John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. I will be glad to yield for a question.

Mr. WARNER. If I could make certain I still remain a cosponsor of the McCain amendment that is now the pending amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my two very dear and old friends, I tender any apologies, but I have acted strictly in accordance with the rules, exercising the right that any Senator has. I feel it is imperative because we are a nation at war. We have diligently tried to get up our bill, and this is an option I felt under the rules was open to me, and I have followed it. There was a time, as Senator Stevens did correctly state--and he was correct in his statements--that we had hoped there would be an agreement between the two sides on what few remaining amendments to our bill, over and above the 100-plus that are in the amendment up here, could be acted upon expeditiously. I still feel there are but a few amendments out there and that we can--Senator Levin and I--resolve them. I know parts B and C are essential to be enacted into law before this session concludes. I would assume at some point in time the leadership will enable us to bring up sections B and C, at which time such other amendments as colleagues may have can be brought forth and resolved at that point in time. But I think it is imperative to act now on the core section of the armed services bill. I would hope our colleagues would see that we are giving the whole Senate a chance--not just the managers of the bill but the whole Senate a chance--to show the men and women of the Armed Forces, the people of this Nation, that we can, in these times of emergency, act in a bipartisan way to reconcile a problem such as this, and that if our amendment remains, after the vote at 7:30, and is brought up, that there will not be forthcoming a deluge of amendments which, in effect, would impair the ability of these two managers to get this essential piece of legislation acted upon prior to the commencement of the recess, and that there will be a future time with parts B and C, when they will be able to bring forth such additional amendments as they believe are necessary to be enacted in the 2006 armed services bill; that is, sections B and C would be the tree on which those amendments could be affixed. So I say to my good friend, I have acted as I feel duty calls. You have stated very clearly the facts. And now I entrust the Senate to make the decision that is right for the country. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I want to commend my long-time friend, Senator McCain, for the initiative he has taken. It has been a privilege for me and many others to join him in this effort. I think what he stated here should be taken into consideration by every Senator tonight as they cast his or her vote.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I shall divide my time equally with my colleague Senator Levin, ranking member of the committee. Mr. President, the question of germaneness has already been, in a sense, ruled on by the Parliamentarians who said in their judgment it is germane. The question is simply do we or do we not at this time, when our Nation is at war, bring up on the appropriations bill section A of the authorization bill? I simply say to my colleagues, I trust you--I trust you to look at this extraordinary circumstance in which we are a nation at war, needing this bill to send a message. And I trust you that the amendment process will not be abused and that we can in a reasonable period of time accommodate those amendments that might be offered as second- degree amendments, and that your bill can go forward with the vitally needed appropriations funds. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. WARNER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this time, I insert the defense of germaneness, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I do not intend to object, but I wish to advise the Members of the Senate the Record will reflect tomorrow the colloquy and actions taken by the distinguished managers and myself which gave rise to this amendment. The Parliamentarian ruled with regard to my amendment as follows: We, the Parliamentarians, have advised that there is sufficient----

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator is right. I said the Parliamentarians have advised--that is as I have read it, in the Parliamentarian's handwriting--there is sufficient language in the House bill to permit Senator Warner to assert the defense of germaneness with respect to his amendment numbered 1955. I did just that. I have acted consistently, having been working with the Parliamentarian through much of the day as to how to develop this procedure. I followed the rules as I understood them and advised the Parliamentarian.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, yesterday, in anticipation of the unanimous consent agreement, the Senator from Virginia, joined by the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, the managers and chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, filed an amendment, which amendment is the entire authorization bill prepared by the Committee on Armed Services and reported out favorably earlier this year. It was the subject of floor debate for some time. Some 30 amendments were added. I also filed a second amendment, which represented 80 amendments which had been reconciled by the Senator from Michigan and myself and placed into the amendment to constitute a managers' amendment. In other words, we agree as managers that they should be accepted subject to a unanimous consent agreement, which is the conventional way of handling a managers' amendment. I now have with me today a third amendment, which represents another 16 amendments that the Senator from Michigan and I have agreed upon should be eventually added to our bill. My first inquiry to the Chair is: Is it appropriate, at this time, given the unanimous consent that was agreed to this morning, to send to the desk and ask be filed a third amendment representing another managers' amendment for 16 reconciled amendments?

Mr. WARNER. Then I do so at this time, and I ask it be assigned a number. Mr. President, I have had the opportunity to consult with the distinguished manager and the ranking member. I have advised him of steps that I would like to take at this time. I now ask that amendment No. 1955, which is the authorization bill, be called up for the purpose of sending to the desk a modification to that amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I now send to the desk a modification to that amendment and ask that it be so modified.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is correct.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am having some difficulty--because of the conversations taking place elsewhere in the Chamber--following the distinguished manager's remarks.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my understanding is that amendment 1955, as modified, is available to be brought up for consideration. I now ask that the amendment be considered.

Mr. WARNER. I ask for its consideration.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished leader. I thank him for working with me continuously on this matter in every way to try to get our bill up because the distinguished majority leader, as well as the Democratic leader and Senator Levin and others, thinks it is imperative, with this Nation at war, this bill be addressed in a timely manner by the Senate and hopefully passed. It contains so many provisions which are essential to the men and women of the Armed Forces. I have continuously fought that battle and will continue to do so. I participated in the drafting of this UC in a manner that enables the Senate to continue its work tomorrow, although I could have objected throughout. I would not object to allowing the Senate to continue its business and the Appropriations Committee to work the bill as sent. I also believe, as you have advised me, you will continue to work, as will the Democratic leader, to seek a UC by which the Defense authorization bill can be brought up as a freestanding measure, at a time agreed upon by the two leaders, with a certain description of provisions that enable us to bring it up and how that further work on the bill will be conducted and in what timeframe. That is important to the two leaders. Hopefully, we can achieve that tomorrow. If we do, then I would take the appropriate parliamentary steps to remove from the appropriations bill these matters. So I thank the two leaders and reiterate the essential nature of bringing this bill forward. I feel very strongly about it. And I thank my colleague from Alaska with whom I worked today. I am not suggesting--anyway, we worked it out, followed the rules, and that is it. I thank the leadership. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Outer Continental Shelf Revenue Sharing Act of 2005. Earlier this year, the Congress passed a bill, and the President signed it into law. It is the first comprehensive energy package in over a decade. Great strides were made in addressing the Nation's energy needs. This new law contains a number of valuable conservation measures and, as the chairman of the Energy Committee once stated, passage of this legislation means we will need 170 fewer powerplants by 2020. On the energy supply side, however, we still have much work to do. The recent disruptions in the Nation's energy supply caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita--tragedies, natural disasters of proportions never really seen before in this county--underscore the fragility of our energy supply system. The estimates are that 20 to 25 percent of our energy needs come in through that narrow nexus of Louisiana and Mississippi, right in that area. During debate on the bill, I offered an amendment to provide for an increased domestic supply of oil and natural gas from Outer Continental Shelf lands. Regrettably, my amendment and other similar measures were not successful. I thank the distinguished manager of that bill, Mr. Domenici, and others. They gave me a great deal of encouragement, as did the Senators from Louisiana, who likewise participated in that debate. But, nevertheless, I was not successful. I did say--and I suppose in a prophetic way--and I remember beckoning to fellow Senators on the floor, ``The day will come when I will once again stand on this floor and offer this same legislation, not knowing, of course, of the tragedies of Katrina. But that did give this Nation a serious wake-up call as to the fragility of our energy system. Again, the tragic events of the past month along the gulf coast have thrust the issue of energy supplies back into the spotlight. We need only look at the rising gas prices all over our pumps in this Nation's land, where people--men and women--on small budgets are struggling to find the resources to meet their daily requirements of the use of the automobile and to inject these increased gasoline prices into their budgets. Prices at the pump have climbed quickly, and with the winter heating season approaching, we can expect natural gas and home heating oil prices to increase, perhaps going as high as 50 percent more than last year's level. We need to address our inadequate refining capacity and expand conservation incentives. With more than 30 percent of our domestic supply of oil coming in from the Gulf of Mexico and a significant portion of our refining capacity located in the Gulf States, we must also look at ways to increase and diversify the location and sources of our domestic supplies of energy, as well as the refining capabilities; and natural gas, likewise. Before passage of the energy bill, production revenues totaling more than $7.5 billion annually from offshore oil and gas belonged to the Federal Government. This is an inconsistent policy, however, because 55 percent of the revenues from land-based oil and gas production has always been returned to the States. The one exception to this rule is Alaska, which receives back 90 percent of such revenues. Thanks to the diligence of my colleagues from Louisiana, this inequity was partially addressed in the energy bill by providing that current offshore energy- producing States will now share in the Federal Government's royalties. Indeed, it is a matter of fairness that these revenues be shared with the energy producing States. After all, it is the states closest to oil and gas production facilities that are assuming the risks that those production facilities will not have harmful environmental or economical impacts. Tourism is often the lifeblood of these regions which could be adversely affected by any environmental accidents. So it is very appropriate that they should receive a share of the revenues derived from offshore oil and gas production. While the issue of revenue sharing was addressed in the energy bill for States currently producing oil and gas off their coasts, it does not include a comprehensive policy for offshore production opportunities. Specifically, the bill does not allow other States to share revenues when and if they ever become producing regions. As we all know, the production of oil and natural gas has been subject to a moratorium along most of the Nation's coastline. While this moratorium has been in effect for some time, many Americans believe that it is now time to reevaluate its need. This past year in Virginia, both houses of the state legislature passed legislation asking for production to occur off the Virginia coast if the State is allowed to receive a share of the revenue. I think the rising costs of oil and gas are now leading other States to consider the same possibility. The bill I am introducing today would provide a portion of revenues to States under the current moratorium that may decide to undertake future offshore exploration and production activities. My legislation is based, in large part, on the hard work of my colleagues who achieved a revenue-sharing proposal for their States and local governments in the recently enacted energy bill. The new law provides State and local governments with a share of the royalties from offshore energy production, but it is limited only to the five States that are currently exempt from the moratorium on offshore oil and gas leases. As provided by current law, my bill requires the Federal Government to transfer 50 percent of the revenues received from any offshore leases to the States based upon the production levels. This would put oil and gas production in coastal areas on par with the production on other Federal lands throughout the United States. It is a matter of equity for all producing regions and represents a fair revenue-sharing model for the Federal and State governments. My proposal does not affect the current moratorium on offshore energy production. As the moratorium expires, however, my legislation enables States that wish to pursue oil and gas production to be eligible for a portion of the royalty payments that otherwise would go exclusively to the Federal Government. The amendment does not supersede a State's ability to veto any production proposals under their authority of the Coastal Zone Management Act, CZMA. It does not change the manner in which the Federal Government grants these production leases, and it does not lift the moratorium for any OCS land that is currently in place. While I believe very strongly that the States should have a role in determining whether or not to utilize these resources, I also believe that they should receive a fair share of the revenues from any production that may follow. I understand the concerns of some of my colleagues and their desire to avoid drawing specific boundary lines. While this amendment does not address all of the concerns, it offers a fair starting point to discuss this issue. It is my hope that we can all work together in addressing these concerns that will result in a commonsense approach to expand our domestic supply of oil and gas, to diversify the geographic concentration of our current industry, and to allow the States to have a role in the process. Mr. President, the time has come for the Senate to speak boldly. We can all agree that more supply is needed and that there is a vast resource yet to be tapped. My proposal offers a fair way to encourage production in States that wish to do so. In the long term our Nation will benefit by reducing its dependence on foreign sources of energy and by diversifying the geographic source of our domestic supply. I believe this proposal will solve a necessary part of the energy puzzle. I believe it is essential for our energy security, our economic security, and our national security to evaluate this, and other proposals, that address our energy supply needs. Mr. President, as I say, today I introduce, again, this bill, which I put in a few months ago. It provides for the offshore drilling of oil. I recognize the sensitivity of that, but I say to my colleagues, we can not continually ignore these warnings, whether they are brought about by Mother Nature or political problems or wars or conflicts across our shores. Now is the time to lay down that framework of legislation for those States which, by actions taken by the Governor and the State legislature, say: We will permit offshore drilling off of this State's boundaries. Hopefully, we can receive for those States, should that take place, an additional source of revenue. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, and I will seek to have it considered by the Senate as a whole at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: It is my understanding we are on the bill for appropriations for our defense purposes under the management of the distinguished Presiding Officer. Am I correct?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.