[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 46 (Tuesday, April 23, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3150-S3156]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Mr. REED. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Collins, and I would
like to engage in a colloquy regarding the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program, or LIHEAP.
The Northeast-Midwest Senate Coalition, which I chair with Senator
Collins, is a bipartisan coalition of Senators from the Northeast,
Midwest and Mid-Atlantic dedicated to improving the environmental
quality and economic vitality of the region. The Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program is a vital program to our region. LIHEAP provides
home energy assistance to some of our Nation's most vulnerable
citizens, including families with children, the elderly, and disabled
individuals.
People in our region know that cold weather kills. Mr. President, the
facts speak for themselves. According to the Centers for Disease
Control, between 1979 and 1998, hypothermia claimed the lives of over
13,000 Americans, twice as many Americans than died due to excessive
heat. Residential energy costs in the Northeast and Midwest are more
expensive which means that families in the region spend a greater
amount of their incomes on home heating. It also requires more energy
to heat a home than to cool one. LIHEAP households in our region spend
over twice as much to heat their homes in the winter than it costs to
cool a home in the south in the summer. According to the Department of
Health and Human Services, during the peak winter heating season,
energy bills can frequently reach up to 30 percent of a low-income
family's income, especially if they live in substandard housing.
This winter, the average temperature in Rhode Island was in the low-
30s. Without heat, these temperatures are
[[Page S3151]]
life-threatening. In my State, sweaters and blankets are not enough to
keep you warm. If heating assistance is not available, low-income
families, senior citizens and disable individuals living on fixed
incomes make drastic choices, they go without food, prescription drugs
and other basic necessities in order to maintain heat in their homes.
On average, it cost $1,200 to heat a home in Rhode Island last year.
Low-income families cannot afford these costs. LIHEAP provides vital
assistance to keep the heat on for these households.
In February, my home State of Rhode Island ran out of LIHEAP funding
and had to close its program. I received phone calls from a number of
senior citizens who were unable to heat their homes because they ran
out of heating oil. To help low-income families address the runaway
costs of home energy bills, we need greater funding for this program.
This year, Senator Collins and I lead a bi-partisan letter supported by
37 Senators that requested $3 billion for the LIHEAP program in fiscal
2003. I will ask unanimous consent to print a copy of the letter in the
Record, and I want to thank Senators Harkin and Specter for their
strong and consistent support of this program.
Senators Harkin and Specter increased LIHEAP funding by $300 million
in fiscal year 2002. Unfortunately this was not enough to help States
address the unmet need. During the winter of 2000/2001, the Nation
experienced extraordinarily and unprecedented levels in energy costs
along with colder winter temperatures. Many low-income families and
senior citizens are still trying to pay off from the energy debt they
incurred last winter. While energy prices are lower this year, they are
not low by historic standards and the prices for natural gas and home
heating oil remain at significant costs for many Americans. The
recession is also an increasing need for assistance.
There is something that President Bush can do immediately to help
low-income households meet their energy needs. Congress appropriated
$300 million in the FY2001 Supplemental Appropriations bill for
emergency LIHEAP assistance. For incomprehensible reasons, the
President has chosen not to release the emergency LIHEAP funding. And,
the President's budget inexplicably requests $300 million less for this
program in 2003. Leadership and action are urgently needed to help low-
income working families and senior citizens, and I hope the President
will take action to release the emergency funds.
Next year, the Health, Education and Labor and Pensions Committee
will begin reauthorizing the LIHEAP program. I want to thank Senator
Kennedy for his support of this program. I look forward to working with
him and my colleagues to improve the LIHEAP program and increase
funding.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Reed for
his comments. LIHEAP is a vital heating assistance program for low-
income families with children, senior citizens and disabled
individuals. My colleagues in the Northeast-Midwest Senate Coalition
work tirelessly every year to increase funding for this program and to
ensure that these resources get to those most in need.
There is a terrible reality some low-income households must face each
winter, to heat or to eat. Imagine a hard working low-income family
that cannot cover the costs of basic necessities in the winter having
to ask: Do I heat my home or provide enough food for my children? Or,
imagine being an elderly couple and living on a fixed income who has to
decide: Do we pay the heating bill or do we buy medicine? In Maine, a
majority of our low-income families use heating oil to stay warm. When
there is no oil, there is no heat. LIHEAP is the program that keeps the
heat on for these families.
My State of Maine had to lower this year's benefit by $100 in order
to serve the 48,000 households that needed assistance. Over 60 percent
of the recipient in my State are elderly living on a fixed income of
only $10,000 a year. This year, 4,500 additional households applied for
assistance. Many of these families needed help because they are
unemployed and have exhausted unemployment benefits. While energy
prices are lower this year, they are high for low-income Mainers. The
average LIHEAP benefit of $338 per household pays for only a little
more then one tank of fuel for these families. In Maine, the average
annual cost to heat a home with oil is $1,200.
The LIHEAP program was enacted to respond to the higher fuel prices
and severe winters in cold weather States. Its primary focus is to
alleviate winter heating crises. Heating homes is expensive. According
to the National Fuel Funds Network, at the end of the 2000/2001 winter
heating season, at least 4.3 million low-income households were at risk
of having their utility service cutoff because of an inability to pay
their winter home energy bills. In the Northeast and Midwest, the cost
to heat a home is more expensive than to cool a home in the south, and
families have to spend a greater amount of their incomes on home
heating. LIHEAP households in the Northeast and Midwest spend over
$1,200 on residential energy. This is 14 percent of their household
income in the Northeast and 18 percent in the Midwest. LIHEAP
households spend over twice as much to heat their homes in the winter
than it costs to cool a home in the south.
The current allocation formula acknowledges the important public
health role this program serves in cold weather States. Since its
enactment, Congress reaffirmed the commitment of this goal. The program
has been reauthorized a number of times and Congress maintained its
commitment to low-income families faced with high heating bills. It did
this by ensuring that no State would receive less than it did when the
program was enacted.
Low-income households will take drastic, and unsafe, measures to try
to stay warm in winter when they are in jeopardy of losing heat. When
home energy bills are unaffordable in winter, low-income households
rely on alternative heating sources such as ovens or space heaters. The
National Fire Protection Association reports that house fires show a
sharp increase in the cold-weather months. Half of the home heating
fires and three-fourths of the home heating fires deaths occurred in
the months of December, January, and February. Not being able to afford
utilities place low-income households at increased risk to house fires
and illness or death.
We need to increase funding for this vital program. Thirty-seven of
my colleagues joined Senator Reed and I in seeking increased
appropriations for this program for fiscal year 2003. I look forward to
working with Chairman Kennedy and Ranking Member Gregg on the HELP
Committee on reauthorization of this important program.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letter to which
I referred be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to printed in the
Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, April 2, 2002.
Hon. Tom Harkin, Chairman
Hon. Arlen Specter, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education Appropriations, Senate Committee on
Appropriations, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Specter: We are
writing to express our strong support for the Low Income Home
Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). We appreciate your
consistent support for this critical program to help low-
income families and senior citizens address high energy
burdens. We recognize the difficult choices that you face
this fiscal year, however, we believe that the strong and
continued growth in households requesting LIHEAP assistance
demonstrates that the funding needed for this program has
never been greater. We respectfully request that you consider
appropriating $3 billion in regular LIHEAP funds for FY2003
and provide advanced appropriations for FY2004.
LIHEAP is a vital safety net for our nation's low-income
households. For many low-income families, disabled
individuals and senior citizens living on fixed incomes, home
energy costs are unaffordable. Without LIHEAP assistance,
low-income families and senior citizens face the impossible
choice between paying their home energy bills or affording
other basic necessities such as prescription drugs, housing
and food. In FY2001, states received $2.25 billion in regular
and contingency LIHEAP funding. Despite this historic level
of funding, it is estimated that states were only able to
serve 17 percent of the 29 million eligible households.
Currently, states only have $1.7 billion available in LIHEAP
funds for FY2002. Sixteen states estimate that they will be
out of funding by the end of March.
We also request advanced appropriations for the program for
FY2004. Advance funding allows states to plan more
efficiently, and therefore, more economically. State LIHEAP
[[Page S3152]]
directors begin planning in spring and early summer for the
upcoming year. Without advanced funding, state directors are
unable to plan program outreach or leverage resources as
effectively. Advanced funding will also ensure that states
have the necessary funding to open their programs at the
beginning of the fiscal year in order to provide timely
assistance to low-income families who cannot afford to wait.
We look forward to working with you to secure the necessary
LIHEAP funding to meet the needs of millions of low-income
families. Thank you for your consideration of our request.
Sincerely,
Jack Reed, Susan M. Collins, Olympia Snowe, Carl Levin,
Joseph Biden, Paul D. Wellstone, Debbie Stabenow,
Joseph Lieberman, Paul Sarbanes, Charles Schumer,
George V. Voinovich, Dick Lugar, James M. Jeffords, Bob
Smith, Mark Dayton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John F.
Kerry, Lincoln Chafee, Patrick Leahy, Herb Kohl,
Barbara A. Mikulski, Edward Kennedy, Max Baucus, Kent
Conrad, Jay Rockefeller, Dick Durbin, Robert
Torricelli, Conrad Burns, Christopher Dodd, Mike
DeWine, Patty Murray, Gordon Smith, Blanche Lincoln,
Byron L. Dorgan, Jeff Bingaman, Ron Wyden, Jean
Carnahan, Maria Cantwell, Jon S. Corzine,
Ethanol and the Highway Trust Fund
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, ensuring necessary and affordable energy
supplies, including ethanol-blended motor fuels and other initiatives,
is important to the quality of life and economic prosperity of all
Americans. Policies to achieve these objectives, however, should not
come at the expense of transportation infrastructure improvements.
By directing 2.5 cents from the sale of gasohol to the highway trust
fund, we can begin to alleviate a growing problem for many States--
lower highway trust fund contributions and therefore lower highway
apportionments.
Furthermore, a major goal of TEA-21 was to restore the integrity of
the highway trust fund by depositing all motor fuel taxes in the trust
fund and then spending that money on highway, and some transit,
programs. Gasohol's 2.5 cents is the only user tax on vehicle fuel that
does not flow into the highway trust fund . I am proud to have it as
part of the energy tax package.
I would especially like to thank Senators Harkin, Warner, and the
ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley for their
help in getting the 2.5 cent provision in the energy tax package. But
the 2.5 cents is just the beginning.
I had planned to introduce an amendment, along with Senators Harkin
and Warner, that would truly make the highway trust fund ``whole.''
This amendment would keep the ethanol subsidy, but make sure that it is
the Treasury's General Fund that subsidizes ethanol--not the highway
trust fund.
The ethanol subsidy is good energy policy, good agriculture policy
and good tax policy. Yet, ironically, it is the highway trust fund that
bears the burden of the subsidy. Since it is good general policy, I
believe that the general fund should bear the burden of the subsidy.
I have been asked by several Senators not to offer an amendment at
this time. I have complied with the requests of my colleagues. However,
I am fully committed to recouping the 5.3 cents for the highway trust
fund at the next possible opportunity.
I would like to thank Senators Warner and Harkin for working so
closely with me on this matter. I look forward to continuing that work
as soon as possible.
I am pleased to see progress being made to include the highway trust
fund in our collective thoughts as we discuss energy policy.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I congratulate the chairman of the Finance
Committee, Senator Baucus, for his strong leadership in working to
secure the integrity of the highway trust fund and promote the use of
ethanol and other renewable fuels like biodiesel. I also commend the
hard work of Senator Warner to preserve the trust fund.
There is no question that a strong highway system is vitally
important to the efficiency of our economy. Poor roads mean higher
costs to move goods, raising prices to consumers and making us less
competitive in a world marketplace. It also means inconvenience to our
citizens. The use of fuels containing ethanol or soy is both extremely
important to the economy of rural America and good for the environment.
The Federal Government wisely promotes ethanol as a fuel through the
Tax Code and in other ways. But, on the negative side, against the
logic of our country's need, current law provides that increased use of
ethanol in fuel means a reduction in the highway trust fund and fewer
dollars being spent to repair and improve our roads and bridges. I
would note that mass transit currently is not adversely impacted under
the law.
I was very pleased to be an original cosponsor of S. 1306, Highway
Trust Fund Recovery Act, which provides for the shifting of the excise
taxes on alcohol fuels from the general fund to the highway trust fund
starting on October 1, 2003. I am very pleased that the measure has
been included in the package of tax measures that the Finance Committee
proposed to be added to the energy bill along with the very important
legislation on biodiesel.
Enacting the Highway Trust Fund Recovery Act is the first step. The
next step is to provide that the highway trust fund be made truly whole
for the 5.3 cents not collected for gasohol. We have agreed to not
offer a proposal to accomplish that goal during the floor debate of
this measure. However, it is my intention to work with Senator Baucus,
Senator Warner and others to try to accomplish the goal of passing
legislation to fully reimburse the highway trust fund from the general
fund as soon as possible.
Mr. INHOFE. I commend the Senators from Montana and Iowa for their
vigorous support of the highway trust fund. Because of their efforts,
the measure pending before us, the trust fund, will recoup an
additional 2.5 cents per gallon of ethanol currently being deposited
into general revenue.
The Senator from Montana has also been very aggressive at trying to
make the trust fund whole with respect to the current 5.3-cent per
gallon ethanol subsidy. Although he and I do not agree on how to best
address this issue, we are in agreement that the highway trust fund
should not pay to subsidize any fuel source. Our surface transportation
infrastructure needs are such that we cannot afford to forego any
revenue source.
Certainly one of the key factors in the economic engine that drives
our economy is a safe, efficient transportation system. If our economic
recovery is going to continue to expand we cannot ignore the immediate
and critical infrastructure needs of highways, bridges, and State and
local roadways systems.
I believe this issue is best resolved through the reauthorization of
the surface transportation program next year. Furthermore, it is my
hope that the final result will be one that can be embraced by all
sides in this debate.
Thus, I will be pulling together a working group of the highway
community, the renewable fuels community, the refiners and the
agricultural community to begin discussions on how we can make the
highway trust fund whole. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from
the Renewable Fuels Association be printed in the Record.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Again, I thank my colleagues from Montana and Iowa for their
leadership on this issue and look forward to working with them to
devise a permanent solution to this drain on the highway trust fund.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I applaud Senator Baucus for his efforts to enhance the
flow of revenues into the highway trust fund. In particular, his
suggestion that the time has come to redirect the 2.5 cents in ethanol
tax that is now going into the general fund back to the highway trust
fund is both timely and constructive.
As we reauthorize the surface transportation program over the coming
months, I look forward to working with Senator Baucus and others on the
broader issue of the Nation's shifting fuel mix and the implications of
that trend on the highway trust fund.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. As the Senators know, the compromise
fuels package in the Daschle energy bill, which includes my language to
ban MTBE and clean up the contamination caused by this gas additive,
will also dramatically increase the use of ethanol. This compromise
came after lengthy negotiations with several members of the Senate. We
all worked in good faith to reach this agreement.
[[Page S3153]]
However, the increase in ethanol use will, over time, have a negative
impact on the highway trust fund due to the ethanol subsidy which
exempts ethanol from a good portion of the gasoline tax that pays into
the trust fund. This is a concern that virtually all members of the
Environment & Public Works Committee share, and it is problem that we
will have to address. I believe that reauthorization of TEA-21 is the
proper place to fix the trust fund problems caused by the increased
ethanol use.
Between now and the time we introduce TEA-21 reauthorization, I would
encourage all parties to work together, in a similar fashion to the way
we reached the fuels compromise, in order to reach a consensus on the
ethanol tax subsidy. If we work together in good faith, I have little
doubt we will find a solution that can be included in reauthorization.
I look forward to working my colleagues in that process.
Mr. DASCHLE. Our Nation's vulnerability to foreign energy production
has been brought into bold relief by the continuing turmoil in the
Middle East. It is imperative that our Nation take greater strides to
promote the use of domestic, renewable fuels as a means of reducing our
dangerous dependence on imported oil and strengthening U.S. energy
security.
An aggressive program to produce and use more renewable fuel should
be one of the pillars of our Nation's energy policy. And, as America
uses more renewable fuel, we need to make sure that the financial
soundness of the highway trust fund is not inadvertently undermined.
That is why I strongly support Chairman Baucus' efforts to ensure that
future use of ethanol will have no impact on the trust fund. I applaud
his efforts in this regard and pledge to do whatever I can to see that
we hold the highway trust fund harmless as we seek to make America more
energy independent.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to support the efforts of Chairman
Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley to ensure that the tax package from
the Finance Committee begins to reform our tax policies to provide
equitable treatment for the highway trust fund, the only source of
Federal revenues to improve our Nation's transportation infrastructure.
The Finance Committee's package ensures that revenue from the 2.5-
cent excise tax on the sale of gasohol will be transferred to the
highway trust fund.
It has been my privilege to work closely with Senator Baucus as a
senior member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works during
the development of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century,
TEA-21. He has always been a steadfast partner on surface
transportation issues, and once again, he is providing the necessary
leadership to protect the solvency and purpose of the highway trust
fund. All vehicles, regardless of whether they use gasoline or gasohol,
cause the same damage to our roads. The highway trust fund is the only
means to finance highway maintenance and expansion activities, and
without the Highway Trust Fund Recovery Act our States would receive
less funding to improve our roads.
Depositing the 2.5 cents into the highway trust fund, however, is an
important first step, but only part of the solution. I have been
working with Senator Baucus and others to offer an amendment to provide
for the full transfer of 5.3 cents to the highway trust fund, but we
have decided to reserve this issue for another time. I remain fully
committed to restoring the integrity of the highway trust fund by
recovering the entire 5.3 cent per gallon subsidy that gasohol
currently receives.
The bill before the Senate also contains other provisions which will
contribute to further reductions in revenues to the highway trust fund.
Depending on the final disposition of the renewable fuels provisions,
revenues to the highway trust fund could significantly decrease as the
renewable fuels mandate increases. I look forward to working with
Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Grassley, and the leadership of both
parties to fully restore revenues to the highway trust fund so that our
national network of highways remains a premiere system.
Mr. REID. I share my colleagues' concern about the losses to the
highway trust fund that result from sale of ethanol-blended fuels.
These losses to the highway trust fund have two causes. First, 2.5
cents of the existing tax on ethanol goes into the General Fund rather
than the highway trust fund. Senator Baucus has introduced a bill to
address this problem and I am a cosponsor of that legislation.
Second, the trust fund loses revenue because the tax on ethanol-
blended gasoline is lower than taxes on other fuels. With the mandate
contained in this bill, this subsidy will have an increasingly negative
impact on revenues into the highway trust fund.
Next year we will reauthorize the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century. This Nation has tremendous transportation infrastructure
needs that must be addressed if we are to keep our roads safe and our
economy moving. As we begin work on this important legislation, I hope
that we can address the significant losses to the trust fund that
result from current ethanol policy. I look forward to working with my
colleagues on this and other issues related to the reauthorization of
TEA-21.
Mr. BAUCUS. Once again, I would like to state my intention of dealing
with the ``5.3-cent problem'' as soon as possible. I look forward to
working with these Senators and others as we work to protect the
highway trust fund our Nation's source of funding for our surface
transportation system.
Exhibit 1
Renewable Fuels Association,
Washington, DC, March 22, 2002.
Hon. James M. Inhofe,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Inhofe, Baucus, Smith, Conrad, Grassley,
Jeffords, Reid and Daschle: The Renewable Fuels Association
(RFA) appreciates your leadership on including a ``Renewable
Fuel Standard'' in the Energy Policy Act of 2002 (S. 517).
This program will provide significant energy, environmental
and economic benefits for the Nation.
At the same time, we recognize that an increase in the
production and use of renewable fuels, including ethanol,
will have an impact on Federal highway excise tax receipts.
The RFA does not believe any state should be penalized by the
use of renewable fuels. Sound transportation policy and sound
energy policy should not be mutually exclusive. Thus, as
Congress works to reauthorize highway and transportation
funding next year, we wholeheartedly encourage Congress to
work towards addressing the issues surrounding the Highway
Trust Fund and other transportation trust funds as they
relate to ethanol.
Much has been made of ethanol's impact on Highway Trust
Fund receipts in FY 2003, and at the appropriate time, prior
to or during the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law 105-178, we
look forward to working with the United States Senate, the
House of Representatives and the Administration, to create
the appropriate program to address the needs of these
programs.
Additionally, we support transferring the 2.5 cents
currently directed to the General Fund for deficit reduction,
back to the Highway Trust Fund as is included in the ``Energy
Tax Incentives Act of 2002'' (S. 1979), which has been
approved by the Senate Finance Committee earlier this year.
Transportation funding issues are not simple, and we look
forward to working with you on this important issue on a
unified front to address the many needs of the
transportation, petroleum, and renewable fuels industries.
Sincerely,
Bob Dinneen,
President.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I appreciate the efforts by Chairman
Baucus for correcting an oversight by Congress when it failed to shift
from the general fund to the highway trust fund, 2.5 cents per gallon
collected from sales of gasohol. Similar adjustments for other fuels
were made by a previous Congress, but not for gasohol.
I also want to thank the chairman for refraining from offering an
amendment at this time that would require the general fund to
contribute 5.3 cents to the highway trust fund for every gallon of
gasohol sold.
It is wise to wait until next Congress when we can look at the big
picture. Next year, we need to analyze all revenue sources for the
highway trust fund to determine if adjustments are appropriate.
We also need to determine if adjustments are appropriate in the way
we spend the Highway Trust Funds that are collected. For instance, we
may determine that it makes better sense for mass transit subsidies to
come from general funds instead of from the highway trust fund.
[[Page S3154]]
We may find that the subsidies for special motor fuels such as
propane, methanol, and liquified natural gas should be paid from the
general fund instead of the highway trust fund. These three fuels are
not paying the full 18.3 cents per gallon. Propane receives a 4.7 cent
subsidy, liquified natural gas receives a 6.4 cent subsidy, and
methanol receives a 9.15 cent subsidy. Much needs to be addressed as we
reauthorize the highway bill, and approaching this very important
matter in a piecemeal fashion would be a mistake.
Aviation Emissions
Mr. BURNS. At this time, the General Accounting Office is working on
a study--requested by the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Aviation Subcommittee--to conduct a comprehensive
overview of key issues associated with emissions from aviation
activities. This study would cover the same subject matter as
contemplated in Section 803 of H.R. 4. At this time of tight budget
constraints, it is not a good use of limited resources to produce
redundant studies. Accordingly, I urge Senator Murkowski in conference
on the Energy Bill to strike the language in H.R. 4 requesting an
aircraft emissions study.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I agree that this study does appear duplicative.
Mr. BURNS. In addition to the GAO study, I wish to bring your
attention to a voluntary effort to address emissions from the aviation
sector, known as the ``EPA/FAA Local Air Quality Initiative.'' As part
of this voluntary initiative, the Environmental Protection Agency,
Federal Aviation Administration, States, airlines, aerospace
manufacturers, and environmental groups are working together to develop
analyses that address the same subject matter detailed in H.R. 4.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I agree with my colleague from Montana that there is
no need at this time for another study on this issue. The Senator has
my assurance that I will work to remove this provision when we go to
conference.
climate change provisions
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the substitute for Title X of the Senate
Amendment 2917, and title XIII, encompass significant bipartisan
progress on the topic of climate change policy. This progress has been
reached in discussions involving staff for many Senators with keen
interests in this area, including myself and Senator Murkowski on
behalf of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Senators Byrd
and Stevens, Senators Kerry and Hagel, and the chair and ranking
members of the Committee on Governmental Affairs and the Committee on
Commerce, Science and Transportation. All these Committees that I just
mentioned have important jurisdictional responsibilities under rule XXV
related to the climate change provisions in this bill. There is one
major area in the proposed changes to Senate Amendment 2917 that is
still not in agreement, and that will be left to conference for further
discussion, but will describe that in a moment. What has been agreed
to, and for which there is commitment on the part of the co-sponsors of
this amendment to advocate for here in the Senate and maintain in
conference, is substantial.
First, we have developed a streamlined set of findings and a Sense of
Congress relating to climate change, the shared international
responsibility to address the problem, and the role of the United
States in that matrix of shared responsibility. Senate Amendment 2917
had, in effect, two sets of findings in this regard. Developing a
single set of agreed-to-statements, on the part of a broad cross-
section of Senators with active interests in climate change policy, is
an important accomplishment.
Second, we have taken the fundamental elements of S. 1008, introduced
by Senators Byrd and Stevens and agreed to nearly all of them. S. 1008
was introduced on June 8, 2001 and referred to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs. That committee held a hearing on the bill on July
18, and marked the bill up in a business meeting on August 2, 2001. It
was ordered reported by voice vote, and the Committee's report, as well
as additional views of some members, was filed on November 15, 2001.
This legislative history should be relevant to those who will be
responsible for implementing these provisions. One of the agreed-to
elements brought in from S. 1008 is a requirement for the development
of a National Climate Change Strategy, which will be updated every 4
years. That Strategy and its updates will be reviewed by the National
Academy of Sciences, which will provide its findings and recommendation
both to the President and to Congress. The Strategy will be the central
focus for integrating, across the government, a consideration of the
broad range of activities and action that can be taken to reduce,
avoid, and sequester greenhouse gas emissions both in the United States
and in other countries. The development of the Strategy is also
intended to draw on broad participation from the public, scientific
bodies, academia, industry, and various levels of State, local, and
tribal governments. Another agreed-to element from S. 1008 is the
creation of an Office of Climate Change Technology in the Department of
Energy, and authority for creation of other necessary offices to carry
out the National Climate Change Strategy in other agencies. The DOE
Office will have a special role in bridging the gap that now exists
between the more conventional energy technology R&D programs now in
place at DOE and the necessary research that is pointing the way to
breakthrough technologies that could have a pronounced effect on our
ability to meet the climate change challenge. The substantial increase
in authorization for this function that was contained in S. 1008 is
maintained.
Third, we have come to agreement on how to improve the structure of
coordination of climate change science and monitoring programs across
government, including the creation of a mechanism to fill gaps in
research efforts among the various agency programs. Substantial
portions of a bipartisan Commerce Committee bill, S. 1716, the Global
Climate Change Act of 2001, introduced by Senators Kerry, Stevens,
Hollings, Inouye and Akaka, are included in these sections. This bill
emerged from a series of hearings held by the Committee during the
107th Congress on the state of scientific knowledge of climate change
and its impacts and possible technological means to address the
problem. These Commerce Committee provisions include amendments to the
Global Change Research Act, as well as language that ensures the
programs and capabilities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and the National Institute of Standards and Technology
to monitor, measure, understand, and respond to climate change and
climate variability.
The one area of remaining disagreement in Title X relates to the
proposed White House Office of National Climate Change Policy, in
Section 1013 of the proposed text for Title X. I believe that it would
be true to say that the co-sponsors of this amendment, at a minimum,
all support having a locus of accountability for the development and
implementation of climate change policy in the Executive Office of the
President. All of us believe that it should be headed by a Senate-
confirmed appointee. We did not, however, reach consensus on how this
position should be structured and whether the appointee should be a new
or existing position. We have agreed to move forward to conference with
the language of S. 1008, with the expectation that we would be able to
engage the White House at that point and come to a final resolution of
how to provide for the central accountability in the Executive Office
of the President that is acceptable to all parties.
On all other issues in Titles X and XIII aside from Section 1013,
though, we are in agreement. We recommend their acceptance to our
colleagues here in the Senate and, if adopted, plan to support these
provisions strongly in conference.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would like to thank my colleague for his statement
and indicate my support for the agreement that we have reached. These
two titles of Senate Amendment 2917 lay the foundation for a sensible
approach to managing the risk of climate change while providing the
energy we will need for continued economic growth. The elements
contained in these titles--improved scientific research, investment in
development of improved energy technology, transfer of these
technologies to markets at home and overseas, and coordinated climate
policy development--are the same elements that were contained in S. 882
and S. 1776 in the 106th Congress, and S. 1294
[[Page S3155]]
in the 107th Congress, legislation that I was pleased to sponsor or
cosponsor along with others. Title XIII also contains the elements of
my legislation, S. 815, to improve research in the Arctic, including on
topics of climate change. I want to thank Senator Bingaman and his
staff for their leadership on forging this important bipartisan
approach to our Nation's climate policy, and I want to thank all those
Senators and staff who helped to bring these Titles into being.
Mr. BYRD. I would like to thank my colleagues for their statements
and indicate my support for the agreement that we have reached. I would
also note the historic nature of what has been negotiated, refined, and
supported by the Senate here today. The passage of a national climate
change strategy, along with the improved integration of science and
technology programs, is critical to our Nation's long-term energy
policy. I appreciate that other Members also believe that, at a
minimum, there needs to be a Senate-confirmed appointee in the White
House to oversee climate change policy. While I understand that there
is not full agreement on this issue at this time, I believe that it is
important to have a new, separate office in the White House to serve as
a focal point for this multifaceted, multidimensional, long-term issue.
After further discussion, I hope that these important provisions will
be supported by the House energy conferees and the White House as a
part of a national energy policy.
Mr. STEVENS. I would like to thank my colleagues for their statements
and indicate my support for the agreement that we have reached. Title
X, of Senate Amendment 2917, will address an immediate need to
stimulate our Nation's research and development in innovative
technologies and attempt to resolve any remaining uncertainties on the
causes of climate change. Title XIII will provide the mechanisms to
better assess coastal vulnerability from climate variances and improve
climate monitoring, observing and prediction. The Barrow Arctic
Research Center, authorized in Title XIII, is intended to replace the
decades old and poorly equipped Naval Arctic Research Laboratory in
Barrow and will perform the desperately needed scientific research on
climate change that is already impacting America's Arctic.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I would like to thank my colleagues for their
statements and indicate my support for the agreement that we have
reached. As Senator Bingaman has indicated, this language incorporates
the essential components of S. 1008, the Climate Change Strategy and
Technology Innovation Act of 2001. Senators Byrd and Stevens introduced
this important legislation, and I am proud that the Governmental
Affairs Committee which I chair quickly endorsed the bill. The
committee report accompanying the bill explains the reasoning behind
the legislation and, as Senator Bingaman stated, should provide
direction to those charged with executing the provisions of Title X.
But I would like to summarize a few key points about why this is such
an important contribution by Senators Byrd and Stevens. First, they
have found a constructive way to move forward in a bipartisan fashion
on the issue of climate change, one of the most profound and daunting
challenges we face as a Nation and, indeed, a world community. Second,
the bill establishes a regime of accountability on climate change--
under the legislation, the administration would be required to
articulate a strategy to reach the long-agreed upon goal of stabilizing
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Third, the bill
provides support for the innovative technologies that will be essential
to meet the challenge of climate change. This legislation is an
important step forward on climate change, and I thank my colleagues for
their work on this provision.
Mr. THOMPSON. I would like to thank my colleagues for their
statements and indicate my support for the agreement that we have
reached with regard to Title X. A lot of hard work has gone into this
agreement. It is my belief that there are still many uncertainties with
regard to climate change. However, I also believe that the potential
risks of climate change warrant study, research and technological
development. This substitute to Title X goes a long way towards
achieving those goals. This amendment also recognizes that there are
many contributors to climate change beyond CO2 and I
appreciate that black soot is included. My biggest concern with the
substitute is the creation of a White House Office on Climate Change.
As ranking member of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, I have
great concerns about duplication and overlayering in government. I hope
we can work this out in conference and I look forward to the White
House weighing in on this important issue.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I would like to thank my colleagues for their
statements and indicate my support for this bipartisan agreement on
climate science and technology policy. The Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation over the years has developed and
implemented the key statutes governing these matters. These include
statutes establishing interagency science and research programs like
the Global Climate Change Act, a coordinated Federal science and
technology policy, such as is called for in the National Science and
Technology Policy, Organization and Priorities Act, and those
establishing the first tier atmospheric science and technology programs
within NOAA and NIST. I fully agree that responsibility for policy
relating to climate issues should rest with an individual who is
accountable to Congress, much as we have done for overall science and
technology policy by exercising our oversight authority over the White
House Office of Science Technology Policy, which will shoulder
substantial responsibilities under this agreement.
Mr. KERRY. I would like to thank my colleagues for their statements
and indicate my support for the agreement that we have reached.
Included in that agreement is a Sense of the Congress on the
international climate change negotiations. The resolution originally
passed the Foreign Relations Committee in August of 2001. At that time,
Senator Biden and Senator Rockefeller played an important role in
crafting it. The text as passed out of Committee called on President
Bush to engage in the international negotiations and to present a
proposal to the Conference of the Parties by October 2001 for a revised
Kyoto Protocol or other binding agreement. However, since the Committee
acted the state of the international negotiations has fundamentally
changed. The revised text, as included in this legislation, reflects
those important changes. I appreciate the work of Senators Biden and
Hagel in crafting the updated text.
I believe that the bipartisan consensus also strengthens the
scientific and technical work that needs to be carried out and improves
upon the structure for doing so. I am particularly pleased that the
agreement incorporates provisions from the Commerce Committee's bill
that will bring the world-class science, technology, and planning
expertise of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and
other Department of Commerce programs to bear on this problem--whether
it is in climate observation, measurement and verification, information
management, modeling and monitoring, technology development and
transfer, or hazards planning and prevention. I am also pleased to see
the bill includes language to establish a framework for a national
coastal and ocean observing system, which is essential for climate
prediction and coastal response planning.
Mr. HAGEL. I would like to thank Chairman Bingaman and Senator
Murkowski, and their staff, for their leadership in reaching an
agreement on Title X. I would also like to thank my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle for their efforts, particularly Senators Byrd and
Stevens who authored many of the original provisions included in Title
X. This agreement represents the hard work of reaching a bipartisan
consensus on a very challenging and difficult issue. While recognizing
the need for greater coordination of climate change policy, I share
Senator Thompson's concerns regarding the overlapping bureaucracy
created by a new White House office and look forward to addressing this
issue more fully in conference. Nonetheless, through the agreement
reached on Title X we have made considerable progress in advancing
climate change policy on a bipartisan foundation.
[[Page S3156]]
Ms. SNOWE. I thank my esteemed colleagues, Senator Bingaman and
Senator Murkowski, and those Senators who have taken part in this
colloquy today as it shows an unprecedented effort to forge a
bipartisan agreement to address the various issues relating to climate
change and what our domestic approach and strategy should be for short
and long term goals for stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations
through U.S. actions. In addition, it will help the nation continue its
efforts to carry out the objectives of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change signed by President George H.W. Bush in
1992 and ratified by the U.S. Senate. The major objective of the
Conference is for the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in
the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic,
or manmade, interference with the climate system.
I am pleased that Title X calls for an Office of National Climate
Change Policy in the White House and hope this direction is pursued as
last year I expressed my concerns to the Administration that the
national energy policy being developed in the White House should not be
developed independently of our U.S. climate change policy. These
policies should be seamlessly coordinated across a number of our
federal agencies through a broad range of research activities and
actions that begin to reduce our Nation's greenhouse gas emissions in
an environmentally and technologically sound and economically feasible
manner.
I am particularly pleased that Title XIII calls for an ocean and
coastal observing system that will give us real time observations to
help those of us on the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on
Atmosphere, Oceans and Fisheries greater understand, assess and respond
to both human-induced and natural processes of climate change and
support efforts to restore the health of and manage coastal and marine
ecosystems and living resources. Activities will also include research
on abrupt climate change urged in December 2001 by the National
Academies for NOAA research to identify the likelihood and potential
impact of a sudden change in climate in response to global warming. I
look forward to working with my colleague sand the White House on this
issue of great importance not only to me, but to the Nation, to the
international community, and to those generations to follow.
____________________