John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I modified it in such a way as to comport with the UC, whereby after I present the amendment, it can be withdrawn. That is the essence of it.

Mr. WARNER. As I understand it, the Senator from Virginia has 5 minutes, the Senator from Tennessee has 5 minutes, and my colleagues in opposition have 5 minutes each. First, I thank my colleagues for allowing me to proceed. There is a very strong opposition on both sides of the aisle to this amendment. I say to my colleagues that this amendment is important to have as part of the legislative history of this Energy bill--a bill that America has been waiting for for a very long period of time. Had I pressed on with certain parliamentary maneuvers, it could well have resulted in a filibuster. I have been here 27 years, and I think I have some understanding as to how to count votes and what is in the best interest of this Chamber. I did not want to precipitate that kind of parliamentary situation, particularly after the hard work of Senators Domenici and Bingaman and the leadership on both sides. But it is important. It is important that this amendment reflect that there is a need in America to recognize that the potential for the offshore energy, be it gas or oil, is enormous, and that we as a nation must conscientiously put politics to one side and look at this, in the event that the energy crisis gets any worse for this country. We have no other recourse of any significant energy other than to go offshore. The distinguished Senator from Louisiana, in the course of this bill, will put on an amendment which recognizes, I think quite properly, that the States which have permitted offshore drilling and which are now producing essential energy for the U.S. be given a share of the revenue. It has my strongest support. This amendment provides for the future, if other States so desire, to permit offshore drilling. They also can participate in the distribution of the proceeds from the oil and gas. It is entirely discretionary with the States. This amendment is designed to force no burden on any other State. If a State wishes to take those risks associated with drilling and the citizens accept that, and the legislatures accept it, then they should be entitled to the proceeds, or a portion of them. In my State--and I am proud of it--the general assembly, this year, passed legislation urging that our State, through its Governor, begin to explore the possibility of acquiring the offshore drilling rights and revenues. The Governor, for reasons that he explained--and I do not say this by way of criticism--vetoed that. But I felt it important for the Senator from Virginia to stand and advise the Senate of the necessity to put in legislation to allow those States the option of deciding for themselves to do offshore drilling. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WARNER. I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Tennessee.

Mr. WARNER. How much time remains on my side?

Mr. WARNER. The opposition?

Mr. WARNER. I believe under the unanimous consent it is in order for the Senator from Virginia to seek unanimous consent to have this amendment withdrawn. I will do that momentarily. I simply say to my colleagues, there is a way to fix this legislation and there is a way, also, to fix it in such a manner that we could restrict such offshore exploration to gas alone. Right now the permit process requires oil and gas, but Congress can fix that. Gas alone would wipe out most of your arguments with regard to the environment. That should be taken into consideration because you have shared with me the risk to our national security, much less our economy, from this impending energy crisis. I ask unanimous consent this amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend my good friend. I have for a long time stated, indeed, before the Committee on the Environment and Public Works, my concern about the wind situation. I am not against it, nor is my distinguished colleague from Tennessee. But we are moving toward--and with a tremendous Federal subsidy--a program by which industry, looking at the subsidy, cannot turn down the opportunity to put these mills wherever they want. I am concerned mostly about my shoreline of Virginia. This amendment would protect certain segments of that shoreline--from windmills being put in the proximity of the historic areas, marine areas, and the like. If you look at how carefully America has proceeded toward the erection of power-generating facilities, whether it is coal-fired plants, gas-fired plants, wind, whatever it is, there is a very well- laid-out regulatory process. That doesn't exist for the potential of putting windmills offshore. It doesn't exist. I have tried hard to encourage the Congress of the United States to pass a regime comparable to what is taking place for other power-generating facilities to protect our environment, protect the taxpayer, and to enable wind to go forward but only where there is a clear justification and a protection of the environment. Now, they can go offshore under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. They never envisioned, in 1899, the types of installations described by my colleague from Tennessee. There is nothing in there by which the States can gain any revenue for that wind generation offshore, as is now the case with oil and gas. Should not my State, having taken the risk of allowing these things to go offshore, get some revenue? I think they should. Right now, it is free and open and, should they generate a profit, all of it goes into the corporate structure; not a nickel goes into the State. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for allowing me to join with him on this amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wind up the presentation by saying--and I regret to predict this--I see nothing but danger signs with regard to the worldwide energy consumption and the predicament the United States of America faces, particularly with the growing consumption of energy by China and India and other nations. It will impact here at home. To my colleagues in Florida, show us how to fix our bill to protect your State fully. It can be done. That is what we do all the time, craft legislation. How do you explain how four States have already been doing this for many years--Mississippi, Louisiana, and those four States offshore--without any great disaster. I predict the Halls of this Chamber will reverberate with the debate--maybe next year or the year after--and this subject will be brought back again when a solid realization will come to this Senate we have no place to go as a nation to protect ourselves and our energy needs but offshore. I am delighted tonight I forced the opportunity, together with my colleagues, to show in this bill there are those in this Senate who are seriously concerned about the future and believe we must start now to do the planning for offshore. If this crisis hits, we cannot go 6 months or a year and suddenly tap those sources. We have to go through a legislative process in our States and the Federal Government. It will take 4 to 5 to 6 years before we could begin to draw the first bit of energy offshore. I thank my colleague for the opportunity for this very limited right of a Senator to make his case. Unfortunately, we will not have a vote to determine how many other colleagues feel as we do. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. I regret to say to my colleagues I don't think we have a second. If the Senator would ask unanimous consent, I would strongly support it.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 2 minutes be given to our distinguished colleague from Louisiana.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, yesterday, apparently, on the floor of the Senate and elsewhere, certain statements were made with regard to the American service personnel serving in Guantanamo. I am now paraphrasing what was reported in the Washington Times of June 16, when it is alleged that in this article on the floor of the Senate, this statement was made: If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of prisoners. Mr. President, as you can see by this shock of gray hair, I have lived now these 78-plus years, and I remember these periods of history that were cited on the floor of the Senate yesterday very well. I see the leader standing. Does he wish to be recognized?

Mr. WARNER. Not at all.

Mr. WARNER. I feel very strongly about that. I really feel so strongly, I say to the distinguished leader of our party, that I feel apologies are in order to the men and women of the Armed Forces. I do not ask it for myself. But I feel these young men and women, all of whom are volunteers, all of whom have gone into harm's way and who are bearing the brunt of the present conflict, that these allegations have absolutely no basis in fact with history. I regret they occurred. I yield the floor to anybody who wishes to question me or I will continue.

Mr. WARNER. I ask the Senator, is it to be treated as a public document or is it part of an investigative process which--ordinarily the materials used in the course of an investigation are accorded certain privileges.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my understanding is it is currently under investigation and being carefully scrutinized in the context of another series of documents. Until the administration has had the opportunity to complete the investigation and make their own assessment of the allegations, it seems to me premature to render judgment.

Mr. WARNER. If the Senator will yield, again, I go back on my own recollections, those three examples the Senator used. I don't know what interrogation took place. Perhaps if we go into the sinews of history there were some, but what the world recognized from those three examples the Senator used, they were death camps--I repeat, death camps--where, as my colleague from Kentucky very accurately said, millions of people perished. It is doubtful they were ever often asked their names. To say that the allegations of a single FBI agent mentioned in an unconfirmed, uncorroborated report give rise to coming to the Senate and raising the allegation that whatever persons of the uniformed military, as referred to in that report--albeit, uncorroborated, unsubstantiated report--are to be equated with those three chapters in world history is just a most grievous misjudgment on the Senator's part, and one I think is deserving of apologizing to the men and women in uniform.

Mr. WARNER. I would say, Madam President, I served as assistant U.S. attorney for 5 years and dealt with the FBI all the time. I have very high regard for that service. But the Senator knows full well that is just an investigative report by one agent. It is under investigation by the Bureau and by the Department of Defense at this time in the context of many other pieces of evidence. One cannot come to this great forum, which is viewed the world over as one which is known for trying to assert the rights of this country as taking its place in the world, as following due process and principles of our Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights-- and comment to the Senate about some young uniformed person who probably is the subject of that FBI report--until such time as that person in uniform is adjudicated in a proper forum as to having done what is alleged in that report, or not done, it seems to me we shouldn't be discussing it in the Senate.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, the damage has been done. The Senator should have taken the precautionary steps prior to----

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, the use of the words ``due process'' by the Senator from Virginia was restricted to due process that is taking place with regard to allegations in that report and others according to the actions of either uniformed or civilian personnel under the clear supervision and jurisdiction of the Department of Defense at Guantanamo. That was my use of due process. It is a separate issue as to the due process of the detainees, the Senator is correct. That is a matter that should be openly discussed, is being discussed, and will be reviewed by this Chamber. I come back again, and I just conclude--I see there are other Senators waiting to speak--we have to be extraordinarily careful in our remarks in the Senate as they relate to the safety of our people because this series of statements the Senator has made, factual references to chapters of history, can be manipulated by other people throughout the world to their advantage. That is my deep concern.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. In World War II, with which I was going to commence my remarks in that context, I served at the very end. As a 17- or 18-year-old sailor, I was simply in a training command, but I remember that period of history very vividly. All through my early years, prior to going into the Navy, late in the fall of 1944 and starting active service in 1945, the whole of this country was consumed with that frightful conflict in which, at the hands of Nazis, some 9 million people perished, 6 million of whom were of the Jewish faith. It is just extraordinary. I was deeply disturbed by these comments to try to draw any analogy whatsoever to that period of history. Then, following the Soviet gulags, I served as Secretary of the Navy during the height of the Cold War for some 5 years in the Pentagon and actually had a great deal of work with the Soviet Union at that period of time in the context of that threatening situation of the Cold War. There is just no relationship to this. I was astonished. I did not want to let the Sun go down on this day without conveying to the Senate my own historical perspective and the danger that loose comments such as that--comparisons which have no basis in history--could do harm to the men and women serving wherever they are in the world today in this war on terrorism because this is the type of thing that is picked up and utilized by press antithetical to the interests of the United States and distorted in their own way. It has to be addressed. I was prepared to do that.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. Yes. I do not have the accurate figures. I know Stalin had purged part of his country for no other reason than he just wanted to get rid of the people by the millions. The gulags came into focus primarily during the latter chapter of the Soviet Union when people disappeared by the tens of thousands into these encampments, never to be heard from again. It is not a chapter which Russia today looks back on with any pride at all. I feel every day that I get up, and I hear of the casualties of our brave men and women, be they in Afghanistan, Iraq or occasionally in other areas of the world--I say what is it that we can do in this Chamber, what is it that we, as citizens, can do to bring them home safely? They are making enormous sacrifices together with their family to go into harm's way to protect us here at home from the threat of terrorism.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may I inquire of the Presiding Officer of the order to speak as in morning business for about 10 minutes.