking place rather than just one speaker, another speaker, reading a speech or delivering a speech. This is what it is all about. Mr. President, I say to my good friend, he and I have worked on this issue over a period of about 2 or 3 months. I have worked on it for 8 months. I don't claim any special credit. But if the Senator feels so badly about this bill, why haven't he and others brought to the floor a companion bill to replace this and to solve the problems he has? It is one thing to come in here and hail damnation on what we have done by means of putting this bill together, but if it is going to be a constructive process, show us--

Mr. WARNER. Let me finish the statement, and I will yield the floor-- a comprehensive bill that will work to the satisfaction of a majority of the people here. For example, you talk about this board, seven men. Let's say there might be a woman or two on it.

Mr. WARNER. The point is, if we look at section 435 of the bill, it says that chart the Senator has up there has to be approved by the Congress.

Mr. WARNER. Nevertheless, you omitted any reference to the fact that Congress has a hand. If you look at the amendment I have thrown in, the President of the United States, at any time he or she desires, can go in and change that. So it is not as if we have unleashed this bill in perpetuity. There are a number of checks and balances in this bill to protect the very issues that the Senator states.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I agree with what the Senator has said.

Mr. WARNER. The Senator showed courtesy in getting them.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. There was a slow roll. I immediately went back to consult with my leadership, and that is not the case. The reason for not going to amendments today seems to me to be a valid one; that is, a number of Senators wish to speak. The list is up to 18 now, and they want to speak in such a way that is not feasible if we are in an amending posture. So I thank the distinguished chairman on this matter because I do believe we have made some progress today. We have had good, constructive speeches. Senator Corker spoke, Senator Isakson spoke on this side, and colleagues on your side. I think Senator Kerry was about to speak.

Mr. WARNER. So I think, Mr. Chairman, we are making some good, solid progress in the Senate and can rightfully take pride in what we have done thus far. Would you agree with me?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have nothing further to say.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that would not be possible if we were in an amendment posture. We could not get all those Senators in.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before my distinguished colleague from Tennessee leaves the floor, I listened to his proposal, just taking out the power industry and use that. But the revenues you gain by your bill, wouldn't they be subject to the same accusation? Is it a tax? I think it is a false accusation, but I think your plan is basically a part of our plan. If they call our plan a tax, yours is a tax; am I correct?

Mr. WARNER. That is all I need to know.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I reply to my good friend, your plan is just as subject to the calls in here that it is a tax as is ours. But you send it back to the taxpayers. What we do is to give it to research and technology to try and improve the efficiency of the spectrum of organizations. We will have a proper pie chart tomorrow, showing how we take the money we collect and send it to research and development to improve our ability to develop solar and wind and all types of things. That is the difference. You are, in a sense, a tax collection agency. You collect it and give it back to the people. We collect it the same way, but we then put it into where technology will benefit the people.

Mr. WARNER. I yield to the manager part of my time for the purpose of a colloquy. The colloquy will add strength to this whole debate.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the chairman is correct.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the chairman is correct.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the chairman is correct.

Mr. WARNER. I have no objection, but where is the time coming from? I would hope you could find it.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I may take 2 minutes off my time to say to my good friend, when you get up and say it is going there for the next 42 years or whatever statement you made, you are incorrect. In our managers' amendment, the substitute, whatever comes up tomorrow--and that will be the order of business--we explicitly give the President of the United States the power at any time to come in and alter where those funds go. Of course, it requires the concurrence of the Congress, so the Congress has a voice. There is nothing in our bill that acts in perpetuity. If at any time the President determines there is a crisis in the economy or that the technology, as required by the power sector to do the sequestration, is not there, the President pulls back on the throttle. So I would hope colleagues, when they get up to discuss this bill, recognize that flexibility has been put in it to take care of all of these situations. I hope we do not have anybody saying again: And for 42 years this will stay in fixed cement, in place. It is not true. Flexibility is at every turn. I yield the floor.