John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I feel that this gentleman, General Lute, is eminently qualified, as the President has indicated. It is the personal prerogative of the President to select those who wish to advise him in a confidential vein. General Lute will undertake that with great distinction.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator from Alabama wishes to take.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support, once again, of America's teachers by joining with Senator Collins in introducing the Teacher Tax Credit Act of 2007. Other original cosponsors of this bill include Senators Chambliss, Coleman, Cornyn, Isakson, Lugar, Snowe, and Voinovich. Senator Collins and I have worked closely for some time now in support of legislation to provide our teachers with tax relief in recognition of the many out-of-pocket expenses they incur as part of their profession. In the 107th Congress, we were successful in providing much needed tax relief for our Nations' teachers with passage of H.R. 3090, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002. This legislation, which was signed into law by President Bush, included the Collins/Warner Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2001 provisions that provided a $250 above-the-line deduction for educators who incur out-of-pocket expenses for supplies they bring into the classroom to better the education of their students. These important provisions provided almost half a billion dollars worth of tax relief to teachers all across America in 2002 and 2003. In the 108th Congress we were able to successfully extend the provisions of the Teacher Tax Relief Act for 2004 and 2005. In the 109th Congress we were able to successfully extend the provisions for 2006 and 2007. While these provisions will provide substantial relief to America's teachers, our work is not yet complete. It is now estimated that the average teacher spends $826 out of their own pocket each year on classroom materials--materials such as pens, pencils, and books. First-year teachers spend even more. Why do they do this? Simply because school budgets are not adequate to meet the costs of education. Our teachers dip into their own pocket to better the education of America's youth. Moreover, in addition to spending substantial money on classroom supplies, many teachers spend even more money out of their own pocket on professional development. Such expenses include tuition, fees, books, and supplies associated with courses that help our teachers become even better instructors. The fact is that these out-of-pocket costs place lasting financial burdens on our teachers. This is one reason our teachers are leaving the profession. Little wonder that our country is in the midst of a teacher shortage. Accordingly, Senator Collins and I have joined together to take another step forward by introducing legislation today that creates a refundable tax credit for teachers. The Teacher Tax Credit Act of 2007 will simply provide a refundable tax credit up to $150 for classroom expenses and professional development expenses. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the end of my statement the attached letter from the National Education Association endorsing the Collins-Warner Teacher Tax Credit Act of 2007. I will also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the end of my statement the attached letter from the Virginia Education Association endorsing the Collins-Warner Teacher Tax Credit Act of 2007. Mr. President, our teachers have made a personal commitment to educate the next generation and to strengthen America. In my view, the Federal Government should recognize the many sacrifices our teachers make in their career. In addition to the refundable tax credit legislation that we are introducing today, earlier this year Senator Collins and I introduced S. 505, The Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2007. S. 505 will build upon current law by increasing the above-the-line deduction, as President Bush has called for, from $250 allowed under current law to $400; allowing educators to include professional development costs within that $400 deduction; and making the teacher tax relief provisions in the law permanent. The Teacher Tax Credit Act of 2007 is another step forward in providing our educators with the recognition they deserve. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support, once again, of America's teachers by joining with Senator Collins in introducing the Teacher Tax Credit Act of 2007. Other original cosponsors of this bill include Senators Chambliss, Coleman, Cornyn, Isakson, Lugar, Snowe, and Voinovich. Senator Collins and I have worked closely for some time now in support of legislation to provide our teachers with tax relief in recognition of the many out-of-pocket expenses they incur as part of their profession. In the 107th Congress, we were successful in providing much needed tax relief for our Nations' teachers with passage of H.R. 3090, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002. This legislation, which was signed into law by President Bush, included the Collins/Warner Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2001 provisions that provided a $250 above-the-line deduction for educators who incur out-of-pocket expenses for supplies they bring into the classroom to better the education of their students. These important provisions provided almost half a billion dollars worth of tax relief to teachers all across America in 2002 and 2003. In the 108th Congress we were able to successfully extend the provisions of the Teacher Tax Relief Act for 2004 and 2005. In the 109th Congress we were able to successfully extend the provisions for 2006 and 2007. While these provisions will provide substantial relief to America's teachers, our work is not yet complete. It is now estimated that the average teacher spends $826 out of their own pocket each year on classroom materials--materials such as pens, pencils, and books. First-year teachers spend even more. Why do they do this? Simply because school budgets are not adequate to meet the costs of education. Our teachers dip into their own pocket to better the education of America's youth. Moreover, in addition to spending substantial money on classroom supplies, many teachers spend even more money out of their own pocket on professional development. Such expenses include tuition, fees, books, and supplies associated with courses that help our teachers become even better instructors. The fact is that these out-of-pocket costs place lasting financial burdens on our teachers. This is one reason our teachers are leaving the profession. Little wonder that our country is in the midst of a teacher shortage. Accordingly, Senator Collins and I have joined together to take another step forward by introducing legislation today that creates a refundable tax credit for teachers. The Teacher Tax Credit Act of 2007 will simply provide a refundable tax credit up to $150 for classroom expenses and professional development expenses. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the end of my statement the attached letter from the National Education Association endorsing the Collins-Warner Teacher Tax Credit Act of 2007. I will also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the end of my statement the attached letter from the Virginia Education Association endorsing the Collins-Warner Teacher Tax Credit Act of 2007. Mr. President, our teachers have made a personal commitment to educate the next generation and to strengthen America. In my view, the Federal Government should recognize the many sacrifices our teachers make in their career. In addition to the refundable tax credit legislation that we are introducing today, earlier this year Senator Collins and I introduced S. 505, The Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2007. S. 505 will build upon current law by increasing the above-the-line deduction, as President Bush has called for, from $250 allowed under current law to $400; allowing educators to include professional development costs within that $400 deduction; and making the teacher tax relief provisions in the law permanent. The Teacher Tax Credit Act of 2007 is another step forward in providing our educators with the recognition they deserve. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement, I now call up the amendment I have at the desk. It is No. 1566.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer and my colleagues and, indeed, the floor managers for giving me this opportunity. I rise to bring before the Senate an amendment similar to amendments I have put forward on this same subject in years past, but I think at this time on this particular bill it is extremely important this body-- -- Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I apologize, and I certainly allow that to go ahead. I thought that was done. Amendment No. 1557 To Amendment No. 1502 (Purpose: To establish a national greenhouse gas registry)

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I say to the distinguished floor manager, do we have to lay this amendment aside and then go back to mine or is that taken care of? Could we ask the Parliamentarian to clarify the situation in light of the recent UC agreement?

Mr. WARNER. Automatically; is that correct?

Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. Amendment No. 1566 Mr. President, as I was saying, I have raised this basic amendment or similar ones to it over the years, but I think it is particularly pertinent this Chamber once again address this issue. I am anxious the Chamber give it very serious consideration because our situation in the United States of America and, indeed, in the context of the global demand for energy, is becoming more serious. Our citizens are laboring under higher prices--be it for home heating oil, gasoline, natural gas--and we must look at the full potential of America to help resolve this situation. So in that sense we could, hopefully, reduce some of our dependence on the need to import various forms of energy from abroad. It is my firm belief the United States must take a balanced approach toward its energy policy. Not only must we increase conservation--I support that--and efficiency efforts--I strongly support that--use more alternative and renewable fuels--I support that, to the extent we can; there is quite a deliberation going on as to the ability of certain States, including mine, which does not have a lot of natural wind power during much of the year, to try to bring in wind power but, nevertheless, I encourage clean coal technology. The bottom line is, we simply have to look at the natural resources we have in this country. Because the United States has strong domestic natural gas resources, and because the potential for increasing our domestic supply exists-- because the demand is ever increasing for natural gas--I bring forward this amendment. Natural gas is the fuel of choice for many of America's businesses and industries. Today, natural gas meets 23 percent of U.S. energy requirements. It heats 57 percent of U.S. households and accounts for 90 percent of the new electricity--new electricity--capacity built in the last 5 years. I might also add, for those colleagues who have an interest in gasohol, look at how most of the gasohol is produced and its reliance on natural gas. That is a growing source of energy for our country, and it involves a large usage of natural gas. Our supply clearly is not meeting our growing demand. Prices--I find this astonishing--prices for natural gas have risen 74 percent since 2000. That is in the last 7 years. Domestic production has remained comparatively flat, but imports are on the rise. I want Senators who are thinking maybe this amendment does not meet all of their needs to think carefully about what I have said: a 74- percent increase in prices, domestic production remaining basically flat, and our imports, at considerable prices, are on the rise. It is time America turned to its own resources. Therefore, I offer today an amendment to the pending legislation that seeks to allow my State--the Commonwealth of Virginia, providing its Governor and the State legislature concur--to explore for natural gas offshore. If that exploration--the first step. This is a two-step amendment. It simply says, first, the Governor and the State legislature--going through the various procedures with the Department of the Interior--can explore. If they find a reservoir of natural gas which economically can be extracted to help meet America's needs, then they can start a second step. The Governor has to go back to the State legislature, and with the concurrence of our Government--the legislature and Governor acting together--then, working with the Department of the Interior, the State can provide for the extraction of this natural gas, which will come-- all of it--to America--it is ours--thereby lessening our reliance on importing it. I know the Virginia General Assembly, over the years, and the Governors of Virginia have already expressed--the last two--a measure of support for exploring--I underline and I carefully delineate ``exploration'' from ``extraction.'' The Virginia Governor and the State legislature have indicated, in various ways, they are receptive to a program regarding the exploration of natural gas off the Atlantic Coast. The amendment I offer today returns power to the Commonwealth of Virginia, using this two-step process I have outlined, to make decisions about exploration and, if they wish to go to the second step, taking the second procedure to extract that gas for purposes of bringing it to America. So, specifically, it first allows the Governor of our State to petition the Department of Interior for a targeted waiver from the current moratorium to explore for natural gas in the waters of the Outer Continental Shelf. That term is well defined. Should this exploration justify a second step--namely, that the exploration shows there is a sufficient reservoir for economic extraction--then the Governor goes back to the legislature, and if they agree, they can further pursue that extraction by working out arrangements, which are well known, with the Department of Interior; namely, to petition the Department of Interior for the various permittings that are required. Again, the Virginia General Assembly has already passed legislation in favor of, and the Governor of Virginia has already expressed his support for exploring--that is ``exploration''--for natural gas in this area offshore. When drafting this legislation, I was certain to note that Virginia's neighbors should also have an input on what goes on near their own coastlines. Consequently, if Virginia petitions the Secretary of Interior for the right to explore--that is, do the exploration--or the right to extract--a subsequent step--the Secretary of the Interior, in both instances, shall provide our Atlantic coastal neighbors with an opportunity to comment on the petition or petitions coming from the State of Virginia, because I want to ensure that these neighboring States have a voice in this process before the Secretary of the Interior--and therein resides the ultimate authority--issues the appropriate concurrences to, first, explore and, then subsequently, to extract. This amendment also addresses a matter of equity by allowing for revenuesharing between the Federal Government and the Commonwealth of Virginia for this offshore reservoir of gas, should it be produced, that is extracted and brought to America. My bill is modeled, in large measure, after last year's Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, S. 3711. That bill states that 50 percent of all revenue would be tagged for the General Treasury. Mr. President, 37.5 percent would be for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Mr. President, 6.25 percent would go to the land and water conservation fund for conservation purposes. In addition, I have put in here--and this is for the first time that I have seen it--I want to alleviate the concerns of bordering States, and therefore, in this bill, another 6.25 percent of any revenues would be placed into a fund administered by the Secretary of the Interior which would be used to mitigate for any damages incurred by those several States as a consequence of the drilling, the exploration process, and the subsequent extraction process. Now, it is highly unlikely, with the advanced technology, that anything would occur. You need only look at the aftermath of the travesty we experienced with the various hurricanes in the gulf recently: While some rigs were made inoperable, to the best of my knowledge, there was no consequent damage to the shoreline as occasioned by the disruption of the operation of those rigs, certainly none of any great consequence. So I repeat that it is a source of revenue for Uncle Sam, the State, and it seems to me to be very equitable in the distribution of these funds. I once again note that this bill is natural gas only. There is no mention, no request for other products such as oil. I have again tried to make it clear that this Nation is in dire straits regarding its domestic energy supply and its ever-increasing reliance on foreign energy. Now is the time for each Member of the Senate to stand and be counted. Geological exploration and geological analysis of these areas offshore to date have indicated that there are potentially enormous reserves of natural gas off the Atlantic coastline. I say to my colleagues, I say to every citizen of this country, now is the time we should begin to, first, find out and corroborate and verify the existence of those reserves and, second, let the individual States decide for themselves by a Democratic process-- i.e., the Governor working with the State legislature--to start the extraction of those natural resources of gas. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I simply say to my distinguished colleague and chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, on which I am privileged to serve, this amendment is carefully drawn to apply only to Virginia.

Mr. WARNER. The Senator can oratorically describe something. This is a one-State package.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator entertain a question?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this measure is deserving of a strong colloquy. I have often felt it is through the colloquies that the Senate does its best work, not through a series of canned speeches and everybody getting up and down. Anyway, so much for that. The Senator from California said 25 years this moratorium has been in effect. I say to my good friend, I have been here 29 years, and I have watched the Nation in these 25 years grow more and more dependent on foreign energy. When this moratorium was put in, we didn't have $4 to $5 a gallon gasoline prices. We didn't have natural gas at its all-time high. I say to my good friend from California, this is a changing world, and we cannot lock ourselves into a world that existed 25 years ago and ask our citizens to continue to bear these ever-increasing costs. This Senate last year approved legislation which granted to the several States in the gulf the right to continue drilling. So it is not as if I am breaking a precedent. Other States have been accorded this right. Why deny my State, if my citizens, my Governor, decide it is in the best interest of our State? Is there nothing left to States rights? The Senator talks about this pollution thing--

Mr. WARNER. Yes. Then I will pose a second one.

Mr. WARNER. If the Chair would indulge as much colloquy as is possible--and before the chairman leaves, she posed, in a sense, a situation. So if I could ask just two quick questions, I ask of my colleague.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. Now, the Senator from California is the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and she has raised this specter of oil flow, and my good friend from New Jersey is talking about the oil that has washed up. Does the Senator from California know what percentage of the oil that reaches our beaches, absent a tanker problem, the oil that seeps from this drilling, what percentage ever comes to shore?

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following from the National Academy of Sciences, a very trusted and respected objective organization. According to their studies, less than 1 percent of petroleum seepage comes from drilling and extraction activity--63 percent, conversely, comes from natural seepage; 32 percent from cars, boats, and other sources; and 4 percent from transportation. So I just have to say this is workable.

Mr. WARNER. Well, then, I would say to both colleagues, if I could, lastly, put the question to both colleagues, because this is intrinsic to the debate: Is it your position that the United States of America shall never permit its several States to ever, ever, ever drill offshore, be it east coast, west coast? And, somehow, I don't know how you rationalize it, we will let the gulf do it, but we won't let the two coasts do it?

Mr. WARNER. If I could have my colleague answer that question.

Mr. WARNER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: I believe the Senator from New Jersey has the floor, and I believe the rules do not permit him--

Mr. WARNER. I think he yielded for the purpose of a question, not to your right to the floor. Just a technicality, but I think we ought to--

Mr. WARNER. That is right, but, Mr. President, I don't hear the question. I hear a speech. That is fine. I think we want to hear the speech. I don't wish to deny him the right to speak, but let us at least follow parliamentary procedure.

Mr. WARNER. I wonder if I might reply to my good friend for a minute, and I will then likewise yield the floor so my colleague from Florida, my good friend, can continue in his own right. First, I think I have worked out with the Department of Defense an answer to your question. I simply do not have with me at this time the documents, so therefore I am going to have to indulge the Senate by either laying my amendment aside or some other parliamentary procedure to let the Senate go forward until I can come back with that. I thank the Senator for bringing that up because it is an important consideration. We have a significant command there, the Atlantic Command. I wish to go to the amendment of my good friend and read the last paragraph: Requirement.--The Secretary shall not approve a petition under this paragraph unless the Governors of all States within 100 miles of the coast waters of the State-- presumably the State making the petition-- have approved the petition. That gives all the Governors a veto power on this; Mr. President, would that be correct? I pose that as a question to my colleague.