Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008 - Motion to Proceed
Floor Speech
CONSUMER-FIRST ENERGY ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO PROCEED -- (Senate - June 05, 2008)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCONNELL. I take no pleasure in cutting off my friend, the majority leader. I have the floor, and I propounded a unanimous consent request to which he objects, which is, of course, his right.
Let me make some observations about the amendment I would have offered had I been permitted to.
My good friend, the majority leader, was complaining about the reading of the amendment yesterday. I remind him it did not take nearly as much of the Senate's time as his reading passages from his own book back in 2003, which took up to 9 hours of the Senate's time, that, too, to make a point about the way judicial confirmations were being handled. So it is certainly not unprecedented for Members of the body--not the majority leader, not myself--trying to make points with regard to the displeasure, if you will, in the handling of judicial appointments.
With regard to the amendment I would like to have offered, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the amendment so people will know what I would have offered had I been allowed to.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
On page 161, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
SEC. 530. ACTION UPON HIGHER GASOLINE PRICES CAUSED BY THIS ACT.
(a) DETERMINATION OF HIGHER GASOLINE PRICES CAUSED BY THIS ACT.--Not less than annually, the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator, shall determine whether implementation of this Act has caused the average retail price of gasoline to increase since the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) ADMINISTRATOR ACTION.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, upon a determination under subsection (a) of higher gasoline prices caused by this Act, the Administrator shall suspend such provisions of this Act as the Administrator determines are necessary until implementation of the provisions no longer causes a gasoline price increase.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, obviously, I am disappointed that the majority has objected to allowing this amendment to become pending. Earlier today, the assistant majority leader said we should be voting on amendments. I actually couldn't agree more. In a week in which gas prices have climbed to an all-time high, the Democratic majority in the Senate is pushing legislation that would send them up, at the very least, another 53 cents a gallon.
Since the majority took over Congress 17 months ago, gas prices have gone up $1.66 a gallon. Since the beginning of this year alone, gas prices have gone up nearly a dollar--82 cents. Today, AAA reported a new record-high average gas price nationwide of $3.99 a gallon. All of this is hurting families, workers, truckers, farmers--it is hurting literally everyone. Yet the majority has nothing to say about it. It has done nothing, actually worse than nothing. It has repeatedly blocked efforts to increase production of American energy at home, as recently as last month, when 48 Democratic Senators voted against the American Energy Production Act.
Now, at the beginning of the summer driving season, it offers a bill that would send gas prices up another 53 cents a gallon, for goodness' sake. People in the Commonwealth of Kentucky are paying, on average, $3.92 a gallon this week. They want to know what in the world is going on around here. I am telling them to take a look at what is going on here this very week. I am asking the same question they are: Why on Earth are we considering a bill that would raise gas prices even higher--even higher--than they already are?
Our friends on the other side have no serious plan for lowering gas prices. Indeed, they seem intent on raising them even higher, which is why I have tried offering this amendment as a sort of emergency brake on the majority.
This amendment says that if the Boxer climate tax bill does, in effect, increase gas prices, its provisions shall be suspended.
Let me say that again. This amendment I had hoped to be able to offer and get pending and voted on simply says, in fact, if the Boxer climate tax bill does, in fact, increase gas prices, its provisions shall be suspended. Turn them off and take a time out.
Earlier this week, the junior Senator from Connecticut said the Boxer bill would reduce gas prices. His contention runs counter to every analysis of the bill of which I am aware. But if he is right--if he is right--if the Boxer climate tax bill actually reduces gas prices, then there is no reason not to support my amendment because my amendment would not go into effect--if, in fact, the underlying bill is going to reduce gas prices.
If the Senator from Connecticut is right, then my amendment would not have any effect on the cap-and-trade system outlined in this bill because, of course, gas prices would not be increased by the operation of the bill. If he is wrong, my amendment will protect those who are suffering today from the high price of gasoline.
We should have an opportunity to ask Senators where they stand. Do they believe, as I do, that gas prices are high enough already or do they believe, as the sponsors of this bill do, that gas prices should rise even higher? What are they afraid of? Let's have votes on these amendments. This is the kind of bill, as I have said repeatedly, normally in the Senate would have been on the floor for weeks. This is a big, complicated bill, described by my friend and colleague, the majority leader, as the most important matter for the planet. I think we would all agree that is a big deal.
If this issue is the most important issue confronting the planet, then it is worth more than a few days. If we spent 5 weeks and considered 180 amendments and processed 130 of them on the clean air bill in 1990, this bill is certainly worth a multiweek, multifaceted debate and consideration of amendments without preclearance on both sides.
What has evolved in the course of the last year and a half is the only way you get to offer an amendment around here is if the other side agrees to let you. The majority leader and I have been around the Senate long enough to remember when that was not the way you operated on major bills. We were both here in 1990, when Senator Mitchell was the majority leader. The Democrats controlled the House, controlled the Senate, and there was a Republican in the White House. We were trying to do a clean air bill. We spent 5 weeks on it, considered 180 amendments, passed 130 of them. Nobody was asking permission to offer an amendment. It was a freewheeling, wide-ranging, wide-open debate on an important issue at that time.
This strikes me as very similar in nature to that, and I don't know why we are afraid to spend time on this bill, why we are afraid to have amendments on it. My goodness, filling the tree, filing cloture--it strikes me my good friend, the majority leader, doesn't want anybody to vote on any of the amendments. We wish to go through a kind of 1-week, check-the-box exercise and move on. If this is, indeed, the most important issue confronting the planet, why are we not spending time on it?
So I would have liked to have had a chance to vote on that amendment. It strikes me that if the position of the majority is this bill will not raise gas prices, there would be no particular reason not to adopt it because, at the end of the day, it wouldn't become operative unless gas prices went up. GAO thinks gas prices will go up 53 cents a gallon. I hope this bill doesn't pass, but if it does, I hope they are wrong and that the Senator from California is right. In any event, as a good hedge against further raising gas prices on American consumers, it struck me that the McConnell amendment would be a good way to go.
I regret it will not be possible to offer that amendment. It would have been good for the Senate to have considered and to have voted on this amendment. But apparently that will not be the case today.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, with respect to the judges issue--we are getting things kind of mixed in together--with respect to the judges issue, it was viewed with incredulity the suggestion that somehow reading the amendment yesterday was without precedent. My good friend clearly remembers his reading his own book on the floor of the Senate. According to Senate records, it was nearly 9 straight hours, longer than it took to read the amendment yesterday. Interestingly enough, it had nothing to do with judges. At least reading the amendment yesterday was a way to learn about the Boxer substitute, since we had gotten it about 15 minutes before it was offered.
The fundamental issue on judges is keeping your word around here. Let's not obscure the point. The fundamental issue about judges is, Are you going to keep your word?
At the beginning of this Congress, the majority leader and I agreed we would achieve, working together, the average number of circuit judges of each of the last three Presidents, each of whom, to their regret, ended their terms with the opposition party in the majority.
It was not contingent on vacancy rate. There was no discussion of vacancy rate. It didn't have anything to do with anything other than a numerical measurement of success.
When it became clear several months ago that there was no serious effort being made to keep that commitment, we had a conflict here on the floor about another bill. In connection with settling that dispute, the majority leader committed to me that we would do three circuit judges before Memorial Day toward the goal he and I had agreed on earlier. We did one. We did one.
The only way this institution can function is that when we give our word, we ought to keep it.
Now, on a separate track, last night, in connection with a nominations package, the commitment was made to do three district court judges within the next week who are on the calendar right now and have been on the calendar since late April.
So now we have two commitments extant here. We have the commitment at the beginning--well, three actually: the commitment at the beginning of the Congress to reach the average for each of the last three Presidents, which would have been 17; then we had the commitment to do three prior to Memorial Day, only one of which was done; and now last night, in conjunction with a nominations package, we had a commitment to confirm three district court judges who have been on the calendar here in the Senate since late April. And these are typically not even controversial. The chair of the Judiciary Committee was on the floor at the time. So we will see if that commitment is to be kept.
So that is what this is about, Mr. President. It is about keeping your word here in the Senate.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source