[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 129 (Sunday, October 10, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11087-S11088]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            MORNING BUSINESS

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a 
period of morning business with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes 
each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, during my years in public service I have 
learned a great deal about the severe effects of hunger in our Nation 
and around the world. My passion for this issue has significantly grown 
over time, so much so that I chose the topic as the focus of my maiden 
speech in the Senate. My hope is to shine a light on the devastating 
plague of malnourishment and severe hunger in our country and around 
the world.
  October 16 is World Food Day, which was established 25 years ago by 
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Since its 
inception, the day has been recognized annually in more than 150 
countries and I am proud to share my support today.
  In truth, hunger affects millions of individuals across the globe. I 
know this to be true from my previous years of public service and my 
time at the Red Cross where I saw first hand the devastation of hunger. 
That is why I have made it a mission to fight this battle not only in 
our country, where I believe we can have a hunger free America, but 
around the world, where the issues of hunger so often become a useful 
strategy in developing relations with other governments and their 
people.
  As a leader in agricultural production, the United States has long 
recognized its responsibility to assist in alleviating world hunger 
through food donations, financial aid, and technical assistance. As 
many of you know, the United States, the world's leading provider of 
food assistance, began providing food aid in the 1920s. That is why I 
am involved in the McGovern-Dole program which builds off of this 
important and proud tradition.
  The McGovern-Dole program was named in honor of two former U.S. 
Senators, Senators George McGovern and Bob Dole, who worked tirelessly 
on behalf of U.S. school feeding, and more recently, for a global food 
for education program. The major objectives of the program are to 
reduce hunger and improve literacy and access to primary education, 
especially for girls.
  The focus is on low-income countries striving to ensure an education 
for all children. The World Food Program estimates that there are more 
than 300 million chronically hungry school-age children in poor 
countries. Of these, perhaps 170 million go off to school hungry. 
Another 130 million children--60 percent of them girls--do not attend 
school.
  An estimated 2.2 million beneficiaries received meals and take home 
rations under the fiscal year 2003 program, which is still ongoing in 
some countries. These resources, together with the $50 million Congress 
appropriated for the fiscal year 2004 program are reaching an 
additional 1.5 million beneficiaries. Given the program's success and 
high demand, the Bush administration requested an increase above the 
2004 funding levels for fiscal year 2005, which I supported. After 
working with the Senate Appropriations Committee, I am proud to report 
that the bill voted out of committee includes a 50-percent increase 
above the fiscal year 2004 levels, bringing the fiscal year 2005 
funding levels for McGovern-Dole to $100 million.
  Reducing hunger and improving literacy are global challenges, and 
meeting those challenges will require a global effort. We have 
experienced some marked successes in our efforts to involve other 
donors in helping achieve our goal of global school feeding and the 
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition 
Program has made a positive contribution to those efforts to combat 
hunger and illiteracy.
  It is my belief that this program will do more than just feed those 
in desperate need of food and improve the nutrition of children. It 
will bring hope and opportunity through education to some of the 
world's poorest children, improving their future and making the world a 
safer place for all of us.
  Mr. President, on World Food Day, I congratulate those who are 
fighting the battle to end hunger, and ask my fellow Americans to stand 
with me in this vital and important effort.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, like all of my colleagues I have been 
watching the presidential campaign with great interest, and I have 
noticed that the Democratic nominee has been making comments, 
particularly in the Midwest, which can not be reconciled with his 
record here in the Senate.
  The Democratic nominee says coal should play an important role in 
America's energy future. He wants to ``forge new ways to draw cleaner 
power from coal.'' But his record tells a different story--his votes 
and policies are aggressively anti-coal. On every issue of importance 
to coal and coal miners, he has sided with environmental extremists, 
who, like the Democratic nominee, view coal as a ``dirty energy 
source'' that must be eradicated.
  Last year, the Democratic nominee voted for the Climate Stewardship 
Act, S. 139, a bill very similar to the Kyoto Protocol, which would 
destroy the coal industry. Unions for Jobs and the Environment, a group 
that includes the United Mine Workers, called S. 139 ``a bad idea,'' 
and believe that passage of S. 139 ``would be tantamount to adoption of 
the Kyoto Protocol.''
  According to the Energy Information Administration, the bill causes 
steep declines in coal use and production and eliminates thousands of 
coal jobs. S. 139 would: cut coal-fired electricity by 80 percent; cut 
bituminous coal production by 69 percent; destroy 56,000 coal industry 
jobs; and cause existing coal plants in West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, 
and Pennsylvania to shut down. ``In the S.139 case, a large proportion 
of existing coal capacity is projected to be retired. It is simply not 
economical to continue operating these plants.''
  Along with running mate John Edwards, the Democratic nominee is a 
cosponsor of the Clean Power Act. This legislation would impose heavy 
burdens on coal, forcing many plants to switch to natural gas or shut 
down.
  This bill is so hostile to coal that the Ohio legislature, by an 
overwhelming bipartisan margin, passed a resolution condemning it. The 
resolution states:

       The carbon dioxide emissions cap in the bill needlessly 
     eliminates a significant component of electric generation in 
     the United States by effectively removing coal as a fuel 
     source. The bill will cause electric utilities to switch from 
     coal to natural gas because the electric utilities would no 
     longer have the option to economically generate electricity 
     from coal. . .

  The United Mine Workers, the Utility Workers, the Boilermakers, and 
other labor unions oppose the bill. In testimony before the committee I 
chair, the Environment and Public Works Committee, Eugene Trisko of the 
United Mine Workers stated:

       The union is strongly opposed to efforts to use the Clean 
     Air Act as a vehicle for regulating greenhouse gas emissions 
     . . . Limits on carbon emissions would require switching from 
     coal to natural gas or other higher-cost energy sources, with 
     potentially devastating impacts on the economies of coal-
     producing states.

  Further, according to independent analysis, the bill: cuts coal-fired 
electric generation by 55 percent and coal production by 50 percent, 
EIA analysis of the Clean Power Act; destroys 32,000 coal jobs; and 
forces many coal-fired power plants to shut down, ``resulting in 
substantial economic impacts.''
  The Democratic nominee has routinely criticized President Bush for 
rejecting Kyoto. As he said last year, ``Instead of renegotiating the 
Kyoto Treaty to improve it, he simply repudiated it.'' And the Vice 
Presidential nominee, when asked in February by the San Francisco 
Chronicle whether he would support Kyoto, responded with a direct, 
``Yes,'' and said his running mate agreed with him.
  The Democratic nominee says the U.S. should ``reengage with the 
international community'' to forge a new global warming agreement, but 
the question remains: What would the agreement look like? And how could 
any agreement calling for strict reductions in C02 emissions 
not harm coal?
  Now they say they oppose Kyoto, describing its timetables and 
mandates

[[Page S11088]]

as ``infeasible.'' ``The Democratic nominees believe that the Kyoto 
Protocol is not the answer. The near-term emission reductions it would 
require of the United States are infeasible, while the long-term 
obligations imposed on all nations are too little to solve the 
problem.''
  But the Democratic nominee's environmental group supporters know 
where he stands on Kyoto. ``We don't have doubts that this issue is at 
the top of his to-do list when elected, or his re-do list,'' said Betsy 
Loyless of the League of Conservation Voters, which endorsed him for 
president. Saying, ``there is no doubt in our mind that he will re-
engage in Kyoto.''
  Further, the Democratic nominee tried to save Kyoto in 2000 during 
negotiations with the EU. Quoting from a UPI article at the time:

       Instead, one senator who accompanied him to Vietnam, John 
     Kerry (D-MA), entered the fray. Senator Kerry, an aggressive 
     promoter of the United States, was ubiquitously huddled over 
     notepads and scribbling aides, attempting to develop U.S. 
     offers on certain mechanisms that its counterparts would 
     accept.
  Not only did he try to save Kyoto, but he opposed efforts by the 
Clinton administration to ease U.S. compliance with the treaty. 
According to an AP article:

       U.S. Sen. John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat who has been 
     involved in environmental legislation, said he also had 
     problems with the U.S. position. Instead of cutting its 
     emissions by 7 percent as agreed at Kyoto, he said, the sinks 
     proposal would allow the United States to pump at least 1 
     percent more greenhouse gases than it did in 1990. ``Some 
     sinks clearly must be counted, but they should be in line 
     with the spirit of the Kyoto agreement,'' he said. ``Any 
     retrenchment diminishes our credibility on other proposals'' 
     and raises ``understandable suspicion that they are mere 
     loopholes.''

  According to a Grist Magazine article this year:

       The Democratic nominee is no casual Kyoto detractor--he has 
     attended a number of Kyoto conferences over the years and 
     tried to push negotiations forward, and he has a long record 
     of consistently voting in favor of policy measures to curb 
     global warming, from stricter CAFE standards to mandatory 
     greenhouse-gas regulations.

  I want everyone to understand, Kyoto would eliminate coal use. 
``Under the Kyoto Protocol, coal consumption would be phased out over 
the period 2010 to 2020. The result would be massive dislocations in 
coal producing areas. . .''
  Kyoto would eliminate nearly 50,000 jobs in Ohio; 40,000 jobs in 
Pennsylvania; and 22,000 jobs in Michigan.
  Kyoto would be disastrous for West Virginia coal. According to a 
study by West Virginia University, Kyoto would cause a 25.5 percent 
decline in coal mining; destroy 42,800 jobs; reduce state GDP by over 
$3 billion; and reduce per capita income by $393.
  The West Virginia and Ohio legislatures passed resolutions rejecting 
Kyoto and preventing State agencies from implementing any part of the 
treaty.
  According to his website, the Democratic nominee says he will spend 
$10 billion over the next decade on clean coal technologies. But as the 
above demonstrates, you can't have clean coal without coal. Moreover, 
his policies would obstruct installation of clean coal technologies, 
placing further burdens on the industry in meeting new Clean Air Act 
requirements.
  The Democratic nominee opposes President Bush's New Source Review 
reforms that allow utilities to upgrade their facilities with clean, 
energy efficient technologies, avoiding the complex, burdensome, and 
environmentally counterproductive permitting process unleashed by the 
Clinton EPA.
  He supports lawsuits filed by environmental groups now blocking 
President Bush's NSR reforms.
  He even joined in the junior Senator from New York's anti-NSR reform 
legal brief.
  He voted last year for his running mate's amendment to delay 
President Bush's reforms and vows to ``immediately reverse the Bush-
Cheney rollbacks of the Nation's Clean Air Program.''
  Most critically, returning to the Clinton NSR program would thwart 
installation of clean coal technologies. According to the National Coal 
Council, uncertainty over the Clinton NSR policy ``has had a direct and 
chilling effect on all maintenance and efficiency improvements and 
clean coal technology installations at existing power plants.''
  The Democratic nominee also missed the vote on last year's energy 
bill, and later said that had he been present, he would have voted 
against it. Yet the bill included several provisions and substantial 
funding for clean coal technologies: Authorizes $200 million annually 
for fiscal years 2004 through 2012 for clean coal research and coal-
based gasification technologies; authorizes funding to the Secretary of 
Energy for loans, and authorizes the Secretary to make loan guarantees 
for a variety of clean coal projects around the country; directs the 
Secretary of Energy to carry out a program to facilitate production and 
generation of coal-based power and the installation of pollution-
control equipment; and creates an investment tax credit for facilities 
retrofitted, repowered or replaced with clean coal technology.
  ``Where we see a beautiful mountaintop, George Bush sees a strip 
mine.'' This is the Democratic nominee's view of mountaintop mining, 
which employs 15,000 people and provides $21.8 million in revenue for 
education in West Virginia, according to a study by Marshall 
University.
  In 1999, he voted against the senior Senator from West Virginia's 
amendment to overturn a Federal court decision that threatened to end 
mountaintop mining in West Virginia.
  According to the senior Senator from West Virginia said the goal of 
his amendment was ``to allow for the continuation of our coal industry 
and the jobs it provides while better protecting the mountains and 
hollows of the state we love.''
  I would point out that the United Mine Workers of America strongly 
supported the amendment.
  He even joined forces with then Vice President Al Gore, who, after 
initially supporting the amendment, threatened to veto any 
appropriations bill that included it.
  A recent Federal court decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Joseph 
Goodwin a Clinton appointee, halted 11 mountaintop mining projects in 
southern West Virginia. The economic impacts, according to West 
Virginia economists, could be devastating. The question is: where does 
the Democratic nominee stand on this decision?
  Economist Michael Hicks and Cal Kent, former dean of Marshall 
University's business college, said the ruling could slow the 
permitting process for mountaintop mining by 2 years, resulting in a 40 
percent decline in coal production.
  ``That decline the economists predicted, could lead to layoffs, 
stunted investment in West Virginia--particularly in the southern 
Coalfields region--and less revenue for the state. And the impact could 
be felt as soon as this fiscal year,'' they said.
  The Democratic nominee has a unique view of the Clean Air Act. 
According to him, when the act was passed in 1970, there was a 
consensus that existing coal-fired power plants had a remaining life-
span of 10 to 15 years. Beyond that time, according to this view, they 
would be forced to install costly new pollution controls or simply shut 
down.
  Nearly 46 percent of coal-fired capacity in Ohio was built before 
1970. In West Virginia, nearly one-third of capacity was built prior to 
1970. Additionally, over 75 percent of coal-fired capacity in Ohio and 
West Virginia was built between 1970 and 1974.
  According to the Democratic nominee, these plants must install 
exorbitantly expensive pollution controls, which would force many 
plants to close, or simply shut down altogether, causing massive 
economic dislocations, job losses, and higher energy costs in Ohio and 
West Virginia.
  According to the NSR legal brief, which the Democratic nominee 
joined, the Clean Air Act ``created a limited and qualified grace 
period within which existing plants could continue to operate. 
Accordingly, the 1970 CAA set up a simple choice for existing sources: 
either upgrade to new source standards or shut down.''
  In conclusion, Kerry-Edwards is the most anti-coal presidential 
ticket in American history. Yes, even worse than Clinton-Gore.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)




                          ____________________