[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 83 (Tuesday, June 21, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6878-S6905]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside so I may be permitted to offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 817

  (Purpose: To provide for the conduct of activities that promote the 
 adoption of technologies that reduce greenhouse gas intensity in the 
 United States and in developing countries and to provide credit-based 
   financial assistance and investment protections for projects that 
 employ advanced climate technologies or systems in the United States)

  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I now send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Hagel], for himself and Mr. 
     Pryor, Mr. Alexander, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Craig, Mrs. Dole, Ms. 
     Murkowski, Mr. Voinovich, and Mr. Stevens, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 817.

  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is located in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I understand under a previous agreement the 
Senator from Minnesota wishes to offer an amendment. I will withhold 
further comments until the Senator from Minnesota has had an 
opportunity to propose an amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask that the pending business be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 790

  Mr. DAYTON. I call up Senate amendment 790.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Dayton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 790.

  Mr. DAYTON. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require that gasoline contain 10 percent ethanol by volume 
                                by 2015)

       On page 159, after line 23, add the following:

     SEC. 211. ETHANOL CONTENT OF GASOLINE.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Cellulosic biomass ethanol.--The term ``cellulosic 
     biomass ethanol'' means ethanol derived from any 
     lignocellulosic or hemicellulosic matter that is available on 
     a renewable or recurring basis, including--
       (A) dedicated energy crops and trees;
       (B) wood and wood residues;
       (C) plants;
       (D) grasses;
       (E) agricultural residues; and
       (F) fibers.
       (2) Waste derived ethanol.--The term ``waste derived 
     ethanol'' means ethanol derived from--
       (A) animal wastes, including poultry fats and poultry 
     wastes, and other waste materials; or
       (B) municipal solid waste.
       (3) Ethanol.--The term ``ethanol'' means cellulosic biomass 
     ethanol and waste derived ethanol.
       (b) Renewable Fuel Program.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations ensuring that each gallon of gasoline sold or 
     dispensed to consumers in the contiguous United States 
     contains 10 percent ethanol by 2015.

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, we have been talking about the laudable 
goals of recycling, our Nation's dependency on foreign oil, and 
developing alternative sources of energy. The old saying goes, actions 
speak louder than words. Our current energy program and practices are 
taking this country in the opposite direction--toward increased imports 
of foreign oil.
  Even with the renewable fuel standard in the Senate bill, which some 
want to eliminate, the projected gasoline consumption in our country 
will increase from 135 billion gallons this year to 168 billion gallons 
in 2012. That is a 26-percent increase in America's use of gasoline in 
just 7 years. At a time that worldwide demand is also expected to 
increase significantly, where we will get the increased supplies? How 
much will we have to pay for them?
  As my colleague, Senator Cantwell from Washington State, courageously 
warned last week, even with the adoption of the Senate's renewable fuel 
standard, our imports of foreign oil would increase from 59 percent 
currently to 62 percent in 2012. Without adopting the Senate renewable 
fuel standard, our oil imports would be over 67 percent in just 7 
years.
  Taking yesterday's world price for oil, which was over $59 a barrel, 
we will spend $220 billion this year for foreign imports of oil, and we 
would spend $243 billion in 2012, even with the renewable fuel 
standard. Anyone who believes the world price of oil in 2012 will not 
be higher than it is today is beyond optimistic.
  Of course, if we can continue to get all the oil we need at today's 
prices or lower, we would have no need to develop alternatives. That 
has been our national energy strategy today. People say we do not have 
an energy policy. I respectfully disagree. Our policy has been and 
continues to be to maintain the status quo for as long as possible. We 
continue to depend almost entirely upon oil and oil products, natural 
gas and its products, coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric power for over 
97 percent of our total energy needs nationwide, just as we did in 1970 
before our so-called energy crisis began.
  The so-called alternative fuels provided less than 2 percent of our 
country's energy in 1970. They provide less than 3 percent today. None 
of them are likely to provide significantly more of our total supply 10 
or even 20 years from now except for ethanol and other biofuels such as 
biodiesel. That is why we do not see full-page ads attacking solar, 
wind, or geothermal energy by the Petroleum Institute or other major 
energy sources, because they know the alternatives are no threat to 
replace them anytime soon.
  The only alternative source of energy the American Petroleum 
Institute is attacking is ethanol. Why is that huge industry, oil and 
gas special interest, spreading misinformation about a business 
competitor? Because they recognize that ethanol has the ability--not 
just potential but the ability now, not 10, 20, or 40 years from now 
but right now--to replace gasoline, to replace not just MTBE, the--3 
percent additive to regular gasoline, but to replace the gasoline 
itself.
  I know that from my own experience driving a Ford Explorer that has 
run on a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline all over 
Minnesota during the past 3 years. My Senate office leased a van that 
has run on the 85 percent fuel for the last 4 years. Both vehicles have 
factory-made flexible-fuel engines which can run on the 85-

[[Page S6879]]

percent ethanol or on regular unleaded gasoline or any mixture of the 
two. However, for the past 9 years, every car, SUV, or pickup truck in 
Minnesota has run on a blend of 90 percent gasoline and 10 percent 
ethanol.

  The courageous Republican Governor, Arne Carlson, and the Minnesota 
Legislature passed a 10-percent ethanol mandate law. Back then, the oil 
and gas industries tried the same scare tactics they are using on 
Capitol Hill now: More ethanol will be prohibitively expensive, unsafe, 
and unreliable. But for the last 9 years, every motorist in Minnesota 
has put a gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol into every vehicle at 
every service station with no problems and at prices that are lower 
than our neighboring States. Just 2 weeks ago, I bought E85 fuel in 11 
Minnesota cities at prices ranging from 25 to 70 cents a gallon less 
than regular unleaded gasoline. Unleaded gas costs between $1.90 and 
$2.05 a gallon and E85 between $1.35 and $1.65 a gallon.
  I have introduced legislation that will require all of the gasoline-
consuming cars, SUVs, and trucks sold in America after 2008 to have 
these flex-fuel engines which would give their owners the choice 
between ethanol and gasoline every time they fueled up. Every time, 
consumers could choose the lower priced option, and that consumer 
choice would provide healthy competition for both fuels.
  Certainly there are other good reasons to buy ethanol instead of 
gasoline, such as putting that money into the pockets of American 
farmers rather than Arab sheiks or using a cleaner burning ethanol fuel 
that is better for engines and the environment. However, the automobile 
industry will not support such an engine requirement because not enough 
consumers ask for it or insist upon those flex-fuel engines, even 
though on most models there is no difference to consumers in the 
sticker price. Without consumer demand, most service stations do not 
yet carry E85 fuel.
  When I visited Ford and General Motors plants recently to better 
understand their challenges and costs in designing, producing, and 
selling vehicles with flex-fuel engines, I told their engineer and 
executives that the transition to fleets with flex-fuel engines could 
only occur with their support, not over their opposition. After all, 
they make the engines, warranty them, and service them. I was greatly 
impressed with their success in designing and manufacturing those 
engines that can measure the ethanol content in a fuel tank from 0 to 
85 percent and adjust the fuel intake and carburetor to burn a more 
dense 87 octane gasoline or a less dense 104 octane ethanol, or any 
blend of the two, and then produce the same acceleration efficiency and 
other performances from either fuel.
  If E85, without its tax subsidies, now equivalent to 43 cents a 
gallon, and after accounting for its 15-percent fewer miles per gallon 
because of its lesser density, is still cheaper than regular unleaded 
gas, which it is at its current price in many parts of Minnesota, then 
savvy consumers, of whom there are now 100,000 in Minnesota, will 
decide they, too, are sick of ever higher and higher gasoline prices 
and they, too, want to take advantage of ethanol's lower cost and 
equal, if not better, performance in their engines. Then when consumers 
ask for and insist upon flex-fuel engines at no additional cost in the 
vehicles they buy, automobile manufacturers will produce them. 
A marketplace will drive that transition. My bill would accelerate it, 
but this Congress and this country are not yet ready for that 
conversion.

  My other legislation, Senate amendment No. 790, would have an even 
greater impact on our country's energy independence, on reducing our 
imports of foreign oil, on putting more of that $220 billion we now 
send out of our country to import that foreign oil into our U.S. 
economy instead.
  This bill would require that in 10 years, the rest of America would 
do what Minnesota has done for the past 9 years--require that every 
gallon of gasoline contain at least 10 percent ethanol. Right now, the 
nationwide use of ethanol is about 2.5 percent of gasoline. The 
Senate's renewable fuel standard in this bill would raise nationwide 
ethanol consumption to almost 5 percent of gasoline by 2012--an amount 
of gasoline which I said earlier is expected to be 26 percent more than 
what we are consuming this year nationwide.
  For the gasoline that is refined from that oil, 62 percent of which 
would be imported foreign oil with our renewable fuel standard, 
replacing 5 percent of that gasoline with ethanol is real progress, but 
it is small progress. It is only half of what we could achieve by a 10-
percent ethanol mandate nationwide. Ten percent of the 168 billion 
gallons of gasoline that Americans are projected to consume in 2012 
would be 16.8 billion gallons of fuel. If gasoline remained at $2 a 
gallon, substituting ethanol for 10 percent would shift almost $34 
billion each year from a nonrenewable fuel, over half of it foreign, to 
annually rely on American grown and American manufactured oil that 
could supply over half of all that oil and gasoline.
  Now we see why the American Petroleum Institute is attacking ethanol 
and why, regrettably, it has convinced some of my Senate colleagues to 
do the same. I am deeply dismayed by accusations made in the Senate 
that I and other ethanol proponents are trying to foist some huge 
additional costs on American motorists in order to increase the profits 
of one company or to create some profits for our Midwestern farmers. I 
am beholden to no company or industry. I certainly support policies 
that benefit Minnesota farmers, but I would never, ever try to advance 
their economic interests at the expense of all other Americans.
  Americans are almost certain to be plagued by higher energy prices in 
the years ahead. They do not deserve any congressional action that 
would cause those prices to go even higher. Americans do, however, want 
congressional leadership to redirect our country away from our 
continued reliance on the same energy sources--oil, natural gas, coal, 
and nuclear--and they know we cannot replace something with nothing.
  It is true that conservation--using less energy--remains our best 
energy alternative. Individually and collectively, Americans will need 
to conserve more and consume less energy in the future. That 
conservation is essential, but it is not enough. If we are to reduce 
our national consumption of oil and oil products, we will have to 
replace them with something else. Electric cars, hydrogen cells, and 
hybrids may sound good, but they are years away from being able to 
replace gasoline. Ethanol can replace gasoline today.
  Ethanol is cheaper than gasoline in Minnesota today. That may not yet 
be true on the west coast or the east coast due to transportation costs 
because most ethanol is transported in relatively small amounts by 
truck or by rail rather than in large quantities by pipelines.
  A nationwide commitment to increased use of ethanol would involve 
developing a transportation system or, better yet, producing ethanol 
locally, as Minnesota farm co-ops are doing today.
  Ethanol can be made from many different sources, including wood 
chips, corn stalks, organic garbage, and even animal waste. I will 
rejoice when California, New York, and other farmers and small business 
entrepreneurs begin to produce ethanol and sell it locally or 
regionally. They can make decent profits while still offering consumers 
lower fuel prices for cleaner burning fuels. If they fail to do so, 
consumers can continue to buy gasoline, but they will have a choice.
  Again, none of this would be necessary if we could continue to get 
all the oil and gasoline we need at prices no higher than they are 
today. In the past, we have taken that gamble, and most of the time we 
have come out ahead. That is evidently what we will continue to do, 
despite the benefits of this legislation, even if those benefits 
survive a conference with the House and the administration and if they 
survive all the efforts to defeat them by the American Petroleum 
Institute and the other established energy interests because they will 
still make their profits, no matter how much their energy prices 
increase, as long as Americans have no alternatives.
  They profit and the rest of us pay. That will not change unless we 
take action to change it. We cannot, and we will not, change our 
dependence on foreign oil or on any of our current energy sources by 
wishing them away or by making speeches about alternatives or by 
waiting for the next energy crisis to demand them. We have to take 
actions--and sustain those actions--to

[[Page S6880]]

make the transition to using significant amounts of other sources of 
energy and to use enough of them for long enough to enable new 
entrepreneurs and expanding businesses to produce those supplies, 
transport them, sell them, and service them.
  There is no magic wand. There is no overnight cure. There is not even 
a guaranteed success. There is only the choice to try to maintain the 
same old energy supplies and pay for them or to develop real 
alternatives. Ethanol is ready now. And when America is ready, I will 
offer my amendments again.


                      Amendment No. 790 Withdrawn

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 790.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I thank my colleague 
from Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                           Amendment No. 817

  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators 
Pryor, Alexander, Landrieu, Craig, Dole, Murkowski, Voinovich, and 
Stevens, to offer an amendment to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 
2005.
  This amendment incorporates two bills I introduced earlier this year, 
the Climate Change Technology Deployment Act and the Climate Change 
Technology Deployment in Developing Countries Act. Taken together, 
these bills propose a comprehensive, effective U.S. global climate 
change policy.
  The climate change debate is not a debate about who is for or against 
the environment. No one wants dirty air, dirty water, prolonged drought 
or declining standards of living for their children or grandchildren. 
We all agree on the need for a clean environment and stable climate.
  The debate is not about whether we should take action but, rather, 
what kind of action we should take. A sound energy policy must include 
sensible and effective climate policies reflecting the reality that 
strong economic growth and abundant clean energy supplies go hand in 
hand.
  The amendment my colleagues and I are offering is comprehensive and 
practical. Bringing in the private sector, creating incentives for 
technological innovation, and enlisting developing countries as 
partners will all be critical to real progress on global climate 
policy. This amendment seeks to do exactly that, by authorizing new 
programs, policies, and incentives to reduce greenhouse gas intensity.
  It focuses on expanding clean energy supplies, enhancing the role of 
technology, establishing partnerships between the public and private 
sectors and between the U.S. and developing countries. Innovation and 
technology are the building blocks for an effective and sustainable 
climate policy.

  This amendment uses greenhouse gas intensity as a measure of success. 
Greenhouse gas intensity is the measurement of how efficiently a nation 
uses carbon-emitting fuels and technology in producing goods and 
services. It best captures the links between energy efficiency, 
economic development, and the environment.
  The first section of this amendment supports establishing domestic 
public-private partnerships for demonstration projects that employ 
greenhouse gas intensity reduction technologies. These provisions are 
similar to those of title XIV of H.R. 6 but are tied more directly to 
climate policy. This plan provides credit-based financial assistance 
and investment protection for American businesses and projects that 
deploy advanced climate technologies and systems. Federal financial 
assistance includes direct loans, loan guarantees, standby interest 
coverage, and power production incentive payments.
  We are most successful in confronting the most difficult and 
complicated issues when we draw on the strength of the private sector. 
Public-private partnerships meld together the institutional leverage of 
the Government with the innovation of industry.
  This amendment directs the Secretary of Energy to lead an interagency 
process to develop and implement a national climate technology strategy 
developed by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. 
It establishes an executive branch Climate Coordinating Committee and 
Climate Credit Board to assess, approve, and fund these projects.
  The second section of this amendment provides the Secretary of State 
with new authority for coordinating assistance to developing countries 
for projects and technologies that reduce greenhouse gas intensity. 
Current international approaches to global climate change overlook the 
role of developing countries as part of either the problem or the 
solution. That is, at best, unrealistic and shortsighted.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, China is already the 
world's second largest consumer of oil, with its demand projected to 
more than double over the next 25 years. It is estimated that coal-
burning emissions by China alone, over the next 25 years, would be 
twice the emissions reductions that would be achieved if all nations 
that ratified the Kyoto Protocol met their obligations. China and other 
developing nations will not be able to achieve greenhouse gas 
reductions until they achieve higher standards of living. They lack 
clean energy technology, and they cannot absorb the economic impact of 
necessary changes to reduce emissions reductions. New policies will 
require recognition of the limitations of developing nations to meet 
these standards and the necessity of including them in future emission-
reduction initiatives.
  This amendment works with those limitations by supporting the 
development of a U.S. global climate strategy to expand the role of the 
private sector, develop public-private partnerships, and encourage the 
deployment of greenhouse gas intensity reducing technologies in 
developing countries.
  Further, this amendment directs the Secretary of State to engage 
global climate change as a foreign policy issue. It directs the U.S. 
Trade Representative to identify trade-related barriers to the export 
of greenhouse gas intensity reducing technologies and establishes an 
interagency working group to promote the export of greenhouse gas 
intensity reducing technologies and practices from the United States.
  Finally, the amendment authorizes fellowship and exchange programs 
for foreign officials to visit the United States and acquire the 
expertise and knowledge to reduce greenhouse gas intensity in their 
countries.
  The action we take must be as comprehensive as possible in order to 
be effective in reducing international greenhouse gas emissions. That 
means any climate change initiatives we adopt must capture the links 
between energy use, the environment, and economic development in a 
global context.
  Climate change does not recognize national borders. It is an 
international issue. It is a shared responsibility for all nations. 
Focusing on solutions that are too narrow may resolve one problem just 
to create or exacerbate another problem somewhere else in the world.
  Consider, for example, the U.S. manufacturing sector. According to 
one recent study written for the National Association of Manufacturers, 
this sector accounts for some 15 million jobs in the United States, 
producing everything from semiconductors to food products. It is a 
cornerstone of our economy, and it is the largest consumer of energy in 
our country.
  Rising energy costs and shrinking supply, especially of natural gas, 
are already a factor in the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs today. 
These rising costs, in part a result of regulations and other self-
imposed limitations, contribute to a less competitive position for U.S. 
companies around the world--just as the world economy is becoming 
increasingly more and more competitive.

  Some of these companies are going out of business. Others are going 
offshore to locations with lower costs and more accessible energy 
sources. In the end, long-term success will come from stimulating 
increased energy efficiency and new lower carbon systems, not from 
actions that set up a system to continually constrain energy supplies.
  There are viable policy options for protecting the environment 
without sacrificing economic performance in manufacturing and other 
sectors here in this country or in other nations. That will involve 
ensuring adequate supplies of energy at globally competitive prices. By 
promoting new energy supplies and clean energy technologies, we could 
potentially add millions of new jobs and improve our economic 
performance, as well as the economic

[[Page S6881]]

performance of all nations, increasing all standards of living across 
the globe, assuring more stability and secure living environments 
around the world, with less conflict, less war around the world.
  At the same time, there are policies under discussion today that 
would restrict energy supplies either now or in the future. These 
policies would hurt our economic performance without necessarily 
improving environmental quality. Too often, such policies are 
considered in isolation of other real-life factors instead of 
comprehensively and internationally.
  America's climate policy needs to be a comprehensive policy that 
captures the links between our energy use and our economic and 
environmental well-being. That will mean expanding the availability of 
cleaner fuels and improving the efficiency of our energy use and 
production through new technologies. Right now, fuel substitution 
possibilities are limited, and the rate of innovation is not fast 
enough to keep pace with our demand.
  Natural gas supplies in the U.S. are constricted. No new nuclear 
powerplants have been constructed in many years. Renewables are 
promising but not at an adequate level of development for the needs of 
our growing dynamic economy.
  Achieving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is one of the more 
important challenges of our time. We recognize that. In developing a 
sound energy policy, however, America has an opportunity and a 
responsibility for global climate policy leadership. But it is a 
responsibility to be shared by all nations.
  Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues; the Bush 
administration, which has done a significant amount in dealing with 
this issue, especially in market-based, technology-driven projects; the 
private sector, from which innovation comes; the public interest groups 
that help focus our attention; and America's allies--American's 
allies--key to any achievable climate change policies. I look forward 
to working with all of these individuals, institutions, bodies, and 
nations to achieve a climate change policy that is workable, 
sustainable.
  By harnessing our many strengths, we can help shape a worthy future 
for all people in the world.
  I encourage my colleagues to review this amendment, and I ask for 
their consideration and support.
  Mr. President, I thank you and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me say how proud I am to speak in 
behalf of and in favor of the climate change amendment we have just 
heard thoroughly explained by Senator Hagel and to thank him and 
Senator Pryor for joining in a bipartisan way to provide for us the 
underpinnings of a path forward on the issue of climate change and to 
meet both this Nation's and the global needs that are obvious when we 
talk about climate change and, in that context, economic progress.
  In addition, this legislation will provide a sound basis for 
productive engagements with our friends and allies in sharing a need to 
cooperatively work literally around the globe on this issue. If we are 
talking about climate change, we are not talking about it only in the 
United States. It is literally the climate of the world we are talking 
about and a concern about those elements that are introduced by man 
into the environment that make the change or could make the change.
  An essential element in this legislation is an active engagement of 
developing countries. My views on this point are not new, but I do 
believe they are worth repeating as we begin this important debate on 
national energy policy and as we step into the arena of climate change.
  Our policy must recognize the legitimate needs of our bilateral 
trading partners to use their resources and meet their needs for their 
people. For too long, the climate policy debate has been about fixing 
and assigning blame and inflicting pain. This is most harmful. It is 
counterproductive. When the climate change community said to the world, 
save the world by turning out your lights and turning off your 
economies, the world in large part said: Wait a moment. We don't think 
we can do that. We have to look at this issue differently.
  Our best technological advances, our research activities, all are 
focusing on how we become cleaner. And as we become cleaner, we 
immediately provide and send that technology to the world, and we meet 
their needs while they grow and develop and provide for their own 
people.
  Senator Hagel, Senator Pryor, and those of us who support this 
amendment have made it clear that there are important issues we ought 
to be about when we talk about climate change. Above all, this 
legislation is a true acknowledgment that climate variability and 
change is a top priority of the United States and of all nations, and 
we have not shirked from that. There can be an honest debate about 
whether the United States should do more or whether too much reliance 
is being placed on voluntary initiatives. But to claim that the United 
States is not acting seriously reflects at best a lack of knowledge or 
at worst political posturing.
  An objective review of government and private sector programs to 
reduce increases in greenhouse gases now and in the future would have 
to conclude that the United States is doing at least as much, if not 
more, than countries that are part of the Kyoto Protocol which went 
into effect last February. The best evidence of this is our domestic 
rate of improvement in greenhouse gas intensity relative to 
improvements in other countries. The term I just used--and it is one we 
ought to all become familiar with because it is the true measurement of 
this issue, not the politics of the issue, it is in fact the scientific 
measurement--``greenhouse gas intensities'' is defined in the 
legislation Senator Hagel has just offered as the ratio of greenhouse 
gas emissions to economic output. This is a far wiser measure of 
progress because it compliments rather than conflicts with a nation's 
goal of growing its economy and meeting the needs of its aspiring 
citizens.
  Too much attention has been paid to the mandatory nature of Kyoto, 
and too little is resulting from it because nations simply can't go 
there. Most of the countries that ratified Kyoto will not meet the 
greenhouse gas reduction targets by the deadlines required by Kyoto. So 
why did they ratify it? Was it the politics of the issue or were they 
really intent on meeting the goals? We did not ratify it because we 
knew that it couldn't be done in this country. Yet we are the most 
technologically advanced country of the world.
  Why couldn't it be done here? Simple reason: When we stated on the 
floor some years ago that we would have to take a hit of at least 3 
million jobs in our country to dial ourselves down to meet the Kyoto 
standards, we were right. In fact, at the depths of this last recession 
we have just come out of, with 2.9 million people unemployed, we met 
the standards that we were supposed to meet under Kyoto. Most 
fascinating is the recent news that Great Britain needs more allocation 
of credits to meet its targets under Kyoto.
  Imagine this, the most aggressive advocate of Kyoto, the nation best 
positioned to meet the requirements of the treaty, is now backsliding 
because they can't hit their targets. They need more relief.
  At a recent COP-10--that is a climate change conference in Buenos 
Aires I attended along with many of our colleagues--delegates from a 
variety of countries came up to us and said very clearly, we need the 
intensity approach in order to avert harsh, clearly unmanageable, 
unattainable consequences of Kyoto. Indeed, a conference delegate from 
Italy informed me and others attending COP-10 that Italy will bow out--
they were early to ratify Kyoto--by 2012 because they couldn't comply 
with phase 2 of the treaty. Remarkable stuff? No. Real stuff. Now that 
the politics have died down, in every country except this one, where we 
still want some degree of political expression--now that the politics 
have died down in these other countries that have ratified the treaty, 
they don't know what to do because they can't get there.

  Let me tell you what they can do. They can follow the guidance and 
direction of the Hagel-Pryor amendment that I hope will become law. In 
that law we will engage with them in the use of our technology to 
advance a cleaner fuel system and systems for the world and not have to 
ask them to turn their economy down.

[[Page S6882]]

  The United States is currently spending in excess of $5 billion 
annually on scientific and technological initiatives. That is far more 
than any other nation in the world. In fact, I believe we are spending 
more as a nation than all of the other nations combined on the issue of 
cleaner emissions--therefore, proclimate change, pro-Kyoto. But nobody 
talks about it because it wasn't one bill. It wasn't one vote. It 
wasn't a great big press conference. It is a collective initiative on 
the part of our Government with some of our direction over the course 
of a decade to become better at what we do and cleaner in how we do it.
  The Bush administration has entered into more than a dozen bilateral 
agreements with other countries to improve their energy efficiencies 
and reduce greenhouse gas growth rates and has received compliments 
from major industries and worked with them to make improvements in the 
use and the effective efficiencies of their energy sources. These 
programs are designed to advance our state of knowledge, accelerate the 
development and deployment of energy technologies, aid developing 
nations in using energy more efficiently, and achieve the 18-percent 
reduction in energy intensity by 2012, as our President laid out.
  Domestically, the United States continues to make world-leading 
investments in climate change and climate science technology. The 
United States has also implemented a wide range of national greenhouse 
gas control initiatives, carbon sequestration, and international 
collaborative agreements.
  Let me cite from a summary of what we have done: The climate change 
technology program, a $3 billion program; the climate change science 
program, a $2 billion program; DOE's registry for greenhouse gas 
reporting, another major program; DOE's climate vision partnership for 
industry reductions that includes 12 major industry sectors and the 
Business Roundtable.
  Here are some examples: Refineries committed to improve energy 
efficiency by 10 percent between 2002 and 2012. The chemical industry 
will improve greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent between 1990 and 
2012. Mining sites committed to increase efficiency by 10 percent. That 
is in that initiative alone.
  EPA'S climate leaders for individual company reductions: Over 60 
major corporate-wide reduction goals are in place, including GM, Alcoa, 
British Petroleum, IBM, Pfizer, and the list goes on and on.
  We could spend an hour talking about the initiatives that are 
underway in this country. What I told the chairman of the Energy 
Committee last night as we discussed the issue of climate change was: 
Mr. Chairman, we ought to take this whole bill and call it the climate 
change bill of 2005. Why? Clean coal, wind, solar, nuclear, hydrogen--
all kinds of incentives and new technologies all designed to keep this 
economy roaring and to keep the economy greener, if you want to say it 
that way, certainly to keep it cleaner.
  Remember the term that I used a few moments ago when I talked about 
the term in the legislation, to dramatically improve our greenhouse gas 
intensity as it relates to emissions per units of economic output. That 
is where the Hagel-Pryor bill goes. That is where this Senate ought to 
be going. But we still have an attitude around here that you have to 
point fingers and you have to inflict pain because that is the only way 
you can sell an idea to the American people. That is wrong. We have 
already proven that if we were to walk the walk and talk the talk of 
Kyoto, there would be 3 million Americans not working today. How would 
we deal with that? A wink and a nod and simply say we did it because it 
makes the world cleaner? I know what my young sons would say who might 
be out of work as a result of that. They would say: Dad, we are the 
smartest country in the world. We are the most technologically 
advanced. We can't figure out a way to do it better?
  Yes, we can. And we are. The Hagel bill does it. That is why we ought 
to be supporting it. The key issue is not whether there is any human 
influence effect on the globe today. Instead the issue is how large any 
human influence may be as it compares with natural variabilities in our 
climate; how costly and how effective human intervention may be in 
reversing, justifying, moderating any form of variability that exists 
out there; if, in fact, we could possibly do it. What technologies may 
be required over the near and long term is to determine all that they 
relate to as it relates to intensity and the climate change issue 
itself.

  It is an important issue for the Senate to address. I believe it has 
been brought to us today in the proper format, not only to drive 
technologies at home but to embrace other countries around the world. 
Why in the air high over Ohio today do we find carbon not from the 
United States but from China? And we do. Gases, carbon-containing 
gases, high in the atmosphere over the United States today are coming 
from the largest burner of coal as a nation in the world. And they are 
outside Kyoto, and we don't do anything about it. The Hagel bill does. 
It embraces them. It begins to work with them.
  It begins to recognize that if we are going to clean up the world 
beyond where it is today, if we did it alone, it would be but a moment 
of time. We must engage our colleagues from all over the world in a 
comprehensive fashion that deals with technology, that causes the world 
to be relatively transparent in all that they do, for the developing 
nations of the world not to say to them, Just turn your lights out and 
stay where you are. They won't. They haven't. And now we need to work 
with them to make sure that in our pursuit of a cleaner world, we allow 
our technology to embrace their problems along with our problems. That 
is recognized and understood by the Hagel-Pryor amendment. I am pleased 
to be a cosponsor of it.
  I urge my colleagues in the final analysis of this debate, this is 
the right direction to go. We ought to take it and be happy we are 
moving in this direction.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Hagel-Pryor 
climate change amendment and to discuss the reality of global warming. 
I also thank my colleagues for some of the kind comments on the Senate 
floor and the kind comments I have heard in the last few days just in 
the hallways around the Senate. They have been encouraging.
  Climate change is not a new issue to this body, to the scientific 
community, or to the public at large. This issue has been discussed, 
dissected, and debated for years--with little or no action. I believe 
this is because the complexities and uncertainties about the magnitude, 
the timing, and the rate of climate change have led to a stalemate on 
policy recommendations.
  Mr. President, Senator Hagel and I, as well as the other cosponsors, 
are trying to move past this stalemate. We bring to the table a market-
driven, technology-based approach that will begin to address this 
controversial yet pressing matter.
  Our amendment--also cosponsored by Senators Alexander, Craig, Dole, 
Murkowski, Voinovich, and Stevens--does not dump all of the 
responsibility on industry, nor does it force a one-size-fits-all 
mandate. Over and over again, we have watched such approaches result in 
failure on the Senate floor. We can no longer afford to do nothing.
  The business and the environmental sectors do not have to be mutually 
exclusive. With this amendment, we treat them as partners brought 
together through innovation for the common and necessary good.
  A third partner in this relationship is the Government, with 
institutional leverage and funding mechanisms that will help spur 
industry to create new technologies targeted at reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions.
  In a nutshell, we are encouraging American ingenuity, partnerships 
and, above all, progress.
  This comprehensive climate change amendment has two main components. 
It identifies what must be accomplished domestically and 
internationally to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  The domestic component of our amendment would authorize the Federal 
Government to make financial commitments for research and development 
and technology.
  The Hagel-Pryor amendment authorizes direct loans, loan guarantees, 
standby default and interest coverage

[[Page S6883]]

for projects which deploy technologies that reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions.
  Additionally, we are asking for an authorization of $2 billion over 5 
years in tax credits to support these technologies and to create a new 
investment and construction tax credit for nuclear power facilities.
  In Little Rock, we have a small company called ThermoEnergy, which is 
developing technology that eliminates most air emission from new fossil 
fuel powerplants. They use a process that increases plant efficiency 
but also eliminates adverse environmental and health effects associated 
with the use of fossil fuels, especially coal. I know there are many 
other companies all over this country that have great potential to 
achieve a broad range of energy security and environmental goals. They 
simply need the resources to expand their capabilities into the 
marketplace.
  Under this amendment, a wide variety of greenhouse gas-reducing 
technologies would be eligible for tax credits or loans, ranging from 
renewable energy products, lower emission transportation, carbon 
sequestration, coal gasification and liquefaction, and other energy 
efficiency enhancements.
  This amendment also establishes a climate coordinating committee and 
climate credit board to assess, approve, and fund projects; and it 
directs the Secretary of Energy to lead an interagency process to 
implement a national climate change strategy. While we deal with 
climate change here in the United States, let us not forget that people 
in other parts of the world are already experiencing the effects of 
global warming.
  I have heard quite a bit about the 11,000 residents of Tuvalu, who 
live on a 10-mile square scattered over the Pacific Ocean near Fiji. 
Tuvalu has no industry, burns little petroleum, and creates less carbon 
pollution than a small town in America. This tiny place, nevertheless, 
is on the front line of climate change. The increasing intensity of 
weather and rising sea level could soon wash away this tiny island. 
Other low-lying countries, such as Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, are 
experiencing similar phenomena.
  The United States is a contributor to climate change, and we must 
take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but we cannot prevent 
global warming on our own. That is why we have included an 
international component to this amendment to encourage developing 
countries to adopt U.S. technologies. In doing so, we have asked the 
Secretary of State and the U.S. Trade Representative to assume 
additional roles.

  First, we provide the Secretary of State with new authority to work 
with developing countries on deployment and demonstration projects and 
technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  Second, the U.S. Trade Representative is directed to negotiate the 
removal of trade-related barriers to the export of greenhouse gas-
reducing technologies.
  Furthermore, this amendment would establish an interagency working 
group to promote the exports of certain technologies and practices.
  It is in the shared interests of the United States and industrialized 
nations to help other countries by sharing cleaner technology.
  Mr. President, this amendment is not the solution for all of our 
climate change problems. It is meant to serve as a catalyst in bringing 
the necessary technology to the marketplace. I am hopeful that with the 
resources provided through this amendment, private industry will 
swiftly create or adopt cleaner technologies as they become available 
and move us in the right direction.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise for a moment to commend the 
Senator from Nebraska and the Senator from Arkansas for their 
leadership on this amendment and, in particular, for their approach. As 
a freshman Member of this body, I have looked forward with anticipation 
to the great debate on the Energy bill. I know that for basically a 
decade we have been without an energy policy and desperately in need of 
one.
  As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and 
because of earlier legislation this year, I am critically aware of the 
climate change concerns and the desires by some to establish absolute 
standards on carbon. Senator Hagel and Senator Pryor have done 
precisely the right thing--precisely the thing America has done over 
and over again to address problems and bring about positive solutions.
  As Senator Pryor just outlined, there is no reason for the business 
and development community of America and the environmental community's 
interests to be mutually exclusive. In fact, they should be mutually 
inclusive. Legislation such as this, which promotes incentives to find 
solutions to greenhouse gases, carbon emissions, develop alternative 
energy sources and new mechanisms of taking old sources such as coal 
and making them clean technologies, is absolutely correct.
  I rise for one purpose, and that is to talk about a prime example of 
what Senators Pryor and Hagel are proposing. A number of years ago, the 
Department of Energy put out competition to ask private sector electric 
generation companies to bid on doing a demonstration project to see if 
coal gasification was possible and through its generation electricity 
could be produced at an economically viable and competitive rate.
  In my neighboring State of Alabama, next to my home of Georgia, in 
Wilsonville, AL, such a project took place in the Southern Company. The 
Department of Energy began a joint project and invested money and 
developed technology that today leads to the construction of a plant in 
Orlando, FL, in conjunction with the Orlando Utility Company, where, 
through the new technique of coal gasification, electricity will be 
generated and retailed in that part of middle Florida without the 
emission of greenhouse gases.
  That is what America is all about--positive incentives to do the 
right thing and to find solutions. This amendment by the Senators from 
Nebraska and Arkansas will do just that. I rise happily to give it my 
endorsement and my support.
  One final comment. As we talk about the need to protect our 
environment and ensure that greenhouse gases don't run away from us and 
that we preserve all that we have, we have to understand that we have 
to incentivize every part of the energy sector and the energy segment, 
and as we develop new technologies, we also ought to reuse and 
reintroduce those great technologies of nuclear and others that have 
produced clean, efficient, reliable energy without the production 
either of carbon or the greenhouse gases.
  So I commend the Senator from Nebraska and the Senator from Arkansas 
on their leadership. I support the Hagel-Pryor amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for 
his good example and his leadership in this legislation. I especially 
salute the Senator from Nebraska for having the unerring good judgment 
to suggest to us the right next step.
  This Energy bill we have been debating in the last 2 weeks and 
working on for the last several months is really a no-carbon, low-
carbon energy bill. Since carbon in the air is the principal 
contributor to the worry about global climate change, this bill is the 
solution to that problem.
  There is still a lot of work to do, and there are a lot of minds that 
are changing, studying, assessing the science, and trying to make 
certain we make good policy judgments here. But anyone who watches this 
debate or reads it closely should understand that, in my view, the 
Senate is developing a clean energy bill. The Senator from Idaho said 
it was a climate change energy bill. But it represents, to me, a 
recognition that it is time to take a more significant step toward 
putting us on a path of transforming the way we create electricity in 
this country and use energy so that we can produce less carbon. A big 
part of that is the concern we have about what we might be doing as 
human beings to cause global climate change.
  So the Senate is like a big train: it is hard to get started, but 
once it gets going, it moves steadily down the track. We are moving 
steadily down the track toward a completely different emphasis on the 
production of

[[Page S6884]]

electricity and the use of energy, and the whole focus is no-carbon and 
low-carbon.
  Sometimes we elected officials have a way of saying things like that, 
and they just turn into little programs that don't amount to much. That 
is not the case here. This is the whole core of this piece of 
legislation. If you are really trying to create a way to produce 
electricity in a country that uses 25 percent of all the energy in the 
world--and that is what we do--you have to start with conservation.
  This legislation, the Domenici-Bingaman legislation that is before 
us, begins with provisions about efficiency, and it has in it 
provisions that will shave off between 20 and 40 percent of the 
anticipated growth of energy demand by 2015.
  It would save the equivalent of building 170 300-megawatt plants. So 
we begin with conservation and we begin with efficiency.
  No. 2, the bill--before we get to the Hagel amendment of which I am 
glad to be a cosponsor--puts a focus on the one way today that we 
create carbon-free electricity far and above everything else, and that 
is nuclear power. If we are worried about global warming, the solution 
is nuclear power. Nuclear power produces 70 percent of our carbon-free 
electricity. We know how to do it, we invented it. We have never had a 
single reactor accident in the dozens of Navy vessels that are powered 
by nuclear reactors that we have used since the 1950s. We have shipped 
this technology to France which now is nearly 80 percent in terms of 
supplying its electricity from nuclear power. Japan builds new nuclear 
powerplants every year.
  If we care about low-carbon, no-carbon electricity, after we have 
aggressive conservation, we should make it easier to produce nuclear 
power, and in a variety of ways this legislation does that.
  Waiting in the wings, if we care about low-carbon, no-carbon power, 
is an example of what the Senator from Georgia talked about. We call 
that coal gasification with carbon sequestration. That is such a long-
sounding title that nobody could possibly imagine what it is. But what 
it does is it simply takes this hundreds and hundreds of years' supply 
of coal that we have and turns it, by burning it, into gas, and then we 
burn the gas. That gets rid of the sulfur, the nitrogen, and the 
mercury, but it leaves the carbon.
  The technology of carbon sequestration is to take that carbon and 
store it in the ground or do something else with it.
  As the Senator from Nebraska has said, if through his initiative, his 
incentive program, we are able to encourage the science and technology 
capacity of the United States and the world to advance through 
demonstration coal gasification, reduce its costs somewhat, and then to 
solve the problem of carbon sequestration, that is the single best way, 
after nuclear power, to create clean air in the world. Many in the 
environmental community prefer it to nuclear power because of their 
concerns about storage of spent fuel and about proliferation.
  So conservation, nuclear power, and coal gasification with carbon 
sequestration are the ways to solve any concerns we might have about 
global warming because, especially with the Hagel-Pryor provisions, we 
are able to accelerate that technology not just for ourselves but for 
the world.
  We also have in this legislation important support for solar power 
which has basically been left out of our renewable production tax 
credit. It has not gotten any of the money--almost any of the money. 
Biomass, which is becoming more important, wind power--many of my 
colleagues know I think we have gone overboard on wind power, but there 
are substantial generous provisions in here.
  Add up all those renewable fuels and they are a few percent. They are 
important, but we have to put them in their proper perspective.
  There is an oil savings amendment in this bill that reduces the 
amount of carbon in the air. And then there is the tax title to the 
Energy bill that we will be considering later this week which Senator 
Grassley, Senator Baucus, and their committee have produced which--with 
a couple of exceptions, which I will talk about at another time--I 
think is a great step forward. It would have to be considered a low-
carbon, no-carbon tax title with clean energy bonds for certified coal 
property, with consumer incentives for hybrid and diesel vehicles.
  There is an amendment being discussed, of which I hope to be a part, 
that would add incentives to retooling automobile plants so that we can 
see that those hybrid cars and advanced diesel vehicles are built in 
the United States and not in Yokohama.
  There is in the tax title energy-efficient proposals to support 
energy-efficient appliances and buildings. There is in the tax title 
support for investment tax credits for the coal gasification plants I 
mentioned.
  There is in the Energy and Natural Resources bill a new financing 
procedure that Senator Domenici has envisioned which would be loan 
guarantees for all of these forms of clean energy.
  There is support for solar deployment, and then there is support for 
advanced nuclear power facilities so that we can build smaller, less 
expensive nuclear power facilities.
  All this adds up to a clean Energy bill that puts its focus on low-
carbon and no-carbon electricity. What Senator Hagel has done is say 
that is a good direction, but let's accelerate it by encouraging 
technology. It is not a top-down idea. It is to say to someone in 
Tennessee or Minnesota who might be producing carbon in their business 
or a utility: Bring us your baseline. Tell us how much carbon you have 
been producing. Tell us how much less you plan to produce. Then this 
board would create the incentives for that, and we would see where we 
go with that.
  There are other important steps, and we are about to debate one of 
them. Senators McCain and Lieberman have worked hard to take us to what 
I would call the next generation or the next step, which would be 
mandatory caps on carbon.
  I have supported one version of legislation that has a mandatory cap 
on carbon. It was the bill introduced by Senator Carper last year. I 
did it primarily because I care about clean air, and I wanted less 
sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury in the air, and it had more aggressive 
standards than the President's proposals. But it also included a carbon 
cap and that fitted my understanding of where the technology is.
  The more I have studied this I think the Hagel approach is the better 
approach because it fits with the low-carbon legislation which we have. 
It accelerates it, gives it some juice. Then I like what Senator 
Domenici said last night in his statement about the discussions we have 
been having with Senator Bingaman about his proposal for the 
possibility of caps.

  Senator Domenici said we should begin immediately, in July, holding 
hearings on the Hagel legislation and on whatever the next steps might 
be. In other words, this is not just passing an energy bill and then 
wait 10 to 15 years and pass another one. This is recognizing we have 
created a completely different direction for production of energy and 
electricity in the United States; that we are adding to it with the 
Hagel amendment; that we have serious proposals from Senators McCain 
and Lieberman, and Senator Bingaman has made some. The National 
Commission on Energy Policy, many of whose suggestions are a part of 
this bill, have made some.
  So my hope is that Chairman Domenici and Senator Bingaman, if we 
should adopt the Hagel amendment, will take us to the next step in July 
and August and let us see how we might implement it and where we might 
go.
  Speaking as one Senator, this is a significant shift of direction. I 
am not willing to go further with mandates at this point. I like the 
concepts, but I am leery of applying such a complex, detailed set of 
mandates as some have proposed to such a big complex economy as we have 
today.
  I prefer the Hagel approach. It is the right next step. It fits 
easily into this no-carbon, low-carbon Energy bill. I salute the 
Senator from Nebraska and the Senator from Arkansas for their 
leadership. I look forward to voting for it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I have a 
unanimous consent request which has been cleared on both sides.

[[Page S6885]]

  I ask unanimous consent that there now be 60 minutes of debate in 
relation to the pending amendment with the following Senators 
recognized: Senator Voinovich, 15 minutes; Senator Reid or his 
designee, 15 minutes; Senator Inhofe, 15 minutes; Senator Hagel, 15 
minutes. I further ask unanimous consent that following the use or 
yielding back of the time the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to 
the Hagel amendment, with no second-degree amendments in order to the 
amendment prior to that vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand that this is satisfactory 
with Senator Hagel.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, it is. I thank the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I know we just set this in motion, but I 
ask Senator Hagel if I could use 2 minutes of his time now.
  Mr. HAGEL. I yield as much time as the chairman needs.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before we are finished with the votes on 
global warming--and I will have a little to say; I will get time from 
somebody--I will present to the Senate a detailed summary of the bill 
that is pending before the Senate in terms of what it does to move the 
United States of America toward a reduction in the so-called greenhouse 
gases led by carbon.
  This bill we are going to vote out of here hopefully tomorrow or the 
next day that we worked so hard on in the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources, with Senator Bingaman, my ranking member, and 
Senators such as Lamar Alexander who have worked very hard, it does 
take some giant steps toward the reduction of carbon in the American 
economy. It does so in ways that if our business communities want to 
spend money and use innovative technology, the opportunities are there.
  If our scientists want to make breakthroughs to clean up, it is 
there. If people want to move with nuclear power, which is the 
cleanest--right now, as my friend from Tennessee has reminded me, 70 
percent of the carbon-free emissions in America come from the nuclear 
powerplants. That is rather astounding. We run around thinking we have 
done so much cleanup, but these very old--old in that we have not built 
one in 23 years--these nuclear powerplants are the ones that are 
cleaning up right now.
  All I am saying is, this bill says if we are right, we are going to 
build some nuclear powerplants during the era of trying to reduce 
carbon. That is going to be part of our world, both economic and 
cleanup world, as provided in this bill.
  We will summarize that. There is no attempt to delude the efficacy of 
the other bills, be it Hagel or McCain, but merely to say we recognized 
this in our committee, but we just did not think we ought to do global 
warming per se. That is where we are.
  The Senate is confronted with the unanimous consent agreement which 
we have just laid before it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I 
ask unanimous consent that time that elapses during the quorum call be 
charged equally to all sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the bipartisan 
amendment proposed by Senators Hagel and Pryor to add a climate change 
title to the Energy bill. I commend them for their leadership on this 
very important issue.
  Man's relationship with the world's climate has long been a focus of 
scientists and policymakers. Thirty years ago, there was great concern 
about global cooling, as evidenced by articles in Science Digest in 
February, 1973, entitled ``Brace Yourself for an Ice Age'' and Time 
Magazine in June, 1974, entitled ``Another Ice Age?''
  Today, many are worried instead about global warming, with claims 
that urgent and dramatic actions are needed to avoid catastrophic 
impacts. As the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Clean Air, 
Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, I have spent a great 
deal of time studying this issue, as our committee has held numerous 
hearings on climate change.
  The chairman of the committee, Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma, has 
spent countless hours personally examining climate change science. He 
has recently given several speeches on the Senate floor, pointing out 
serious flaws in the four principal beliefs underlying what some call a 
consensus on global warming. His work points out very clearly that we 
are far from a consensus and many questions remain.
  I am hopeful today he will take the floor some time to go into more 
of the details on that, as he has in the past.
  Despite the scientific debate, the issue of global warming and 
proposals to address this perceived threat have received a lot of 
attention lately in the Senate. On one side of this debate, there are 
proposals to create a mandatory domestic program to reduce greenhouse 
gas emissions, such as the amendment that will be proposed by Senator 
McCain, to my understanding, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote 
against this amendment.
  It is my understanding that the amendment, according to Charles 
Rivers Associates, which analyzed its provisions, would cause the loss 
of 24,000 to 47,000 Ohio jobs, in 2010, and energy-intensive industries 
to shrink by 2.3 to 5.6 percent in 2020. We are talking about 
manufacturing industries, energy-intensive manufacturing and chemical 
and many others.
  The McCain amendment will put coal out of business by forcing fuel 
switching to natural gas. This might even be why some organizations are 
pushing this amendment. Last year, I was shocked to read that a Sierra 
Legal Defense Fund staff lawyer said:

       In general, our long-term objective is to make sure that 
     coal-fired plants get closed.

  This is an unacceptable outcome for my State and our Nation. Nearly 
90 percent of Ohio's electricity comes from coal. For the Nation, it is 
about 50 percent. Companies depend on this low-cost energy to compete 
in the global marketplace. We do not live in a cocoon. Companies are 
moving overseas because of increased health care costs, litigation 
costs, and energy costs are also a major factor.
  According to a recent survey of industrial executives, the No. 1 
barrier to U.S. manufacturing growth in the coming year is high energy 
prices. It becomes even more costly for companies to operate in this 
country when you consider the new air quality standards for ozone and 
particulate matter. States and localities have yet to fully understand 
how difficult and expensive it will be to come in compliance with the 
standards.
  Over the last decade, the use of natural gas in electricity 
generation has risen significantly, while domestic supplies of natural 
gas have fallen.
  That is why we are trying to do something about more natural gas in 
this Energy bill. The results are predictable: Tightening supplies of 
natural gas, higher natural gas prices, and higher electricity prices.
  Because of this situation, U.S. natural gas prices are the highest in 
the developed world. Families that use natural gas to heat their homes, 
farmers that use it to make fertilizer, and the manufacturers who use 
it as a feed stock are getting hammered due to these higher costs.
  The chemical industry's 8-decade run as a major exporter ended in 
2003 with a $19 billion trade surplus in 1997 becoming a $9.6 billion 
deficit.
  So we have lost the chemical industry for all intents and purposes 
because of the high cost of natural gas.
  The President of one major pharmaceutical company that employs 22,000 
people in the United States called me recently and said unless we do 
something about natural gas prices, his company will be forced to move 
many of its operations overseas.
  The bottom line is, if you kill coal with a mandatory cap on carbon, 
you force more people to go to natural gas to produce electricity. We 
just add to the crisis that we already have.
  The energy bill tries to address this crisis, but the amendment we 
are going

[[Page S6886]]

to be getting later on would reverse those efforts and cause an even 
worse situation than what exists today. The U.S. has a responsibility 
to develop a policy that harmonizes the needs of our economy and our 
environment. These are not competing needs. A sustainable environment 
is critical to a strong economy, and a sustainable economy is critical 
to providing the funding necessary to improve our environment.
  If we kill the golden goose, we will not have the money for the 
technology to do the things that we need to do, to improve the 
environment. A carbon cap--and that is what we are going to be hearing 
more about--means fuel switching, the end of manufacturing in my State, 
enormous burdens on the least of our brethren, and moving jobs and 
production overseas.
  It is already happening. We have a $162 billion trade deficit with 
China and almost all of it is in the manufacturing area. These are 
people who are moving out because of the high cost of producing here in 
the United States.
  Ironically, a carbon cap, a cap on carbon, as I say, is going to have 
a dramatic negative impact on our manufacturing. A couple of years ago, 
when Senator Jeffords was promoting a bill that would put a cap on 
carbon, I said to him: Senator, those jobs that you are killing in Ohio 
are not going to Vermont. They are going to China, and they are going 
to go to India.
  I have also discussed this issue twice with British Prime Minister 
Tony Blair, who has made climate change one of the focuses of the 
upcoming G8 meeting. I think he understands that Kyoto is not working, 
and we need to do something else.
  Furthermore, many of the countries that did ratify the Kyoto treaty 
are not expected to meet their commitments. According to a Washington 
Times article of May 16 entitled ``Broken Promises, Hot Air,'' 12 of 
the 15 European Union countries are currently 20 to 70 percent above 
their emissions target levels.
  I think the Senator from Idaho mentioned earlier in his remarks that 
the Italians have basically said they are not going to be able to meet 
their commitments that they made when they signed the Kyoto treaty.
  So last week I became a cosponsor of three pieces of legislation that 
comprehensively address climate change by focusing on tax incentives, 
technology development, and international deployment.
  The amendment that we have proposed today contains the domestic and 
international proposal. It does not include the tax incentives because 
the Energy bill now includes an amendment by the Finance Committee to 
add over $14 billion, over 10 years, in tax incentives.
  I will only briefly explain the amendment since it has been explained 
by colleagues. It proposes the adoption of technologies that reduce 
greenhouse gas intensity by creating a Climate Coordinating Committee 
and Climate Credit Board to assess, approve, and fund projects. 
Addressing climate change must be accomplished through the development 
of new technologies, as there currently is no technology available to 
capture and control carbon dioxide emissions.
  Many people today are promoting combined gas--integrated gas combined 
cycle technology, which will reduce NOx and SOx and deal with mercury. 
The fact of the matter is, in terms of greenhouse gases, it does not 
get the job done.
  Second, the amendment focuses on the notion that all nations must be 
part of this effort. It directs the Department of State to work with 
the top 25 greenhouse gas-emitting developing countries to reduce their 
greenhouse gas intensity. It also promotes the export of greenhouse gas 
intensity reducing technologies.
  I really think, if this amendment to the Energy bill is agreed to, it 
is something the President, when he goes to the G8 meeting, can refer 
to in terms of its importance, getting everybody at the table to start 
to do something realistic about the problem of greenhouse gases.
  I am concerned that the very nature of this amendment is misleading; 
that is, that we are adding a climate title to the Energy bill, which 
means that maybe it does not address climate change. This is not true.
  I commend Senators Domenici and Bingaman for putting together a 
bipartisan energy bill that deals with climate change in several ways. 
In other words, the underlying bill already deals with climate change.
  First, the bill provides research and development funding for long-
term zero- or low-emitting greenhouse technologies. These include fuel 
cells, hydrogen cells, coal gasification--with the greatest potential 
to capture and control carbon dioxide emissions.
  Second, the bill includes extensive provisions to increase energy 
conservation.
  Third, the bill promotes the use of nuclear power, which is 
emissions-free power. There is no greenhouse gas with nuclear power.
  I restate this for my colleagues: The Energy bill already addresses 
climate change. For all those concerned about climate change, the 
underlying bill deals with it. The Hagel-Pryor amendment simply adds to 
these provisions. Let me restate this for my colleagues: This bill, 
without any amendments, including ours, addresses climate change.
  Some might be further misled to think that our country is currently 
not doing anything because the Energy bill does all of this to address 
a climate change. However, this is far from the truth. In fact, our 
Nation is taking so many actions on this front that I am going to try 
to run through them very quickly. In other words, we are doing an 
enormous amount in our country in terms of greenhouse gases and dealing 
with this whole issue of carbon emissions.
  The President established a climate change policy to reduce the 
greenhouse gas intensity of our economy by 18 percent over the next 10 
years through voluntary measures. This is more than most of the 
countries involved in the Kyoto Protocol. Unlike the rest of the world, 
we are on target to meet our goal--not like the Europeans, 12 to 70 
percent away from meeting their goals.
  We have the Climate VISION Partnership which involves 12 major 
industrial sectors and the members of the Business Roundtable who have 
committed to work with Cabinet agencies to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions in the next decade.
  We have the climate leader's program, an EPA partnership encouraging 
individual companies to develop long-term comprehensive climate change 
strategy. Sixty-eight corporations are already participating in the 
program.
  The administration's budget for 2006 is $5.5 billion for extensive 
climate change technology and science programs and energy tax 
incentives.
  The United States is also taking a lead internationally--and again, 
we get no credit. There is $198 million included in the President's 
fiscal year 2006 budget for international climate change.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator is expired.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I extend the time of the Senator from Ohio 
by another 3 minutes if that would assist the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. As I mentioned, we are taking a lead internationally. 
The United States is by far the largest funder of activities under the 
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Also, despite complaints to 
the contrary, the United States remains fully engaged in multilateral 
negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 
Change.
  Announced by EPA in July of 2004, along with 13 other countries, the 
Methane-to-Markets partnership is a new and innovative program to help 
promote energy security, improve environmental quality, and reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions throughout the world.
  The United States hosted the first Ministerial Meeting of the 
International Partnership for Hydrogen Economy, the Carbon 
Sequestration Leadership Forum and Earth Observation Summit. We never 
hear anything about this. It is as if we are doing nothing.
  Despite all that we are doing and all that is contained in the Energy 
bill, we can even do more by passing this amendment proposed today by 
Senators Hagel and Pryor. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against 
any amendments that contain mandatory

[[Page S6887]]

programs which work against the very purpose of the Energy bill and 
cause substantial harm to our economy, its workers, and our families. 
Instead, I urge the support of this bipartisan amendment which builds 
on all we are doing and will do under the Energy bill to address 
climate change responsibly and comprehensively.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. It is my understanding I have 13 minutes.
  Mr. President, first of all, let me commend Senator Hagel for the 
work he has done and for the realistic approach he is taking. Right 
now, there is so much misinformation out there in conjunction with the 
whole issue of climate change.
  Someone said the other day that climate change is not a scientific 
discussion, it is a religion. People have such strong feelings about it 
or they want to believe so badly. If my staff had the charts, I would 
show a few of them, but I will wait until we are debating the McCain-
Lieberman bill to show them.
  I vividly remember not too long ago the front page of Time magazine, 
the front page of Science magazine, huge pictures: Another ice age is 
coming; we are all going to die. If some people cannot be hysterical 
and think the end is coming, they are not happy.
  One important area in this debate is to recognize, as I think the 
Senator from Idaho and the Senator from Ohio both did, that this 
President has done quite a bit more than science would justify in 
pursuing the notion, first of all, is there a warming trend that is 
outside of natural variances; No. 2, if that is the case, is it due to 
anthropogenic gasses--methane, CO2. I suggest science does 
not show that either is true. It is not just me saying this. I don't 
know why people totally ignore the fact that we had the Heidelburg 
accords, when 4,000 scientists questioned that there is any major 
change.
  By the way, this morning's Wall Street Journal plots out the changes 
in the Earth's surface since 1000 A.D. and what has perhaps caused 
these changes. They have come to the conclusion that it could not be 
anthropogenic gases because at that time there were not any. There were 
not human-induced gases until about 1940.
  In 1940, what happened? In 1940, there was a cooling period that went 
all the way to the end of the 1970s. That is when you saw all the 
articles saying the ice age is coming. The largest increase in 
anthropogenic gases came right around 1940 and following World War II. 
You know, instead of precipitating a warming period, it precipitated a 
cooling period. So just the opposite of what they are saying seems to 
be true.
  We have the Heidelburg accords, 4,000 scientists say there is not a 
relationship between manmade gases and climate change. Then we have the 
Oregon Petition and 17,000 scientists coming to the same conclusion. We 
have the Smithsonian-Harvard peer-reviewed study that evaluated 
everything done so far and came to that same conclusion.
  Since 1999, science has been on the other side refuting the fact 
that, No. 1, climate is changing; and No. 2, it is due to manmade gases 
or to anthropogenic gases.
  People do not realize what this President has done. One would think 
by reading some of the magazines, publications, and watching TV that 
this President is not doing a good job with the environment. He is 
doing everything he can to determine if there is a relationship between 
these anthropogenic gases and climate change. If anyone does not 
believe it, look at the amount of money being spent. His 2006 budget 
proposed $5.5 billion for climate change programs, energy tax 
incentives, and these types of things. I see the Hagel bill as 
extending what the President is doing right now and is actually 
addressing what is happening internationally.
  I was very pleased to be part of the 95-to-0 vote on the Hagel-Byrd 
amendment some time ago that said that if you go to Kyoto meeting, we 
should oppose signing on to any kind of a treaty that does not treat 
developing countries the same as developed nations. That is exactly 
what happened.
  Now, at least in the Hagel approach, we are looking internationally. 
It is true, what the Senator from Idaho said a few minutes ago. Over 
the State of Ohio, if you get high up, that which is up there 
originated in China. The pollution--not that that is pollution, because 
it is not, it is a fertilizer. But in terms of SOx, NOx, mercury, they 
do not stop at State lines.
  We have a President giving the benefit of the doubt to the fact there 
might be something there. He is putting money into research. The Hagel 
bill is carrying that on to a logical conclusion.
  Quite frankly, when the Hagel bill first came up, I was a little 
concerned because the price tag, as I calculated it--and I would 
certainly stand to be corrected if it is not accurate--would have been 
$4 billion over a 5-year period; around $800 million a year. To add 
that to what is already being expended--perhaps we are talking about 
too much money. He has changed it and said such sums ``as necessary.'' 
This is a little bit disturbing to me. We do not know who will be in 
the White House. We do not know who will control Congress. We do not 
know what will happen in the future. I hate to leave it open-ended like 
that.

  When we look at the arguments out there, we will have ample time to 
debate when the next amendment comes up--the McCain Lieberman 
amendment--that the science clearly has turned around and is in favor 
right now of refuting some of the earlier suggestions.
  This whole thing started in 1998 when Michael Mann from Virginia came 
out with his hockey stick theory. He plotted out all the temperatures 
and came through the 20th century. Temperatures started going up as of 
late on the hockey stick. What he neglected to realize, prior to that 
time, the medieval warming period, which was around 1000 to 1300 A.D., 
the temperatures were actually higher at that time than they were in 
the 20th century.
  All these things are going to be discussed in the next amendment. I 
believe that reason is prevailing in this approach. I applaud the 
Senator from Nebraska for coming up with something measured and 
reasonable that will help convince a lot of the people that are right 
now participating in this religion called global warming to realize 
maybe this is something for which we shouldn't have to suffer 
economically.
  A lot of people have asked the question, If the science is not there 
and if we know as a result of the Wharton Econometric Survey that it 
will cause a dramatic increase in the cost of energy--it will cost each 
average family of four $2,700 a year--if the science is not there, what 
is the motivation? I suggest there are people outside of the United 
States who would love to see us become partners and sign on to the 
Kyoto treaty.
  Jacques Chirac said global warming is not about climate change but 
for leveling the playing field for big business worldwide. The same 
thing was stated by Margot Wallstrom, the Environmental Minister for 
the European Union, that it is leveling that playing field.
  Cooler heads are prevailing, and in this amendment we have a chance 
to look at this, study this as time goes by, and take whatever actions 
are necessary in the future but not react to fictitious science and to 
science that just flat is not there.
  I applaud the Senator from Nebraska for the fine work he has done. I 
believe this will be a good approach to making this through the current 
debate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President; is there a quorum 
call?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, there is not.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Further parliamentary inquiry; what is the regular 
order at this point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is divided between three speakers on 
the Hagel amendment, and each have time remaining. Senator Inhofe has 1 
minute, Senator Hagel has 6 minutes, and Senator Reid or his designee 
has 10 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Further parliamentary inquiry: Is there any other time 
on behalf of any other Senators on either side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, there is not.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Might I ask, when those are finished, what is the 
regular order after that?

[[Page S6888]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will then vote on the Hagel 
amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on 
the Hagel amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, they have not.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask the Senator, would you like to get the yeas and 
nays on your amendment?
  Mr. HAGEL. I say to the chairman, I am waiting for one additional 
sponsor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We can get the yeas and nays now?
  Mr. HAGEL. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays at this 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. I ask 
unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have a very detailed analysis I would 
like put in the Record which relates to provisions within the Bingaman-
Domenici bill that is before the Senate which would promote responsible 
progress on climate change.
  What I tried to do here was to say to the Senate: Please understand 
that your Energy and Natural Resources Committee, from the inception, 
was worried about climate change and the gases that have an impact on 
climate change according to scientists in the United States. Now, there 
are some who contest that, but let me just follow through.
  The bill before us might even have been called the Clean Energy Act 
because so much of it is directed at producing, in the future, for 
these United States, energy that will have little or no effect in terms 
of emitting carbon that is the principal problem with global warming. 
Having said that, the statement goes into detail. Indeed, it is a 
detailed statement.
  So I would, just for summary, say there is an entire title which we 
chose to call Incentives For Innovative Technology, title XIV of the 
bill. This is a very different section than you find in most 
technology-promoting or science-promoting bills because it says this 
entire provision is aimed at new technologies that will produce energy 
sources that have no global warming emissions.
  Then it says, in order to do that, the Secretary of Energy--we put 
all this in the Energy Department so there is no mixup as to who is 
doing what--it allows so-called guaranteed loans to be issued for the 
purpose of building clean energy-producing plants, mechanisms, or 
activities. It says the Secretary shall analyze them. If they are 
feasible, he can use whatever peer review he would like.
  Then they ask of the Congressional Budget Office: How much should 
this loan require by way of insurance, insurance for the risk? If they 
say 10 percent, then the company asking for the money to build the new 
technology, which will produce clean energy, has to put up 10 percent 
of the cost in cash. And then we lend them the money, on an 80-20 
basis, and they proceed, under the direction of the Secretary, to 
produce this new facility.
  We believe this is going to say to our Federal Government for the 
first time: Take a look out there and see what we can do in the next 
decade to move new technology along that will take the carbon out of 
coal, perhaps even move with the very first generation of pilot 
projects for the sequestration of coal and of carbon--meaning get rid 
of it, putting it in the ground or whatever. At the same time, who 
knows, that technology may take the mercury and other pollutants out of 
it.
  But we are going to put in place an opportunity for the Secretary to 
do this so long as he thinks they are moving in the right direction. 
And the right direction is the same direction as the technology-laden 
proposal by Senator Hagel.
  We also have in this bill expanded research and development for 
bioenergy which concentrates on solar. We expanded R&D for nuclear 
power. Now, for anybody interested in that, that is completely 
different than the incentives to build nuclear powerplants soon. This 
is research and development in what we call Generation IV. It is the 
next, next generation of nuclear powerplants. And we start moving on 
that. Why? Because there is a lot of money and a lot of hope that we 
will be moving toward a hydrogen economy. I am not predicting that will 
be the case but many are.
  In any event, it is sufficiently important. The President moved in 
that direction. This bill and the appropriators have spent money in 
that way. And what we are saying in this bill is that we should spend 
money for the next-two-generations-out nuclear powerplants because that 
kind of powerplant may be the source of heat that will produce 
hydrogen.
  At this point hydrogen must be produced. But the other day Senator 
Bingaman and I were on a television show and somebody asked: How are we 
going to produce hydrogen? My friend from New Mexico said right now we 
could produce it from natural gas. I had forgotten about that. That is 
true. But natural gas is in short supply, and it takes a lot of it to 
produce hydrogen. So we need another source. That R&D for a new 
generation of powerplants is aiming in the same direction as everything 
I have spoken of. It is seeking a way to get away from carbon-laden 
energy and move with more hydrogen potential.
  This bill has an 8 billion gallon renewable fuel standard, which 
means ethanol. Many people around here and some in the country have 
said ethanol isn't any good. We should not be doing it. Maybe when the 
price of crude oil was $8 or $7--I can remember when Senator Henry 
Bellmon from Oklahoma was here, it was $6. He used to say the 
arithmetic doesn't work. At $6 it is not worth producing ethanol. But 
at the price now, it is worth it. I don't know if eight is the right 
number, but we did that here because we said if we can produce ethanol, 
we will have had a dramatic effect on the prospect of contributing more 
carbon, which is what Senator Hagel is trying to do in his technology-
pushing amendment, is to produce less carbon, thus less pressure on 
what many believe is the human contributor to global warming. There is 
another one that is in this bill. Senator Hagel doesn't have to have 
ethanol in his bill because ethanol is in this bill.
  We also require alternative fuel use, dual fuel in all Federal 
vehicles. We have reforms for alternative fuel programs. We have some 
incentives for hybrid cars. On the nuclear side, we all think that new 
nuclear powerplants is one of the best ways to address the issue of 
carbon in the atmosphere and global warming. I think my friend from 
Nebraska would agree. Right now in America 70 percent of the carbon-
clean smokestack gases, 70 percent that is totally free of carbon comes 
from nuclear powerplants. So the underlying bill says: Let's build some 
nuclear powerplants. And it does everything possible, extending Price 
Anderson. So I would assume that if you had a tax-promoting bill that 
didn't have this underlying bill that we produced in our committee, say 
it was a standalone Hagel bill, he might even put Price Anderson in 
there because in a sense it would surely be moving the technology ahead 
by providing some of the security necessary for nuclear power.
  Beyond that, we have changes in the geothermal leasing to get more 
geothermal. Everywhere we turn in the bill we have produced we have 
moved in the direction of trying to produce carbon-free energy for the 
future.
  As I understand it, the distinguished Senator from Nebraska and his 
sponsors want to move in that direction with loan guarantees and other 
kinds of consortia arrangements to move ahead with technology. They 
have an international feature to their bill. Obviously, we don't have 
an international feature to our bill, but Senator Hagel has chosen to 
put some provisions in that would move us in the right direction if 
they can become law. It says that the world has a problem, not just 
America, and that the international community, with America as part of 
it, ought to do some things to move ahead with global warming 
contributors that will come from outside the United States, which is a 
very good idea.
  I ask that my full analysis of the bill before us, before the Hagel 
amendment, which will be amplified if the Hagel

[[Page S6889]]

amendment is agreed to--this statement shows everything we are doing in 
this bill to contribute to cleaner energy sources for the future in 
terms of our electricity production which will greatly minimize carbon 
production--I ask unanimous consent that summary be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            The Senate Energy Bill Addresses Climate Change

       Support for the provisions in the energy bill passed by the 
     Senate Energy Committee would promote responsible progress on 
     climate change.


                               HIGHLIGHTS

       The Bingaman RPS floor amendment that requires at least 10% 
     of electricity in 2020 to be generated from low-emission 
     renewable sources, such as solar, wind, geothermal and 
     biomass. EIA estimates that such an RPS would result in a 
     reduction of greenhouse gases of nearly 3 percent by 2025.
       In addition, the energy efficiency improvements embodied in 
     Title I is estimated by ACEEE to reduce carbon dioxide 
     emissions by 433 million metric tons by 2020 and reduce 
     electricity demand by 23 quadrillion Btus.
       The incentive provisions contained in Titles IV (Coal), IX 
     (R&D), and XIV (Incentives) are designed to improve 
     efficiency performance and reduce carbon emissions from 
     electric generating stations, industrial power and 
     gasification applications and to encourage the development of 
     new clean energy sources such as advanced nuclear power and 
     renewable energy.


                         Long Term Technologies

       Research in the energy bill could lead to fundamental 
     reductions in GHG emission trends even with a healthy growing 
     economy. The new technologies could be used in developing 
     countries where greenhouse gas emissions are growing most 
     rapidly. R&D on Long-term zero-greenhouse gas (GHG) and low-
     GHG technologies include:
       Hydrogen Fuels--funding enhances the potential for 
     practical use of hydrogen fuels by addressing everything from 
     safe delivery to the codes and standards for hydrogen use.
       Coal Gasification, Carbon Sequestration and Efficiency 
     Improvements--could allow coal to be used to generate carbon-
     free or low-carbon electricity.
       Fuel Cell Research--will address technical and cost issues 
     and potentially speed fuel cell use in residential, 
     commercial and transportation applications.
       Energy Conservation and Efficiency--the Next Generation 
     Lighting Initiative and initiatives like advanced electric 
     motor control device research could significantly reduce 
     overall energy use, further reducing GHG emissions.


                         Near-term Technologies

       The energy bill promotes or requires actions to improve 
     energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions 
     throughout the economy. Research and incentives for near- and 
     medium-term zero and low-GHG intensive technologies include:
       National Requirements for increased ethanol use and 
     decreased petroleum use;
       Federal Agency Requirements covering metering, percentage 
     reduction schedules and new options for contracting to reduce 
     energy use and GHG emissions;
       Communities and States have new funding for energy 
     efficient appliance programs, weatherization assistance and 
     state energy conservations plans;
       Efficiency Standards and Incentives for Public Housing will 
     improve energy efficiency;
       Efficiency Standards and Incentives for Individuals and 
     Businesses adds energy conservation standards for a wide 
     range of commercial appliances and other products.


                        Near term Energy Sources

       Incentives and improved flexibility for near- and medium-
     term expansion of zero and low-GHG energy sources include:
       Renewable Energy options for increased production of 
     renewable energy on federal lands;
       Natural Gas incentives and reduction of barriers to 
     marginal or unconventional natural gas and installation of 
     LNG terminals will increase supplies of this lowest-carbon 
     fossil fuel;
       Nuclear Power options improve, promoting continued use of 
     carbon-free nuclear power, development of new modular nuclear 
     reactors.

  Details on the Energy Bill's Contribution to Energy Efficiency and 
                       Responsible Climate Policy

       The energy bill advances the following significant actions 
     on potential climate change.

  Critical Research, Development and Demonstration of Zero or Low-GHG 
                           Technology Options


                                Hydrogen

       Authorizes $12.5 billion over 10 years for the Next 
     Generation Nuclear Plant Project for research, development, 
     design, construction and operation of an advanced, next-
     generation, nuclear energy system leading to alternative 
     approaches to reactor-based generation of hydrogen. (Title 
     VI--Nuclear Matters, Sec. 631-635--6/8/05)
       Authorizes $3.2 billion over five years for programs 
     enhancing the potential for using as an energy source in the 
     U.S. economy. Program elements address:
       Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Research and Development 
     ($1.9 billion);
       Hydrogen Supply and Fuel Cell Demonstration Program ($1.3 
     billion);
       Development of Safety Codes and Standards ($38 million);
       Reports ($7.5 million); (Title VIII--Hydrogen--6/8/05)


                           Energy Efficiency

       Authorizes $1.8 billion over nine years for the Clean Coal 
     Power Initiative for projects that advance efficiency, 
     environmental performance or cost competitiveness of coal 
     gasification and related projects. Establishes a 60% thermal 
     efficiency target for coal gasification technologies and 7% 
     improvements in thermal efficiencies of existing units. 
     (Title IV-Coal, Sec. 401, 402, 405, 406, 407--6/8/05)
       Authorizes $2.8 billion over eight years for energy 
     efficiency and conservation research, development, 
     demonstration and commercial applications including:
       Minimum $400 million over eight years for the Next 
     Generation Lighting Initiative for energy efficient advanced 
     solid-state lighting technologies. (Title IX: Research and 
     Development, Sec. 911, 912--6/8/05)
       Creates National Building Performance Initiative to, in 
     part, energy conservation. (Title IX: Research and 
     Development, Sec. 913--6/8/05)
       Minimum $21 million over three years for research, 
     development and demonstration for improving performance, 
     service life and cost of used vehicle batteries in secondary 
     applications. (Title IX: Research and Development, Sec. 911, 
     914--6/8/05)
       Minimum $105 million over three years for Energy Efficiency 
     Science Initiative. (Title IX: Research and Development, Sec. 
     915--6/8/05)
       $825 million over three years to promote distributed energy 
     and electric energy systems including:
       High Power Density Industry Program to improve the energy 
     efficiency of data centers, server farms and 
     telecommunications facilities; (Title IX: Research and 
     Development, Sec. 921--6/8/05)
       Micro-Cogeneration Energy Technology for increased 
     efficiency in small-scale combined heat and power for 
     residential applications; (Title IX: Research and 
     Development, Sec. 923--6/8/05)
       Distributed Energy Technology Demonstration Program to 
     accelerate utilization of efficient and low-emitting 
     technologies such as fuel cells, micro-turbines and combined 
     heat and power systems. (Title IX: Research and Development, 
     Sec. 924--6/8/05)
       Electric Transmission and Distribution Programs to ensure 
     in part, energy efficiency of electrical transmission and 
     distribution systems. (Title IX: Research and Development, 
     Sec. 925--6/8/05)
       Authorizes $140 million over five years for fuel cell 
     research on proton exchange membrane technology for 
     commercial, residential and transportation applications. 
     (Title IX: Research and Development, Sec. 951, 952--6/8/05)
       Authorizes $891 million over three years for R&D and 
     commercial application programs to facilitate systems 
     including integrated gasification combined cycle, advanced 
     combustion systems, turbines for synthesis gas derived from 
     coal, carbon capture and sequestration research and 
     development. (Title IX: Research and Development, Sec. 951, 
     955--6/8/05)
       Establishes a Federal/State cooperative program for 
     research, development, and deployment of energy efficiency 
     technologies. (Title I--Energy Efficiency, Sec. 126--6/8/05)
       Authorizes $110 million over three years to establish a 
     research partnership to develop and demonstrate railroad 
     locomotive technologies that, in part, increase fuel economy. 
     (Title VII--Vehicles and Fuels, Sec. 721--6/8/05)
       Mandates a study of feasibility and effects of reducing the 
     use of fuel for automobiles. (Title XIII--Studies, Sec. 
     1309--6/8/05)
       Calls for a study of how to measure energy efficiency. 
     (Title XIII--Studies, Sec. 1323--6/8/05)


                            Renewable Energy

       Authorizes $20 billion over three years for renewable 
     energy research, development and demonstration including:
       Biofuels research aimed at making fuels that are price-
     competitive with gasoline or diesel in internal combustion or 
     fuel- cell-powered vehicles; (Title IX: Research and 
     Development, Sec. 931, 932--6/8/05)
       Concentrating Solar Power Research Program for the 
     production of hydrogen including cogeneration of hydrogen and 
     electricity. (Title IX: Research and Development, Sec. 931, 
     933--6/8/05)
       Hybrid Solar lighting R&D for novel lighting that combines 
     sunlight and electrical lighting. (Title IX: Research and 
     Development, Sec. 934--6/8/05)
       Evaluation of other technologies including ocean, wave, 
     wind, and coal gasification technologies; (Title IX: Research 
     and Development, Sec. 935--6/8/05)
       Establishes a Federal/State cooperative program for 
     research, development, and deployment of renewable energy 
     technologies. (Title I--Energy Efficiency, Sec. 126--6/8/05)
       Establishes the Advanced Biofuel Technologies Program to 
     demonstrate advanced technologies for the production of 
     alternative transportation fuels. (Title II--Renewable 
     Energy, Sec. 209--6/8/05)
       Requires a study of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and its 
     impact on alternative fueled vehicle technology, availability 
     of technology and cost of alternative fueled vehicles. (Title 
     XIII--Studies, Sec. 1305--6/8/05)

[[Page S6890]]

       Requires a strategy for a research, development, 
     demonstration, and commercial application program to develop 
     hybrid distributed power systems that combine one or more 
     renewable electric power generation technologies. (Title 
     XIII--Studies, Sec. 1310--6/8/05)


                                Nuclear

       Authorizes $1.6 billion over 3 years for Nuclear Energy 
     research, development, demonstration and commercial 
     application activities including:
       Research to examine reactor designs for large-scale 
     production of hydrogen using thermochemical processes. (Title 
     IX: Research and Development, Sec. 942--6/8/05)
       Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization Program to address 
     productivity, reliability, and availability of nuclear 
     plants. (Title IX: Research and Development, Sec. 942--6/8/
     05)
       Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems initiative to advance 
     understanding of efficiency and cost opportunities for next 
     generation nuclear power plants. (Title IX: Research and 
     Development, Sec. 942--6/8/05)


                             Sequestration

       Establishes grant program to encourage projects that 
     sequester carbon dioxide as part of enhanced oil recovery. 
     (Title III--Oil and Gas, Sec. 327--6/8/05)
       Mandates research on technologies to capture carbon dioxide 
     from pulverized coal combustion units. (Title IX--Research 
     and Development, Sec. 956--6/8/05)
       Institutes loan guarantees for projects that avoid, reduce, 
     or sequester anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and 
     employ new or significantly improved technologies. (Title 
     XIV--Incentives for Innovative Technologies, Sec. 1401-1404--
     6/8/05)


                                Science

       Authorizes $13.7 billion over three years for basic science 
     research that could have significant implications for long-
     term trends in the nation's greenhouse gas emissions. (Title 
     IX: Research and Development, Sec. 961--6/8/05). These 
     programs include:
       Fusion Energy Science Program (Sec. 962);
       Fusion and Fusion Energy Materials Research Program (Sec. 
     969);
       Catalysis science research that may contribute to new fuels 
     for energy production and more efficient material fabrication 
     processes (Sec. 964);
       Nanoscale science and engineering research (Sec. 971);
       Advanced scientific computing for energy missions (Sec. 
     967);
       Genomes to Life Program with a goal of developing 
     technologies and methods that will facilitate production of 
     fuels, including hydrogen, and convert carbon dioxide to 
     organic carbon (Sec. 968).

 Use of High-Efficiency Technologies and Zero or Low-GHG Energy Sources


                                National

       Mandates that motor vehicle fuel sold in U.S. contains 4 
     billion gallons of renewable fuel in 2006, rising to 8 
     billion gallons in 2012. (Title II--Renewable Energy, Sec. 
     204--6/8/05)
       Establishes a self-sustaining national public energy 
     education program which will cover, among other things, 
     conservation and energy efficiency, and the impact of energy 
     use on the environment. (Title I--Energy Efficiency, Sec. 
     133--6/8/05)
       Authorizes $450 million over five years to create a 
     comprehensive national public awareness program regarding the 
     need to reduce energy consumption, the benefits of reducing 
     energy consumption during peak use periods, and practical, 
     cost-effective energy conservation measures. (Title I--Energy 
     Efficiency, Sec. 134--6/8/05)
       Requires the President to implement measures to reduce U.S. 
     petroleum consumption by one million barrels per day in 2015 
     as compared to 2005 EIA reference case. (Title I--Energy 
     Efficiency, Sec. 151--6/8/05)


                            Federal Agencies

       Directs Secretary of Energy to revise Federal building 
     energy efficiency performance standards to require, if life-
     cycle cost-effective, that new Federal buildings achieve 
     energy consumption levels at least 30 percent below the most 
     recent version of ASHRAE or the International Energy 
     Conservation Code. (Title I--Energy Efficiency, Sec. 107--6/
     8/05)
       Promotes plans for energy and water savings measures in 
     Congressional buildings as well as reductions in energy 
     consumption in federal buildings nationwide. Authorizes $10 
     million over five years for the Architect of the Capitol to 
     carry out the Master Plan Study. (Title: I--Energy 
     Efficiency, Sec. 101--6/8/05)
       Establishes percentage reduction schedule for fuel use per 
     gross square foot of Federal buildings for 2006 through 2015. 
     (Title: I--Energy Efficiency, Sec. 102--6/8/05)
       Calls for all Federal buildings to be metered or sub-
     metered to promote efficient energy use and reduce 
     electricity costs. (Title I--Energy Efficiency, Sec. 103--6/
     8/05)
       Directs federal agencies to procure Energy Star or FEMP 
     designated-energy efficient products. (Title I--Energy 
     Efficiency, Sec. 104--6/8/05)
       Permanently extends and expands existing federal agency 
     authority to contract with energy service companies to assume 
     the capital costs of installing energy and water conservation 
     equipment and renewable energy systems in federal facilities, 
     and recover life-cycle energy cost savings over the term of 
     the contract. (Title I--Energy Efficiency, Sec. 105--6/8/05)
       Authorizes the Secretary of Energy to enter into voluntary 
     agreements with energy intensive industrial sector entities 
     to significantly reduce the energy intensity of their 
     production activities. (Title I--Energy Efficiency, Sec. 
     106--6/8/05)
       Promotes increased use of recovered mineral component in 
     Federally funded projects involving procurement of cement or 
     concrete. (Title I--Energy Efficiency, Sec. 108--6/8/05)
       Amends the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to require Federal 
     agencies to purchase ethanol-blended gasoline and biodiesel. 
     (Title II--Renewable Energy, Sec. 205--6/8/05)
       Amends Energy Policy and Conservation Act to promote 
     Federal agencies' use of alternative fuels in duel-fuel 
     vehicles. (Title VII--Vehicles and Fuels, Sec. 701--6/8/05)
       Requires energy savings goals for each Federal agency and 
     requires the use of fuel cell vehicles, hydrogen energy 
     systems, and stationary, portable, and micro fuel cells. 
     Authorizes $450 million over five years to achieve these 
     goals. (Title VII--Vehicles and Fuels, Sec. 732, 733--6/8/05)
       Mandates a study on energy conservation implications of 
     widespread adoption of telecommuting by Federal employees. 
     (Title XIII--Studies, Sec. 1324--6/8/05)
       Requires a study on the amount of oil demand that could be 
     reduced by oil bypass filtration technology and total 
     integrated thermal systems and feasibility of using the 
     technologies in Federal motor vehicle fleets. (Title XIII--
     Studies, Sec. 1325, 1326--6/8/05)


                         Communities and States

       Amends the Energy Conservation and Production Act and 
     reauthorizes $1.2 billion over three years for weatherization 
     assistance. (Title I--Energy Efficiency, Sec. 121--6/8/05)
       Authorizes $325 million over three years and amends the 
     Energy Policy and Conservation Act to promote State review 
     their energy conservation plans, with a state energy 
     efficiency goal of a 25 percent or more improvement by 2012 
     compared to 1992. (Title I--Energy Efficiency, Sec. 122--6/8/
     05)
       Authorizes $250 million over five years for State energy 
     efficient appliance rebate programs. (Title I--Energy 
     Efficiency, Sec. 123--6/8/05)
       Authorizes $150 million over five years for grants to State 
     agencies to assist local governments in constructing new 
     energy efficient public buildings that use at least 30 
     percent less energy than comparable public building meeting 
     the International Energy Conservation codes. (Title: Energy 
     Efficiency, Sec. 124--6/8/05)
       Authorizes $100 million over five years for grants to local 
     government, private, and non-profit community development 
     organizations, and Indian tribes to improve energy 
     efficiency, develop alternative renewable energy supplies, 
     and increase energy conservation in low income rural and 
     urban communities. (Title I--Energy Efficiency, Sec. 125--6/
     8/05)
       Authorizes $1.25 billion worth of grants over five years to 
     States to develop and implement building codes that exceed 
     the energy efficiency of the most recent building energy 
     codes. (Title I--Energy Efficiency, Sec. 127--6/8/05)
       Calls for a study of State and regional policies that 
     promote utilities to undertake cost-effective programs 
     reducing energy consumption. (Title I--Energy Efficiency, 
     Sec. 139--6/8/05)
       Authorizes $25 million for States to carry out programs 
     that encourage energy efficiency and conservation of 
     electricity or natural gas. (Title I--Energy Efficiency, Sec. 
     140--6/8/05)


         Efficiency Standards and Incentives for Public Housing

       Encourages increased energy efficiency and water 
     conservation through amendments to the U.S. Housing Act of 
     1937 by promoting installation of equipment conforming to new 
     standards. (Title I--Energy Efficiency, Sec. 161--6/8/05)
       Requires public housing agencies to purchase energy-
     efficient appliances that are Energy Star products or FEMP-
     designated products when purchasing appliances unless these 
     products are not cost-effective. (Title I--Energy Efficiency, 
     Sec. 162--6/8/05)
       Includes energy efficiency standards in amendments to the 
     Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act. (Title I--
     Energy Efficiency, Sec. 163--6/8/05)
       Directs the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to 
     develop and implement an integrated strategy to reduce 
     utility expenses at public and assisted housing through cost-
     effective energy conservation, efficiency measures, as well 
     as energy efficient design and construction. (Title I--Energy 
     Efficiency, Sec. 164--6/8/05)


   Efficiency Standards and Incentives for Individuals and Businesses

       Creates energy conservation standards for commercial 
     clothes washers, ice makers, refrigerators, freezers, air 
     conditioners, and heaters. (Title I--Energy Efficiency, Sec. 
     136--6/8/05)
       Authorizes $6 million for pilot projects designed to 
     conserve energy resource by encouraging use of bicycles in 
     place of motor vehicles. (Title VII--Vehicles and Fuels, Sec. 
     722--6/8/05)
       Authorizes $95 million over three years to reduce energy 
     use by reducing heavy-duty vehicle long-term idling. (Title 
     VII--Vehicles and Fuels, Sec. 723--6/8/05)
       Authorizes $15 million over three years for a biodiesel 
     testing partnership with engine, fuel injection, vehicle and 
     biodiesel manufacturers to test and improve biodiesel 
     technologies. (Title VII--Vehicles and Fuels, Sec. 724--6/8/
     05)

[[Page S6891]]

       Authorizes $10 million over five years for CAFE enforcement 
     obligations. (Title VII--Vehicles and Fuels, Sec. 711--6/8/
     05)
       Establishes a DOE/EPA voluntary Energy Star Program under 
     the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to identify and 
     promotes energy-efficient products and buildings. (Title I--
     Energy Efficiency, Sec. 131--6/8/05)
       Directs the Secretary of Energy in cooperation with EPA to 
     undertake an educational program for homeowners and small 
     businesses on energy savings from properly maintained air 
     conditioning, heating, and ventilating systems. (Title I--
     Energy Efficiency, Sec. 132--6/8/05)
       Adds energy conservation standards definitions for 
     additional products (e.g. lamps, battery chargers, 
     refrigerators, external power supply, illuminated exit sign, 
     low-voltage, transformer, traffic signal module) to the 
     Energy Policy and Conservation Act. (Title I--Energy 
     Efficiency, Sec. 135--6/8/05)
       Initiates a rulemaking under the Energy Policy and 
     Conservation Act to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of 
     current energy efficiency labeling on consumer products. 
     (Title I--Energy Efficiency, Sec. 138--6/8/05)
       Requires natural gas and electric utilities to evaluate 
     energy efficiency or other demand reduction programs and, if 
     beneficial and feasible, to adopt them. (Title I--Energy 
     Efficiency, Sec. 141--6/8/05)

   Supply of High-Efficiency Technologies and Zero or Low-GHG Energy 
                                Sources


               Renewable Energy and Increased Efficiency

       Authorizes study of the potential for increasing 
     hydroelectric power production capability at federally owned 
     or operated water regulation, storage, and conveyance 
     facilities. (Title XIII--Studies, Sec. 1302--9/29/03)
       Prioritizes funds for renewable energy production 
     incentives, placing emphasis on solar, wind, geothermal and 
     closed-loop biomass technologies. (Title II--Renewable 
     Energy, Sec. 202, 9/29/03)
       Establishes goals for the share of federal government 
     purchases of electricity from renewable sources to the extent 
     economically feasible and technically practicable. (Title 
     II--Renewable Energy, 203, 9/29/03)
       Authorizes $36 million for the establishment of a Sugar 
     Cane Ethanol Program to promote the production of ethanol 
     from sugar cane. (Title II--Renewable Energy, Sec. 207--6/8/
     05)
       Expands the scope of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     Bioenergy Program. (Title II--Renewable Energy, Sec. 208--6/
     8/05)
       Authorizes $125 million over 5 years for grants to 
     facilities that use biomass to produce electricity, sensible 
     heat, transportation fuels or substitutes for petroleum-based 
     products. (Title II--Renewable Energy, Sec. 232, 9/29/03)
       Authorizes $125 million over 5 years for grants to persons 
     researching ways to improve the use of biomass or add value 
     to biomass utilization. (Title II--Renewable Energy, Sec. 
     233, 9/29/03)
       Improves geothermal energy leasing procedures, terms and 
     conditions to increase use of geothermal energy. (Title II--
     Renewable Energy, Subtitle D, 9/29/03)
       Facilitates use of the OCS for alternative energy sources 
     such as wind power and ocean thermal energy. (Title III--Oil 
     and Gas, Sec. 321, 9/29/03)
       Calls for a study of the potential for renewable energy on 
     Federal land and make recommendations for statutory and 
     regulatory mechanisms for developing these resources. (Title 
     XIII--Studies, Sec. 1304--6/8/05)


                          Natural Gas Supplies

       Provides incentives to continue natural gas production on 
     low-yield (marginal) properties by reducing the royalty rate 
     when prices fall. (Title III--Oil and Gas, Sec. 313, 9/29/03)
       Provides incentives for natural gas production from deep 
     wells in the shallow water of the Gulf of Mexico. (Title 
     III--Oil and Gas, Sec. 314, 9/29/03)
       Extends royalty relief for natural gas production in the 
     deepwater of the Gulf of Mexico. (Title III--Oil and Gas, 
     Sec. 315, 9/29/03)
       Authorizes $125 million over five years to reduce fugitive 
     methane emissions by establishing a program to properly plug 
     and abandon orphaned, abandoned, or idled wells on federal 
     land. (Title III--Oil and Gas, Sec. 319, 9/29/03)
       Authorizes $350 million over five years to facilitate 
     timely action on natural gas leases and permits and creation 
     of Best Management Practices for processing permits. (Title 
     III--Oil and Gas, Sec. 342, 9/29/03)
       Requires the creation of a Memorandum of Understanding 
     between the Department of Interior and Department of 
     Agriculture to facilitate natural gas development on National 
     Forest lands. (Title III--Oil and Gas, Sec. 343, 9/29/03)
       Establishes a Federal Permit Streamlining Pilot Project to 
     expedite processing of natural gas permits. (Title III--Oil 
     and Gas, Sec. 344--6/8/05)
       Facilitates the building of LNG terminals thereby 
     increasing the supply of natural gas. (Title III--Oil and 
     Gas, Sec. 381, 9/29/03)
       Authorizes $165 million over 5 years for research aimed at 
     facilitating production of natural gas from Methane Hydrates. 
     (Title IX--Research and Development, Sec. 953--6/8/05)


                      Nuclear Energy Technologies

       Reauthorizes for 20 years the Price-Anderson Act, the long-
     standing liability insurance system for all nuclear 
     operations in the country. This system has existed for more 
     than 40 years and never required payment from the federal 
     government. (Title VI--Nuclear Matters, Sec. 602--6/8/05)
       Improves the regulatory treatment modular reactors, 
     facilitating the installation of new, more cost effective 
     nuclear power reactor designs. (Title VI--Nuclear Matters, 
     Sec. 608--6/8/05)
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has 6 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, let me summarize the Hagel-Pryor climate 
change amendment. This amendment offers a comprehensive voluntary 
approach to addressing the issue of climate change by connecting 
domestic and international economic, environmental, and energy 
policies. It takes a market-driven, technology-based approach to 
climate change by using public-private partnerships to meld together 
the institutional leverage of the Government with the innovation of 
industry.
  With that, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
817.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Dorgan), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords), the Senator from 
South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 29, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 144 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--29

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Collins
     Corzine
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Reed
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Sununu
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Dorgan
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Thune
  The amendment (No. 817) was agreed to.
  Mr. HAGEL. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I hope the Senator from Colorado, Mr. 
Salazar, will find his way to the Senate Chamber because he asked us to 
get him some time, and we are doing that right now in this request.
  The suggestion I have for the Senate is as follows: I understand 
Senator Salazar from Colorado would like to speak for 3 minutes as in 
morning business about a deceased general in his State. Then Senator 
McCain will offer a climate change amendment along with his cosponsor, 
Senator Lieberman. That will be debated tonight, and we will set some 
additional

[[Page S6892]]

debate time for tomorrow if required by the distinguished Senators or 
anybody in opposition.
  We may, however, have an additional vote tonight. I want everybody to 
know this. We might have a vote tonight. It will not be on the McCain 
amendment, but we will set that amendment aside, without objection from 
the Senator from Arizona, and take up this other amendment.
  We have a number of amendments that are pending, besides the one I 
just indicated. One of those is a DeWine-Kohl amendment. We are going 
to try to work that in here and that would be without a rollcall vote. 
The Voinovich amendment is the one on which we will be voting.
  We will proceed, as I have indicated, and recognize the Senator from 
Colorado, if he is here. If he is not here, we are going right to 
Senator McCain. If he comes, maybe the Senator from Arizona can 
accommodate Senator Salazar. If not, we will let Senator McCain 
proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, may I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
30 seconds as in morning business while we are waiting?
  Mr. DOMENICI. We are not waiting. Senator McCain is yielding time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from New Mexico 
and Arizona. I thank my colleague from New Mexico for moving this 
Energy bill forward and making such progress.
  (The remarks of Ms. Landrieu and Ms. Stabenow are printed in today's 
Record under ``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 826

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk on behalf 
of myself and Senator Lieberman. I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendment be set aside, and the amendment on behalf of myself and 
Senator Lieberman be considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is set aside. 
The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself and Mr. 
     Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 826.

  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first I would like to congratulate the 
sponsors of the amendment that was just passed. They did a good job on 
the amendment. I appreciate it because it is very indicative of where 
this debate has gone.
  My dear friend from Connecticut and I, last October of 2003, forced a 
vote--or we had a vote on, basically, this issue, although we have 
changed this somewhat with the inclusion of the incentives for 
technological advances, as well as some nuclear power provisions which 
have proven somewhat controversial with some of our environmental 
friends.
  At that time the debate on the amendment was: there is no such thing, 
it is a myth, this simply bears no relation to reality--on and on. 
There were some fascinating statements made about what a myth climate 
change was.
  Now, obviously, we have, by passage of the Hagel amendment, 
recognized--at least by a majority of the Senate--that climate change 
is real and action needs to be taken. So I believe we have made 
significant progress since October 2003. At the same time, I have 
noticed on other reform issues that I have been involved in over the 
years, once the opponents of reform see reality, then they try to put 
up some kind of legislation which appears to address the issue but 
actually does not. Unfortunately, the amendment by my good friend from 
Nebraska that was just approved by the Senate simply has no bearing on 
the requirement that we act.
  The Senator from Connecticut and I are going to present, not our 
opinions but evidence, scientific evidence, that climate change is 
real, it is happening, and as we speak we will see things happening to 
our environment which will have long-term devastating effects on this 
globe on which we reside. When we talk about scientific evidence and 
opinion, with the exception of those who may somehow be financially 
related to certain opponents of this legislation, there is very little 
doubt as to the scientific evidence of every objective observer, not to 
mention our European friends who have so concluded and are acting to 
reduce the effects of greenhouse gas emissions in the world.
  By the way, they have not faced Armageddon to their economies, as 
predicted by some of the speakers who have already addressed this 
issue. I found them entertaining. Do you know why I found them 
entertaining? Because every time I have been in a reform issue--whether 
it be installation of safety belts in automobiles, or airbags, or 
campaign finance reform--the Apocalypse was upon us.
  In this amendment we encourage technology in order to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions and make energy use more efficient, and we are 
trying at the expense of some support to recognize that nuclear power 
is a very important contributor to our energy needs in the coming 
years, particularly since 20 percent of our energy supply is already 
supplied by nuclear power and those powerplants are going out of 
business fairly soon. We have a proposal that is balanced and fair and 
not only tries to minimize and, over time, reduce the damage that has 
already been inflicted by greenhouse gas emissions, but also will 
provide for energy that this world--our country as well as others--
needs.
  Is this Kyoto that Senator Lieberman and I are proposing? No. 
Sometimes I wish that it were, but it is not. It is far less stringent 
in its requirements to address the issue of greenhouse gas emissions. 
It is something that we believe is not only affordable but doable.

  Does it involve some sacrifice on the part of the American people? 
Yes. I have to tell you, every time I talk to young Americans and say, 
Are you willing to make some sacrifice to prevent the occurrences that 
we see are happening now, these young Americans are more than willing 
to do so.
  When we talk about jobs, these Draconian estimates of lost jobs that 
they have hired some think tank to come up with, what about the jobs 
and the economic effect on the United States of America that is already 
taking place when we have four hurricanes in one season in Florida; 
when we have greater and more extreme climatic effects generated by 
greenhouse gas emissions? How much is it going to cost when the great 
barrier reef dies? The Australian Government has said that the great 
barrier reef will die by--I think the year is 2040. What happens then 
to the food chain? What is the cost then?
  What is the cost to the Alaskan Inuit Tribe when, as we speak, their 
villages are falling into the ocean because of the melting of the 
permafrost? What are those costs?
  I will tell you what they are; they are astronomical. They may hire a 
lot of people, in the form of emergency workers and FEMA and all of 
that.
  I have a very long statement. I am not going to take too long because 
I want my friend, Senator Lieberman, to talk. But why is it that our 
best partner in Europe, Tony Blair, is so dedicated to the proposition 
that we need to act on this issue? I do not find him to be an 
irrational individual. What does Prime Minister Tony Blair say? I think 
he puts it better than anyone.
  The opponents, particularly my friend from Oklahoma, will come down 
and say all this climate change is just a myth, the Earth is not 
warmer, there is no real basis for this whatsoever. And he will find 
some obscure scientist who will say, yes, it is a myth--despite the 
overwhelming body of evidence that dictates that climate change is real 
and its effects are already being felt in a variety of ways.
  Suppose the Senator from Connecticut and I, and the overwhelming body 
of scientific evidence, and Tony Blair, and all the Europeans, and all 
the signatories to the Kyoto treaty, they are all wrong and we went 
ahead and made these modest proposals. What would we have? We would 
have a cleaner Earth. We would have an Earth with a less polluted 
atmosphere. We

[[Page S6893]]

would have cleaner technologies. We would have found a way to again 
utilize nuclear power in a safe and efficient fashion.
  But suppose that we are right. Let's suppose the National Academy of 
Sciences is right when they say:

       There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system 
     as complex as the world's climate, however there is now 
     strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.

  This comes from the National Academy of Sciences, the National 
Academies from the G8 countries along with those from Brazil, China, 
and India.

       The scientific understanding of climate change is now 
     sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. 
     It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps 
     that they can take now to contribute to substantial and long-
     term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.

  Remember, this is from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 
National Academies from other G8 countries along with other countries:

       We urge all nations to take prompt action to reduce the 
     causes of climate change, adapt to its impact, and ensure 
     that the issue is included in all relevant national and 
     international strategies.

  Suppose they are right. Suppose they are right and we, as stewards of 
our environment, have failed to act. The consequences are clear. The 
effects are devastating. They are extremely difficult to reverse, as 
any scientist will tell you. And we will have done such a terrible 
thing to future generations not only in America but in the world 
because of our enormous contributions to the greenhouse gas emissions 
which are causing such devastating effects already as we speak.
  I am going to yield to my friend from Connecticut. But I hope my 
colleagues make no mistake about what we just did, which is nothing--
which is nothing. There is nothing in the last amendment that has any 
requirements whatsoever--except perhaps some more reporting. I believe 
the time for reports is past. I think we have a sufficient number of 
reports and assessments. It has done nothing.
  This amendment, I am sure, will be attacked--thousands of jobs will 
be lost, we will find some obscure scientist, some will talk about the 
dangers of encouraging the use of nuclear power. The fact is, we are 
going to win on this issue. The reason we are going to win is because 
every single month there is another manifestation of the terrible 
effects of what climate change is doing to our Earth. The problem is 
how late will it be when we win? How devastating will be the effects of 
climate change on this Earth on which we live? I am very much afraid 
that every day that goes by our challenge becomes greater and greater.
  That is what this debate is all about. I know the chances of our 
passing this amendment are probably not as good as we would like. But I 
hope my colleagues and the American people will pay attention to this 
debate because it may be the most important single issue that is 
addressed by this Senate in all the time that I have been here.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arizona with 
whom I am proud, once again, to sponsor the Climate Stewardship and 
Innovation Act to combat global warming.
  Senator McCain has, as is his characteristic mode of behavior, talked 
straight. He has sounded a clarion call. He has spoken in words that I 
would echo right now: This is the challenge of our generation, 
environmentally. It will begin to affect the way we live on planet 
Earth.
  We feel so strongly about it that we are going to stick together, and 
I believe our ranks will grow over time, I hope before the worst 
effects of global warming occur, before the most cataclysmic effects 
occur.
  We are going to get this done because it has to be done. This 
amendment we are offering is the only proposal the Senate will consider 
that will actually put a halt to the rise in carbon emissions that 
cause global warming. It will also spur technological innovations to 
deal with that problem.
  In some sense, as I view this--and I have spent a lot of time working 
on it--what is involved is a conflict between science and the 
resistance to change. Change is frightening sometimes, particularly 
when the worst consequences of not changing are not apparent. This is 
why this is such a great challenge to our political system because, 
although we are beginning to see the effects of global warming, the 
worst effects are over the horizon.
  The challenge now, having been put on notice by science, is whether 
the political leadership of our country will take the steps necessary 
to protect the generations that will follow from the worst consequences 
of global warming.
  I will paraphrase Jonas Salk, who invented the polio vaccine: One of 
the tests of every generation is whether we have been good ancestors, 
whether we have acted in a way that those who follow us will say that 
we had farsighted ancestors who saw this problem coming and dealt with 
it.
  That is the challenge this amendment offers. Because it is about 
science. With the distinguished Presiding Officer, particularly, I 
cannot resist going into a bit of history. It was 100 years ago this 
month, June 30, 1905, that Albert Einstein finished a paper with the 
very dense title ``On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.'' Today we 
know it better as the Theory of Special Relativity or E equals MC 
squared.
  Why do I bring this up in the context of global warming? Because when 
Einstein first proposed the theory, it was dismissed as unrealistic, as 
a dream. Its consequences were widely misunderstood. Over time, the 
best scientists agreed not only that Einstein's theory was true, but 
they expanded upon it and used it to the extraordinary benefit of the 
generations that have followed.
  With apologies to another great scientist, Darwin, this process might 
be called the ``Evolution of Theory.'' The theory that the Earth is 
warming with dire consequences may have started off with little 
understanding or acceptance. In fact, when we first began to talk about 
it, Senator McCain and I, a lot of people including in this Senate 
discussed it as if it had a Chicken Little ``sky is falling'' quality. 
The fact is, we were basing our actions and our arguments on 
temperatures that were rising. But the worst effects that we were 
projecting were based on scientific modeling.
  Now the best scientific minds in the world have examined the evidence 
and stated that climate change is real. Its cost to our economies will 
be devastatingly real. Its costs to our people and the way they live 
will be devastatingly real if we do not act.
  Just a few months ago, the head of the International Panel on Climate 
Change, Dr. Pachauri, whose candidacy for that position that was 
supported by the Bush administration, said:

       We are already at a dangerous point when it comes to global 
     warming. Immediate and very deep cuts in greenhouse gases are 
     needed if humanity, as we know it, is to survive.

  The truth is, at this point, we do not need the scientists to tell us 
that the globe is warming. We can see it with our own eyes. The most 
compelling evidence is the satellite photographs of the polar ice caps. 
Look back 10, 15, 20 years; they are shrinking before our eyes.
  Consider this very real example that is a consequence of that 
warming: 184 Alaskan coastal villages already are facing the threat of 
relocation because their land and infrastructure are being impacted by 
advancing seas and warmer temperatures that are melting the permafrost. 
One estimate I have seen says it will cost $100 million to locate just 
one of those villages or towns. I hesitate to articulate this fear, but 
what would be the price if we needed to relocate New Orleans or Miami 
or Santa Cruz, CA?
  One of North America's leading reinsurers, Swiss Re, projects that 
climate-driven disasters could cost global financial centers more than 
$150 billion per year within the next 10 years. That is not Senator 
McCain or me or some environmental group. It is a business, an 
insurance company, which is on the line for the costs of climate-driven 
disasters: $150 billion a year within the next 10 years.
  I could go on with stories of wildlife appearing in places where they 
have never appeared before. Even in Connecticut, we have certain birds 
that are lingering longer in our State, because it is staying warmer 
longer. In Maine, our colleagues say the sugar maples are being 
affected by the alteration in the climate.

[[Page S6894]]

  What is the United States doing? The United States, the largest 
emitter, the largest source of the greenhouse gases that cause global 
warming, what are we doing? Nothing. Literally nothing. In some sense, 
less than nothing because we pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol that 
subsequently has been ratified by enough of the industrialized world.
  I agree with Senator McCain about the preceding amendment. It is a 
fig leaf. It may allow some people to say we are doing something about 
global warming but it does not do anything. It leaves it all to 
voluntary action to support some research. It asks for reports. This 
goes back to the early 1990s, when the first President Bush was very 
actively involved in the Rio conference on global warming and 
recognized the reality of global warming, supported measures to deal 
with it, and set voluntary standards. They did not work. That is why 
Kyoto came along in 1997.

  We saw, in the intervening years, if you leave it just plain 
voluntary, nothing will happen. People will continue to do things as 
before. Sources of greenhouse gases will not change. We have to show 
some leadership.
  The last amendment I call ``fiddling while the Earth is warming.'' In 
its way, it is more consequential than Rome burning.
  The Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act, which Senator McCain and 
I introduced as an amendment to this Energy bill, is the needed first 
step, second step, and third step. It is the only proposal that will 
come before the Senate that puts an absolute stop to the increase in 
greenhouse gas emissions by America. In that sense, it brings us back 
to some point of moral responsibility. This is a problem for the whole 
globe. We are the biggest source of it. Yet we are doing nothing about 
it, while a lot of other countries are.
  This amendment is the only proposal that will come before the Senate 
that creates not old-fashioned command and control but a true market 
mechanism reflecting the punishing social and economic costs of global 
warming. And this amendment, the Climate Stewardship and Innovation 
Act, is the only proposal that will come before the Senate that 
harnesses these market forces and steers them toward new energy 
technology that will not only help us meet the standards but will 
energize our economy because it will create jobs; those jobs will 
create products that will fill a growing global demand for energy-
efficient greenhouse gas-resistant technologies.
  Let me briefly state the basics of our bill. The original Climate 
Stewardship Act was the result itself of a lengthy process Senator 
McCain and I were involved in, with the stakeholders, sources of 
greenhouse gases, environmentalists, and scientists working together. A 
major role was played by the Pew Trust. The original Climate 
Stewardship Act asked the American people, businesses, to reduce our 
carbon emissions to 2000 levels by the end of the decade--by 2012--
easier to achieve than what Kyoto asked. Kyoto asked to go back to 
1990.
  There was a graph in one of the papers yesterday that shows 
reductions from Kyoto about here; if we do nothing, about there; 
McCain-Lieberman was in between. It is always nice to be in the 
middle--the golden mean. That is exactly what this proposal is. Our 
proposal then, and now, will reduce carbon emissions by use of the 
market, by putting a price on those emissions, with a cap and trade 
policy modeled on the one used so successfully in the Clean Air Act of 
1990 which, as we all know, has reduced acid rain at far less cost than 
expected without the old ``command and control'' Government.
  Simply put, a business that does not reach its emissions target can 
buy emissions credits from an entity who has managed to move themselves 
under the target.
  Because the cap and trade system creates a market price for 
greenhouse gas emissions, it exposes the true cost of burning fossil 
fuels and will drive investments toward lower carbon-emitting 
technologies. It will, incidentally, also help us break our dangerous 
dependence on foreign oil which now is approaching $60 a barrel and 
rising. I fear, as so many others do, no matter how strong we are 
militarily, it can ultimately compromise our national security.
  As the new title of this amendment implies, we have added an 
innovation section to our original bill because technological change 
and innovation are the keys in both the fight against global warming 
and the battle for energy independence. Our amendment creates a 
dedicated public sector fund for ensuring that investment is directed 
at the new technologies we need, including, but not limited to, 
biofuels, clean coal technology, solar and nuclear power, to name just 
a few off an open-ended menu of climate-friendly technology choices.
  Instead of turning to the taxpayer to fund these, our bill uses a 
very creative self-funding mechanism. It empowers the Secretary of 
Energy to use some of the money generated through the purchase of 
emissions credits, funneled through a new public corporation our bill 
would create to help bring those innovations to market. The amendment 
will ensure the most important and efficient technological alternatives 
are supported. We did not pick winners and losers. That is for the 
market to do. Our bill does make sure, however, that if there are 
barriers to developing or using these new technologies to meet the 
standards and cap in our proposal, the resources are available to knock 
those barriers down.
  If we do not help bring these new low carbon or zero carbon 
technologies to market, believe me, we will be buying them from the 
nations that do. Here is exhibit A to prove that point: Hybrid cars 
today are popular. There are waiting lists for them. I heard there is a 
market where people sell the ticket they have in the line so somebody 
can buy a hybrid car, low-emitting vehicles that consumers have clearly 
shown they want.
  Where did American companies get the technology to build those 
hybrids? They have licensed it from Japan. Our bill will ensure that 
assistance is provided to American manufacturers to help with the 
transition to new technologies and energy productions with programs to 
reduce consumer costs and help dislocated workers and communities. The 
point is, we want what we know will be an enormous market for low 
carbon, zero carbon, low/zero greenhouse gas-emitting products to be 
filled by products made in the United States.
  When Senator McCain and I sat down to write this bill, we knew it had 
to pass three tests: First, it had to guarantee that it would achieve a 
real reduction in total greenhouse gas emissions across our society. 
Second, it had to create a true wide-open market for emissions 
reductions. And third, it had to provide businesses, and ultimately 
consumers, with a wide range of low-emission, low-cost energy choices 
through technological innovations.
  I am proud to say to my colleagues our amendment meets all three of 
those tests.
  The Senate should scrutinize any alternatives that are offered to 
this amendment we have proposed and ask whether those meet those same 
tests, whether, as the planet is warming and the rest of the world is 
trying to do something about it, the United States is fiddling.
  I mentioned at the outset that 100 years ago this month that young 
man sitting in a Swiss patent office changed our understanding of the 
universe with the power of his new ideas.
  A century later, we are facing a real threat. To meet it, we need to 
empower our best minds to use the power of new ideas to help provide 
new sources of power to our world. If we do not take these simple steps 
now, steps that are well within both our technological and financial 
reach, the generations that come will rightfully look back at us with 
scorn and ask why we acted so selfishly, why we yielded to the status 
quo that did not want to change, why we cared only for short-term 
comforts or profits, and why we left them a global environment in 
danger.
  Einstein once said:

       The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the 
     same level of thinking with which we created them.

  Senator McCain and I and our other cosponsors and supporters believe 
the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act will not only set standards 
for reducing global warming but will lead us to the new thinking, to 
the new ideas, and the new products we need to halt global warming, 
achieve energy independence and protect the world as we know it and 
love it for the generations to come.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

[[Page S6895]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to say thank you to both 
Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain for giving this Senate the first 
real start to reduce global warming. I was one who voted for the Hagel 
amendment, but I did so realizing it really had very little bang for 
the buck. This is the first real global warming bill this body will 
come to grips with. I think it is extraordinarily important.
  In real terms, passage of this bill would mean that instead of having 
8 billion tons of greenhouse gases emitted into the air in 2010, as 
would be the case if we do not pass the amendment, we will emit 
slightly less than 6 billion tons in 2010. That means this amendment 
would reduce emissions by almost 2 billion tons, or 25 percent, by the 
end of the decade.
  In order to achieve the goal, the amendment would implement a market-
based emissions cap and trade system. Currently, the United States is 
the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. We account for 
one-fourth of all global greenhouse gas emissions.
  In a single year, the average American produces the same greenhouse 
gas emissions as 4.5 people in Mexico or 18 people in India or 99 
people in Bangladesh.
  In the past 200 years, since the Industrial Revolution, the 
concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere has risen by 
roughly 30 percent. If we do nothing to reduce these emissions, CO2 
levels are estimated to again rise by 30 percent in only the next 50 
years.
  Here it is on the chart. You see, as temperature rises, global 
warming takes place, and carbon dioxide emissions increase.
  The hottest year on record is 1998, followed by a tie for the second 
hottest year between 2002 and 2003.
  Let me say what the National Academy of Sciences has reported. Let me 
just briefly quote:

       Since the 1900s global average temperature and atmospheric 
     carbon dioxide concentration have increased dramatically, 
     particularly compared to their levels in the 900 preceding 
     years.

  Carbon dioxide is the No. 1 global warming gas. We have already begun 
to see, as both Senators McCain and Lieberman have said, the real 
impacts of global warming.
  Glaciers are beginning to disappear throughout the United States and 
around the world at a rapid rate. This chart demonstrates the rapid 
loss of the South Cascade Glaciers in Washington State. In addition, it 
is predicted that all the glaciers in Glacier National Park in Montana 
will be gone by 2030.
  Here on the chart, you can see the South Glacier. In 1928, you could 
see the full glacier. Then, this is what you saw in 1979. And you can 
see that in 2003 it was just about one-half of what it was.
  Since 1979, more than 20 percent of the polar ice cap has melted away 
due to the increase of global temperatures. Senator Lieberman mentioned 
that in his speech, but I think this chart shows it dramatically. This 
line indicates the Arctic sea ice boundary in 1979. You can see how 
large it was. And you see more than 20 percent of the polar ice cap has 
already melted away. That is disastrous because the top of the planet 
is more impacted than the bottom of the planet.
  Now, this is forcing Eskimos in Alaska to move inland. My husband 
just visited an Eskimo village. They were preparing to move their 
village because it was being inundated by the ocean.
  Over the last century, the global sea level has risen by 6 inches. 
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts 
that by the next century, the global sea level will rise even higher to 
anywhere from 4 inches to 3 feet. That is enormous when you look at 
these changes.

  Let me just speak for a moment about my State.
  Since 1900, California has warmed by 2 degrees Fahrenheit. Annual 
precipitation has decreased over much of the State--by 10 to 25 percent 
in many areas. The EPA estimates that the temperature in California 
could rise by as much as 5 degrees by the end of this century if the 
current global warming trends continue.
  That increase is going to have a drastic impact on many facets of 
California life--water, for one. As the largest agricultural State in 
the Union, we need it to farm and grow our crops. We need water to keep 
the ecosystem in balance, and we need water for 37.5 million people to 
drink, to wash, and to water crops and plants.
  The Sierra Nevada snowpack is the largest source of water. The 
snowpack equals about half the storage capacity of all of California's 
man-made reservoirs. It is estimated that by the end of the century, 
the shrinking of the snowpack will eliminate the water source for 16 
million people. That is equal to all of the people in the Los Angeles 
Basin. That is how big this is.
  What this chart shows is, if we take strong action to curb greenhouse 
gas emissions, 27 percent of the snowpack will remain in the Sierras; 
strong action will only protect 27 percent. If we do nothing to reduce 
our greenhouse gas emissions, only 11 percent of the Sierra Nevada 
snowpack will be left by the end of the century. You clearly see it. 
That is Armageddon for California. That is Armageddon for the fifth 
largest economy on Earth.
  Now, we have already begun to see a decline in the Sierra Nevada 
snowpack due to warmer winter storms that bring more rain than snow and 
also cause a premature melting of the snowpack.
  If just a third of the snowpack is lost, it would mean losing enough 
water to serve 8 million households. So you can see how big this is. 
That is why this bill is so important--the first bill that actually 
does something about it.
  Let me talk for just a second about our wine industry. It is 
recognized throughout the world. It is a $45 billion industry in sales, 
jobs, tourism, and tax revenue.
  Grown throughout the State, wine grapes are sensitive to temperature 
and moisture. It is predicted that by the end of the century, grapes 
will ripen up to 2 months earlier and will be of poorer quality. The 
result is a decline for California's premier wine industry.
  Let me talk about dairy. We are the largest dairy-producing State in 
the Union, much to the chagrin of my distinguished colleague from 
Wisconsin. Studies indicate that due to increased temperatures, our 
milk production could be reduced anywhere from 5 to 20 percent. This 
would not only have a drastic impact on California's agriculture 
industry, but it would also affect other States that rely on California 
to provide milk and other dairy products.
  Beaches and coastlines--we are known for them. When most people think 
of California, they think about our beaches. The rising sea level, due 
to global warming, is slowly swallowing these beaches and eroding the 
coastline. Over the last century, the sea level has risen 3 to 8 
inches. Scientists predict it will continue to rise an additional 13 to 
19 inches by the end of this century. This will force municipalities to 
replenish land on beaches stretching from Santa Barbara to San Diego. 
The EPA says this could cost from $174 million to $3.5 billion.
  Global warming is California's No. 1 environmental problem.
  Now, let me talk for a moment about what cities are doing. Cities are 
not waiting for us. Cities are moving. Members of the United States 
Conference of Mayors unanimously passed a resolution earlier this month 
that requires their member cities to attempt to meet or exceed 
emissions standards set by Kyoto. They have agreed to try to meet or 
beat the Kyoto Protocol targets in various communities around the 
Nation. They have agreed to urge their State governments and the 
Federal Government to enact policies to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions, and they have agreed to urge us to pass the McCain-Lieberman 
bill.
  So far, 167 cities have signed up to enforce the Kyoto requirements.
  Nearly 40 States, to date, have developed their own climate plans. 
Four-fifths of the United States is moving on its own because we are so 
slow to act.
  An emission trading system is emerging in the Northeast that will 
require large power plants from Maine to Delaware to reduce their 
carbon emissions.
  Eighteen States and the District of Columbia have enacted standards 
to require that electricity be generated with renewable fuels rather 
than fossil fuels. These States include California,

[[Page S6896]]

Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, 
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and Wisconsin.
  The point is, our States are moving. Why are we so bloody slow? 
California has enacted legislation that will reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions from vehicle tailpipes. It is expected that the Northeastern 
States and Canada will also follow California's lead.
  Yet, without concerted Federal action, the United States will not be 
able to achieve real, significant greenhouse gas reductions. If Members 
of the U.S. Senate agree with the science, if they agree with virtually 
all of the literature to date, if they look out and study the weather 
and they see the changes, if they see the fluctuation in weather 
patterns, the aberrant behavior of weather, they will come to the 
conclusion that global warming is real. It is real, and we now have the 
first bill to do something positive about it, and that is the 
Lieberman-McCain legislation.
  I believe all of California supports it. I am proud to support it. I 
urge its passage to this distinguished body.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank our friend and colleague from 
California for a very powerful statement. In a personal sense, and I 
know I speak for Senator McCain, we are grateful for her support. We 
are honored to have it. But what a statement. I hope every Member of 
the Senate gets a chance to read the text of the Feinstein statement. 
In very practical terms, it describes the impact of inaction on our 
largest State--California--on water supply, not to mention the dairy 
industry and, perhaps of more national significance, the California 
wine industry. But this is real-life stuff. Shame on us if we don't 
take real action to stem the problem.
  I thank my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Remarks on Guantanamo Bay

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, more than most people, a Senator lives by 
his words. Words are the coin of the realm in our profession. 
Occasionally, words will fail us. Occasionally, we will fail words.
  On June 14, I took the floor of the Senate to speak about genuine, 
heartfelt concerns about the treatment of prisoners and detainees at 
Guantanamo and other places. I raised legitimate concerns that others 
have raised, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, about the 
policies of this administration and whether they truly do serve our 
needs to make America safer and more secure; whether, in fact, some of 
the policies might, in fact, endanger our troops or in some way 
disparage the image of America around the world.
  During the course of that presentation, I read an e-mail from the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation that was discovered to exist last 
August and has now been produced as part of a Freedom of Information 
Act. After reading the horrible details in that memo, which 
characterized the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, I then, on my 
own--my own words--made some characterizations about that memo. I made 
reference to the Nazis, to the Soviets, and other repressive regimes.
  Mr. President, I have come to understand that was a very poor choice 
of words. Last Friday, I tried to make this very clear, that I 
understood that those analogies to the Nazis and Soviets and others 
were poorly chosen. I issued a release which I thought made my 
intentions and my innermost feelings as clear as I possibly could. Let 
me read to you what I said in that release last Friday:

       I have learned from my statement that historical parallels 
     can be misused and misunderstood. I sincerely regret if what 
     I said caused anyone to misunderstand my true feelings: Our 
     soldiers around the world and their families deserve our 
     respect, admiration and total support.

  It is very clear that even though I thought I had said something that 
clarified the situation, to many people it was still unclear. I am 
sorry if anything I said caused any offense or pain to those who have 
such bitter memories of the Holocaust, the greatest moral tragedy of 
our time. Nothing should ever be said to demean or diminish that moral 
tragedy.
  I am also sorry if anything I said in any way cast a negative light 
on our fine men and women in the military. I went to Iraq a few months 
ago with Senator Harry Reid and a delegation, a bipartisan delegation; 
the Presiding Officer was part of it. When you look in the eyes of the 
soldiers, you see your son or your daughter. They are the best. I 
never, ever intended any disrespect for them. Some may believe that my 
remarks crossed the line. To them, I extend my heartfelt apologies.
  There is usually a quote from Abraham Lincoln that you can turn to in 
moments such as this. Maybe this is the right one. Lincoln said: If the 
end brings me out right, what is said against me won't amount to 
anything. If the end brings me out wrong, 10,000 angels swearing I was 
right wouldn't make any difference.
  In the end, I don't want anything in my public career to detract from 
my love for this country, my respect for those who serve it, and this 
great Senate.
  I offer my apologies to those who are offended by my words. I promise 
you that I will continue to speak out on the issues that I believe are 
important to the people of Illinois and to the Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to say what is unnecessary, and 
that is that the Senator from Illinois just made a heartfelt statement, 
one of apology. All of us, I believe, who have had the opportunity to 
serve in public life from time to time have said things that we deeply 
regret. I know that I have. I can't speak for the other Members of this 
body. I would like to say to the Senator from Illinois, he did the 
right thing, a courageous thing, and I believe we can put this issue 
behind us. I thank the Senator from Illinois.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I want very briefly to thank my friend 
and colleague, Senator Durbin, for the statement he has just made. I 
know it has been a very difficult period of time for him. Which one of 
us has not erred? Which one of us, particularly in public life, has not 
said something that didn't come out exactly as we intended it to and 
certainly had an impact we never could have imagined?
  When I first heard about what Senator Durbin said last week, and I 
heard some people at home in Connecticut who were agitated by it, I 
said: I know Dick Durbin. I know he would never really compare the 
suffering of people in the Nazi concentration camps or the Soviet gulag 
or under Pol Pot to what is happening in Guantanamo, as much as he is 
concerned and has criticized some of what we have learned, including in 
the FBI report he cited. It is just not him. I know his character. I 
know his person.
  Look, we have seen it today. It takes a big person to stand up and 
apologize on the floor of the Senate. He has done it. I just appeal to 
everyone now to move on. Let this be the end of this. Anyone who will 
continue to try to fester this some more is doing a disservice to the 
Senate and to our country. Senator Durbin has made clear his regrets 
for what he said and the way it was misunderstood. He is a good man. He 
is an extraordinary Senator. He is a good friend. I thank him for the 
courage he showed in coming up and saying what is hard for us in public 
life, but we are no different than anybody else: I am sorry. I made a 
mistake.
  To err is human, but it is also important to say that to forgive is 
not only divine, it ought to be human as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry: Does the Senator from New Mexico 
have the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I believe that I could now argue against the pending 
amendment, but I choose at this point, if we could, because I made some 
arrangements that I don't think are inconsistent with the minority 
leader--not

[[Page S6897]]

agreements but arrangements--if we could let Senator Inhofe, who is now 
in opposition to the amendment, proceed, he would like to speak for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico has the floor. I 
would like to speak for a couple minutes before that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. And then could we go to Senator Inhofe for 10 minutes?
  Mr. REID. I think maybe 5 more minutes, and then we will get to him.
  Mr. DOMENICI. OK. This is an interesting moment. I don't want to 
object.
  Mr. REID. We will be very quick.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the 
Senator from California be recognized for 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have stated on a number of occasions 
publicly my great affection for my friend from Illinois. We came 
together to Congress. He has been a very close personal friend. I have 
such great admiration for him. He has been a great whip during the 5 
months that I have been the leader. As we know, he has been a strong 
supporter of the troops. He has worked for the Guard and Reserve 
especially, more than anyone I know in the Senate. I know how hard it 
was for him to come and speak as he has today.
  I have said things in the past that I wish I hadn't said. In the last 
6 or 7 months, they have been noted more than in the past. So I 
certainly appreciate the strength and the courage of my friend from 
Illinois.
  I also want to say a word about my friend who is not on the floor 
now, John McCain. He and I came to this body also with Senator Durbin. 
He and I have been very close in seniority. He is one ahead of me 
because the State of Arizona is larger than the State of Nevada. That 
is what happened when we came to the Senate. For someone with his 
military background to say what he just said about Senator Durbin is 
very typical for John McCain. Not only do I express my appreciation for 
the statement of my friend from Illinois but also for the statement of 
the Senator from Arizona. It was a very typical John McCain statement, 
and it shows that he is a person who speaks from the heart.
  If I may impose on my friend from Oklahoma, the other Senator from 
Illinois is here. Senator Feinstein has 2 minutes. May I give him 2 
minutes?
  Mr. INHOFE. No objection.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that following Senator Feinstein, 
Senator Obama be recognized for 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader and 
Senator Inhofe for this courtesy.
  I don't think there is a Member of this body who hasn't gone to an 
event, made a speech, answered a question, advocated a cause, who 
hasn't said: Oh, I wish I had done it differently. I don't think there 
are any of us who haven't awoken the next morning and said: Gee, I 
really meant it, and I am sure it is going to be taken out of context, 
or they are going to think I meant this or that. I don't think there 
are any of us who haven't sometimes written letters to correct what we 
have said.
  We know Dick Durbin. We know he is patriotic. We know he cares about 
the men and women serving. And we know that he would do nothing to ever 
mean anything to the contrary.
  I was very much taken by his remarks. More importantly, I was taken 
by the emotion behind the remarks. We have been having in the Judiciary 
Committee a legitimate debate on Guantanamo. Hearings have been held. 
Debate is taking place. That is healthy. That is what this system is 
all about. Senator Durbin has played a role in that debate. I hope, 
too, that this will mark the end of it.
  I thank, too, the Senator from Arizona for what he said. No one has a 
more distinguished military record than he. I also hope that everyone 
who has heard Senator Durbin tonight recognizes his sincerity and his 
depth of concern. Let this be the end of it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I thank Senator Inhofe, Senator Reid, and 
Senator Domenici for allowing me this time.
  I know Dick Durbin. I serve with him in Illinois. We have traveled 
together through the byways and highways of our great State. I have 
rarely met someone with greater dedication to ordinary Americans, a 
stronger belief in the greatness of this Nation, or a more longstanding 
commitment to public service as an expression of that patriotism than 
Dick Durbin.
  This recent episode obviously has pained him a great deal because 
although I am new in the Senate, one of the things I am discovering is 
that we have a tendency, perhaps because we don't share as much time on 
the floor as we should, perhaps because our politics seem to be ginned 
up by interest groups and blogs and the Internet, we have a tendency to 
demonize and jump on and make mockery of each other across the aisle. 
That is particularly pronounced when we make mistakes. Each and every 
one of us is going to make a mistake once in a while. We are going to 
say something unartful; we are going to say something that doesn't 
appropriately describe our intentions. And what we hope is that our 
track record of service, the scope of how we have operated and 
interacted with people, will override whatever particular mistake we 
make.

  Senator Durbin has established himself as one of the people in this 
Chamber who cares deeply about our veterans and our troops. He hasn't 
just talked the talk, he has walked the walk. I have been distressed to 
see my partner from Illinois placed in the situation in which he has 
been placed. I am grateful he had the courage to stand up and 
acknowledge that he should have said what he said somewhat differently. 
But I am also grateful that people, such as the distinguished Senator 
from Arizona and others, recognize this for what it was--a simple 
misstatement--and that now we can move on to talk about the substance 
of the issues that are of legitimate concern to this body, including 
making certain that when we operate institutions such as those at 
Guantanamo, we hold the United States to that high standard that all of 
us expect.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 826

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). The Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the leader for 
allowing me to get in about 10 minutes to respond to some of the things 
said about the McCain-Lieberman legislation. First of all, I know how 
sincere both Senators McCain and Lieberman are. They deeply believe in 
their cause.
  However, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I 
feel compelled to refute some of the things that have been said. So 
what I have done--and I think I can do this in a very short period of 
time--is look at some of the statements made and respond to them. Now, 
tomorrow, we will have enough time to get into a lot of details. I have 
charts I wish to show. I will give a full-blown presentation. For 
tonight, I will let my colleagues know there are a lot of things we 
should be looking at and not just assuming that everything that has 
been said is true. I know they believe it, but some of these things are 
not true.
  First of all, the discussion on hurricanes--that hurricanes are going 
to be impacted in a way that will be detrimental and we are all going 
to blow away. Let's keep in mind that the same people who are talking 
about global warming and all of the catastrophic things are the same 
ones who were talking about gobal cooling about 25 years ago, saying 
that another ice age is coming, that we are all going to die. On 
hurricanes, according to Dr. Christopher Lansey, one of the foremost 
experts today on hurricanes, he said that hurricanes are going to 
continue to hit the United States on the Atlantic and gulf coast, and 
the damage will probably be more extensive than in the past, but this 
is due to natural climate cycles, which cause hurricanes to be stronger 
and more frequent and rising property prices on the coast, not because 
of any affect of CO2 emissions on weather. He goes on to say 
that it is determined that the total number of Atlantic hurricanes 
making landfall in the United States decreased from the normalized 
trend of U.S. hurricanes. The damage reveals a decreasing rate. In 
other words, they are decreasing. Finally, contrary to the belief--this 
is Dr. Christopher Lansey--reducing CO2 emissions will not 
lessen the impact of hurricanes.

[[Page S6898]]

  We can say anything we want on the floor of the Senate. These are 
scientists. He says the best way to reduce the toll hurricanes will 
take on coastal communities is through adaptation and preparation. I 
believe that is true.
  Second, they brought up the Arctic. I think when you look at some of 
the reports on the Arctic--I will quote from the report that was given 
before the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain's Committee, at that 
time. He said:

       Arctic climate varies dramatically from one region to 
     another and, over time, in ways that cannot be accurately 
     reproduced by climate models. The quantitative impacts of 
     natural and anthropogenic factors remain highly uncertain, 
     especially for a region as complex as the Arctic. In contrast 
     to global and hemispheric temperatures, the maritime Arctic 
     temperature was higher in the 1930s through the early 1940s 
     than it was in the 1990s.

  That contradicts everything that has been said about the Arctic. I 
will elaborate on this tomorrow.
  It has been stated by one of the proponents of the McCain-Lieberman 
bill that there are modest costs involved. I will look at the impact. 
This is the CRA International analysis--not of S. 139 as it was before 
but as it has been pared down and supposedly will have less economic 
impact. They said that enacting McCain-Lieberman will cost the economy 
$507 billion in year 2020. Enacting McCain-Lieberman would mean a loss 
of 840,000 U.S. jobs in 2010. It will result in 1.306 million jobs in 
2020. That is not just a domino effect. Enacting McCain-Lieberman would 
cost the average U.S. household up to $810 in 2020. The figure used 
before was $2,700 for the average family of four.

  The NAS, a letter about the NAS, let's take a look at that. The 
National Academy of Sciences--and I will quote out of their report--
said:

       There is considerable uncertainty and current understanding 
     of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to 
     emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols.

  Further quoting:

       A casual linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases 
     and the observed climate change in the 20th century cannot be 
     unequivocally established; thirdly, the IPCC--

  That is the report of the International Panel on Climate Change of 
the United Nations.

       Summary for policymakers could give an impression that the 
     science of global warming is settled, even though many 
     uncertainties still remain.

  Again, that is the National Academy of Sciences.
  The Senator from California brought up the hockey stick theory. I 
believe that deserves more time than we will have tonight. I plan on 
talking about this tomorrow because when Michael Mann came up with the 
whole hockey stick theory, he talked about projecting the temperatures 
over the period of time, until the 20th century came along, and then 
they went up and off the charts. What he neglected to say, I say to my 
friend from Connecticut, is that there was another blade to this hockey 
stick, and that was the blade there during the medieval warming period. 
It is pretty well established now that the temperatures during the 
medieval warming period were actually higher than they were during this 
century--the current blade he talks about. That is significant. We will 
have a chance to elaborate on that.
  Finally, in the timeframe I have, I will say that when it is referred 
to that the Senator from Oklahoma will come up with some ``obscure'' 
scientist who might disagree, you are right, he will, because there are 
a lot of them out there who are pretty well educated. The Oregon 
Petition was made up of 17,800 scientists. I will quote from their 
report. They said:

       There is no convincing scientific evidence that human 
     release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases 
     is causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, 
     catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption 
     of the earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial 
     scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon 
     dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural 
     plant and animal environments of the earth.

  I think we are going to have an opportunity--at least I will--to talk 
about many of the other scientists. At least we have to come to the 
conclusion that there are uncertainties out there. I think the people 
who try to say the science is settled believe that if they keep saying 
the same thing over and over again, people will believe it. Quite 
frankly, there is a very friendly media to the alarmists, those who 
want to believe there is a real serious problem that, No. 1, the 
climate is changing; and, No. 2, the changes are due to anthropogenic 
gases or manmade gases, when, in fact, the science is not settled.

  I believe this is very important for people to realize. People might 
ask the question, If the science is not settled and if there is that 
much of an economic problem with this, then what could be motivating 
people to be so concerned about our signing on to the Kyoto treaty? 
Margot Wallstrom is the EU Environment Commissioner. She said that 
Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big 
business worldwide. Another hero to some, Jacques Chirac, had a lot to 
say when he weighed in. Talking about it has nothing to do with climate 
change, he said that Kyoto represents the first component of an 
authentic global governance.
  There are people who are motivated by wanting to effect economic 
damage to our country. Tomorrow, we will have opportunity to cover in 
much more detail the fact that there is another side to this story.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). The senior Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. What is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The current business is amendment No. 826 
offered by the Senators from Arizona and Connecticut.
  Mr. DeWINE. I yield to my colleague from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have already told the minority what I 
was going to do if I can get an understanding. Senators DeWine and Kohl 
want to offer an amendment. I ask them if they could complete their 
amendment--allowing the Senator from New Mexico 1 minute--in 6 minutes 
between the two.
  Mr. DeWINE. We can certainly do whatever the Senator would like us to 
do.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am not trying to tell you; I am asking if you can do 
that.
  Mr. DeWINE. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That will be voice voted, however it turns out. Then we 
are going to proceed, without objection, to Senator Voinovich, who has 
an amendment which has been circulated for a while. He desires to 
debate that amendment and have a rollcall vote, correct?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If anybody wants to speak in opposition, I will ask 
that they have 1 minute and that you have 6 minutes on your side. Is 
that satisfactory?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask that it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays 
now for the Voinovich amendment when it is appropriately before the 
Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We can proceed with the rest of the consent agreement, 
and then we are back on the Senator's amendment. If I failed to ask 
that the McCain-Lieberman be temporarily set aside while this is 
occurring, I so request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let me understand the unanimous consent 
agreement. The pending amendment would be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator DeWine and Senator Kohl will be 
recognized for 6 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. And Senator Voinovich will be recognized, and we will 
have a vote following that; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. And one addition; the Senator 
from New Mexico wants 1 minute to speak.
  Mr. McCAIN. Now I understand.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator. I am sorry I did not make it clear 
enough. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The senior Senator from Ohio is recognized for 6 minutes.


                           Amendment No. 788

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I send to the desk amendment No. 788.

[[Page S6899]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. DeWine], for himself, Mr. Kohl, 
     Mr. Specter, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Feingold, Mr. 
     Coburn, Mr. Levin, Ms. Snowe, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Dayton, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 788.

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting 
                            cartels illegal)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. NO OIL PRODUCING AND EXPORTING CARTELS.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``No Oil 
     Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2005'' or ``NOPEC''.
       (b) Sherman Act.--The Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding after section 7 the following:

     ``SEC. 7A. OIL PRODUCING CARTELS.

       ``(a) In General.--It shall be illegal and a violation of 
     this Act for any foreign state, or any instrumentality or 
     agent of any foreign state, to act collectively or in 
     combination with any other foreign state, any instrumentality 
     or agent of any other foreign state, or any other person, 
     whether by cartel or any other association or form of 
     cooperation or joint action--
       ``(1) to limit the production or distribution of oil, 
     natural gas, or any other petroleum product;
       ``(2) to set or maintain the price of oil, natural gas, or 
     any petroleum product; or
       ``(3) to otherwise take any action in restraint of trade 
     for oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product;
     when such action, combination, or collective action has a 
     direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the 
     market, supply, price, or distribution of oil, natural gas, 
     or other petroleum product in the United States.
       ``(b) Sovereign Immunity.--A foreign state engaged in 
     conduct in violation of subsection (a) shall not be immune 
     under the doctrine of sovereign immunity from the 
     jurisdiction or judgments of the courts of the United States 
     in any action brought to enforce this section.
       ``(c) Inapplicability of Act of State Doctrine.--No court 
     of the United States shall decline, based on the act of state 
     doctrine, to make a determination on the merits in an action 
     brought under this section.
       ``(d) Enforcement.--The Attorney General of the United 
     States and the Federal Trade Commission may bring an action 
     to enforce this section in any district court of the United 
     States as provided under the antitrust laws.''.
       (c) Sovereign Immunity.--Section 1605(a) of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) in which the action is brought under section 7A of 
     the Sherman Act.''.

  Mr. DeWINE. I yield myself 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I join my colleague, Senator Kohl, 
and 16 cosponsors to offer the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels 
Act of 2005 to the Energy bill. This amendment would give the 
Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission legal authority 
to bring an antitrust case against the Organization of Petroleum 
Exporting Countries.
  We need this amendment because, simply put, gas and oil prices are 
too high, and it is time that we do something about it. Every consumer 
in America knows that gasoline prices are simply too high.
  What is the cause? There are a number of causes, but certainly one of 
them, the primary cause, is the increase in imported crude oil prices. 
Who sets these prices? OPEC does. The unacceptably high price of 
imported crude oil is a direct result of price fixing by the OPEC 
nations to keep the price of oil unnaturally high.
  What this amendment does is to give the executive branch permission 
or authority--it does not compel them to do it--it gives them authority 
to file under our antitrust laws against OPEC. If this was any other 
business, if this was any business in this country or any other 
international business, they could be filed against. What this 
amendment simply does is it makes it very clear that they come under 
our antitrust laws.
  It is the right thing to do. I ask my colleagues to adopt the 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield to my colleague, Senator Kohl.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has 3 minutes 50 
seconds.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to offer, with Senator DeWine, an 
amendment which will authorize our Government, for the first time, to 
take action against the illegal conduct of the OPEC oil cartel. Indeed, 
it is time for the U.S. Government to fight back on the price of oil 
and hold OPEC accountable when it acts illegally. This amendment, 
identical to our NOPEC bill, which passed the Judiciary Committee 
unanimously three times over the past 5 years, most recently this past 
April, will enable our Government to hold OPEC member nations to 
account under U.S. antitrust law for illegal conduct in limiting supply 
and fixing prices in violation of the most basic prices of free 
competition.
  Let me tell you what our amendment does and what it does not do. What 
it does is it simply authorizes our Government to take legal action 
against OPEC member nations to participate in a conspiracy to limit the 
supply or fix the price of oil. But this amendment will not require the 
Government to bring legal action against OPEC member nations. This 
decision will remain entirely in the discretion of the executive 
branch. Private suits are not authorized. All our amendment will do is 
give our law enforcement agencies a tool to employ against the OPEC oil 
cartel. The decision whether to use this tool will be entirely up to 
the administration. They can use this tool as often as they see fit, 
however they see fit to file a legal action, to jawbone OPEC in 
diplomatic discussions, or defer from any action should they judge 
foreign policy or other considerations that warrant it.
  The most fundamental principle of a free market is that competitors 
cannot be permitted to conspire to limit or fix price. There can be no 
free market without this foundation, and we should not permit any 
nation to flout this fundamental principle.
  There is nothing remarkable about applying U.S. antitrust law 
overseas. Our Government has not hesitated to do so when faced with the 
clear evidence of anticompetitive conduct that harms American 
consumers. If OPEC were a group of international private companies 
rather than foreign governments, their actions would be nothing more 
than an illegal price-fixing scheme. But OPEC members have used the 
shield of sovereign immunity to escape accountability for their price 
fixing. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, however, already 
recognizes that the commercial activity of nations is not protected by 
sovereign immunity. And it is hard to imagine an activity that is more 
obviously commercial than selling oil for profit as OPEC nations do.
  The suffering of consumers across our country in the last year 
demonstrates yet again that this legislation is necessary. Our 
amendment will have, at a minimum, a deterrent effect on nations that 
seek to join forces to fix oil prices to the detriment of consumers. It 
will force OPEC member nations to face substantial and real antitrust 
sanctions should they persist in their illegal conduct.
  Before yielding the floor, I want to express my gratitude to my good 
friend and colleague, Senator DeWine, for all his efforts over the past 
5 years on this important measure. I also wish to thank the many 
cosponsors who have joined us on this amendment, including the chairman 
and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. I am proud to cosponsor this amendment, as I have been 
glad to cosponsor the ``No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act,'' 
which we have been working to pass since 2001. I commend our lead 
sponsors Senators DeWine and Kohl.
  I wish that we could have considered and passed this bill, S. 555, on 
its own. This bill passed out of the Judiciary Committee with 
overwhelming support earlier this year. I have repeatedly called for 
its consideration by the Senate over the last several months.
  In the face of crude oil prices over $55 a barrel and gas prices at 
historic and sustained high levels, and in the face of determined 
inaction by the White

[[Page S6900]]

House, we must seize whatever opportunity presents itself.
  It is long past time for the Congress to hold OPEC accountable for 
its anticompetitive behavior. This amendment will prevent the U.S. from 
being at the mercy of the OPEC cartel by making them subject to our 
antitrust laws. It will allow the Federal Government to take legal 
action against any foreign state, including members of OPEC, for price 
fixing and other anticompetitive activities.
  In March of 2004, more than a year ago, I wrote Senator Hatch to 
request a hearing about the skyrocketing cost of gasoline. In that 
letter, I raised concerns that this increase was largely due to market 
manipulation by OPEC, and I cited the high average price for a gallon 
of gasoline, which at the time was around $1.74. Many of us would today 
consider that price a bargain, having been forced to pay over $2.00, 
and even more this year. At that hearing, witnesses told us what we had 
suspected to be true: The price of crude oil, determined by OPEC's 
artificial production quotas, is the factor that most explains the 
price Americans pay at the pump.
  The artificial pricing scheme enforced by OPEC affects all of us. 
This week, Vermonters were paying $2.10 for a gallon of regular 
gasoline, just three cents below the national average. These prices 
affect everyone. Higher fuel prices can add thousands of dollars in 
yearly costs to a 100-head dairy operation in the Northeast. And as our 
summer months approach, many families are going to find that OPEC has 
put an expensive crimp in their plans. Some are likely to stay home--
others will pay more to drive or to fly so that they can visit their 
families or take their well-deserved vacations.
  Rising interest rates are also adding to the burden felt by working 
Americans. Pension insecurity is another catastrophe for some and a 
looming specter for too many others. Millions of Americans who trusted 
that the pensions they were promised by their employers would be there 
for them when they retired are being shocked by rulings in bankruptcy 
cases that let their employers off the hook and turn their pension 
security into a hollow promise.
  Congress needs to do more. The administration needs to do more. 
Authorizing action against illegal oil price fixing and taking that 
action without delay is one thing we can do without additional 
obstruction or delay.
  Last month, as some Republicans were pushing this body to the brink 
of the so-called nuclear option, Americans were thinking not about the 
handful of controversial judicial nominees on which the Senate was 
fixated, but about the pinch they feel at the pump every time they fill 
up their cars. A survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the 
Press showed that Americans were following news about gasoline prices 
more closely than any other story, including the ongoing conflict in 
Iraq. It is long passed the time for walking hand-in-hand with Saudi 
princes and exchanging kisses with those who are responsible for the 
artificially high prices that are gouging American working families at 
the pump.
  The President's solution to high gasoline prices this summer is to 
open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, pristine wilderness area, to 
oil drilling. The only catch is drilling in ANWR will not provide any 
new oil for at least 7 to 12 years. ANWR drilling will do absolutely 
nothing to help my constituents who have sticker shock at the gas pump 
or will be facing record-high home heating prices in a few months.
  This amendment will provide law enforcement with the tools necessary 
to fight OPEC's anticompetitive practices immediately, and help reduce 
gasoline prices now, rather than waiting for another decade.
  Again, I am pleased to support this amendment and urge my colleagues 
to maintain it in the final version of the bill. After the years of 
Judiciary consideration, including a hearing on this topic, after twice 
reporting the measure to the Senate, it is time for Senators to finally 
say ``no'' to OPEC.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, is there any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 20 seconds.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, this is what our bill says: When you want 
to do business with America, you must abide by our antitrust laws and 
rules of the free market. When OPEC one day abides by the rules of the 
free market, we will all see lower oil and gas prices. That is what 
this amendment is about.
  I yield the floor. I thank Senator Domenici.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The Senator from New 
Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, obviously I am letting this amendment 
proceed, but, frankly, I do not think the amendment should be on this 
bill. I do not think it could ever become law. The United States has 
never done this. These are sovereign nations, and for us to decide here 
on the Senate floor that we are going to establish some new forum for 
jurisdiction and litigation against the OPEC cartel is nothing short of 
incredible.
  Nonetheless, I do not question the goodwill and the authenticity of 
the two Senators in their approach. They do not insist on a rollcall 
vote, and I will not insist on one. We will, therefore, have a voice 
vote. I hope those who are listening to this and see what we do 
understand that the Senate does things different ways at different 
times.
  After the amendment is adopted by voice vote, I will tell the Senate 
and those interested what is going to happen to the amendment.
  I yield the floor and suggest that we vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
788.
  The amendment (No. 788) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are going to proceed to the Voinovich 
amendment. I thank Senator DeWine for accommodating us tonight and for 
his good intention. I wish we could do something and accomplish what he 
wanted to do today. I want everybody to know because we had a voice 
vote and accepted this amendment, we will go to conference with the 
House. It should be clearly understood that the House does not have 
anything like this. I want everybody to know that this amendment is 
going to have to be bundled up with this bill. Those are the rules. But 
it might get lost between the floor and the time we get over to the 
Senate, and we may not be able to find it when we get over there, just 
so everybody understands what the fate of this amendment is. But it has 
been adopted.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Ohio.


                           Amendment No. 799

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I wish to make a brief statement before 
we vote on the Voinovich, Carper, Feinstein, Jeffords, Hutchison, 
Stevens, Clinton, Obama, Lautenberg, DeWine, Levin, and Alexander 
amendment. It is based on the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005, 
S. 1265. That bill is cosponsored by the Environment and Public Works 
Committee chairman, Jim Inhofe, Ranking Member Jeffords, Senators Tom 
Carper, Johnny Isakson, Hillary Clinton, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and 
Dianne Feinstein.
  The bill was developed in close consultation with a strong and 
diverse group of environmental, industrial, and public officials. The 
groups range from the Environmental Defense, to the Union of Concerned 
Scientists, to the Associated General Contractors of America, to the 
Engine Manufacturers Association, to the Chamber of Commerce, to the 
National Conference of State Legislators.
  The cosponsors and these groups do not agree on many issues, which is 
why this amendment is so special. It is focused on improving air 
quality and protecting public health. It establishes voluntary national 
and State level grant and loan programs to promote the reduction of 
diesel emissions. It authorizes $1 billion over 5 years, $200 million 
annually.
  Onroad and nonroad diesel vehicles and engines account for roughly 
one-half of the nitrogen oxide and particulate matter mobile source 
emissions nationwide, and diesel retrofits have proven to be one of the 
most cost-effective emission reduction strategies. The

[[Page S6901]]

bill has a 13-to-1 cost-benefit ratio. Spectacular.
  This would help bring counties into attainment with new air quality 
standards by encouraging the retrofitting and replacements of diesel 
engines.
  The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 enjoys broad bipartisan 
support and is needed desperately. I urge my colleagues to vote for 
this amendment.
  Mr. President, I would like to now yield the remainder of my time to 
my longstanding good friend, Senator Carper, and say it is wonderful to 
be on the floor of the Senate cosponsoring with him an amendment that 
has such broad support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the leadership he 
has shown on this particular issue to unite environmental groups and 
business groups, people from the Republican chairman of our Environment 
and Public Works Committee, to the junior Senator from New York on our 
side. It is a remarkable coalition that has been put together in a very 
short period of time.
  With respect to diesel engines, there is good news and bad news. The 
good news is that diesel engines last a long time. The bad news is that 
old diesel engines that are still on our highways and roads last a long 
time. In fact, there are about 11 million of them. While next year our 
new EPA requirements for lean-burn, clean-burn diesel engines--so-
called tier 2 standards--kick in and requirements for lower sulfur 
content diesel fuel kick in, we have 11 million older diesel vehicles, 
some of which will be around until 2030 belching out nitrogen oxide.
  Half the nitrogen oxide we emit comes from these 11 million diesel 
engines--school buses, regular buses, boats, locomotives, trucks. That 
is where half of our nitrogen oxide emissions come from. It causes fog, 
and the particulates that come out of our diesel engines lead to all 
kinds of lung diseases in people young and old. That is the bad news.
  There is some more good news. The good news is we can do something 
about it. Senator Voinovich and others said the thing to do is create a 
partnership with the Federal Government, State government, EPA, and 
some of the private sector folks to put in place retrofit devices on 
these older diesel engines to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide and 
particulate, in some cases, by as much as 85 percent.
  It is cost effective. The effect will be immediate. We do not have to 
wait until 2030 until these vehicles are off the road to start cleaning 
up our engines.
  The last thing I will say is good environmental policy can also be 
good business policy. Companies such as Corning, Cummings, Caterpillar 
are making these devices and installing these devices, and they will do 
a whole lot more in the days to come. They will make money, a profit, 
from doing this. They will create products that can be exported, not 
jobs but products that can be exported to other parts of the world.
  We will have cleaner air and, frankly, a stronger economy. That is a 
great win-win situation for all of us. I am delighted Senator Voinovich 
proposed this. I am delighted to join him as a principal sponsor on our 
side and anxious to get this vote recorded.
  My hope is that maybe we can actually pass this unanimously. That 
would be a wonderful thing for our country and a good thing for this 
bill. I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding this time and providing 
such terrific leadership.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Ohio 
as a cosponsor of this important amendment to improve air quality and 
public health by reducing emissions from diesel engines.
  I believe that this amendment will take important strides not only 
toward the stated goal of reducing emissions but also in making 
advanced clean diesel technology more viable in the United States. 
Diesel engines now can increase fuel economy by as much as 25 to 40 
percent. If we can do that--and do it without harmful tailpipe 
emissions--we could make significant progress toward improving overall 
fuel economy and reducing our oil consumption.
  This bipartisan amendment would establish national and State grant 
and loan programs to promote reduction of diesel emissions. The 
amendment authorizes $200 million annually for 5 years to fund programs 
that will help us to replace older diesel technology with newer, 
cleaner diesel technology. The grant program, which will be 
administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, has the potential 
to result in significant reductions in diesel particulate matter and 
help communities in meeting national ambient air quality standards.
  Under this amendment, 70 percent of the funds available would be to 
provide grants and low-cost revolving loans on a competitive basis for 
retrofit of buses, heavy duty trucks, locomotives, or non-road engines 
to help achieve significant emissions reductions particularly from 
fleets operating in poor air quality areas. The remaining 30 percent of 
the funds would go for grant and loan programs administered by states.
  The important steps that will be taken by these programs offer great 
promise for reducing diesel emissions and making clean diesel a 
commercially viable advanced vehicle technology in the U.S. Our friends 
in Europe have taken advantage of the opportunities that diesel offers 
for improving fuel economy and reducing oil dependence. We have not 
been able to do so here in the U.S. because of our concerns about 
tailpipe emissions. Initiatives such as those included in this 
amendment will help the U.S. to develop advanced diesel technology that 
will be able to meet our emissions standards in a cost-effective 
manner.
  I am pleased to join my colleagues today in supporting this 
amendment.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Voinovich 
amendment on diesel emissions reductions. I am an original cosponsor of 
the legislation which is the same as this amendment. I agree with the 
intent of this amendment, I believe it is helpful to provide a 
voluntary national and state-level grant and loan program to promote 
the reduction of diesel emissions. However, I am concerned that this 
proposal is being rushed through the process without the benefit of 
consideration by the committee of jurisdiction, the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, which I chair.
  I would prefer, prior to Senate action, that the Environment and 
Public Works Committee conduct legislative hearings on the issue, and 
ensure that the program design meets its goals in a cost-effective 
manner. I am concerned about the $1 billion cost of the program and I 
believe the goals might be accomplished with a smaller sum. I also 
believe that if this amendment is adopted, it needs to be reconciled 
with section 723 of this bill. I hope these issues will be given 
consideration as this legislation is reconciled with the House of 
Representatives.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I did not hear. Pardon me. What is the question?
  Mr. CARPER. I have no question.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Are we finished? Is the Senator finished with his time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I understand that there is no further time. I am 
supposed to sit down. We are not supposed to ask for a motion, say we 
move to proceed, we just sit down, and then the Chair does it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
799. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Conrad), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), the Senator from 
Vermont (Mr. Jeffords), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from New 
Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring the vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 1, as follows:

[[Page S6902]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 145 Leg.]

                                YEAS--92

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Enzi
       

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Thune
  The amendment (No. 799) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are not going to have any additional 
votes tonight. That is the first announcement I would like to make. But 
I also would like to suggest that, while the principal amendment, in 
terms of time tomorrow, is the McCain-Lieberman amendment on global 
climate change, there are now a number of amendments that are 
percolating up on the Democratic side predominantly. We are unable yet 
to come up with a list, but we are trying.
  It seems the distinguished Senator from New York, standing right in 
front of me, might have one we could go with rather quickly in the 
morning and perhaps the Senator from California, but I have to consult 
both with Senator Bingaman, obviously, and others.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am here to speak on the importance of a 
national energy policy and to express my staunch opposition to the 
inclusion of an amendment offered by my colleagues from Arizona and 
Connecticut that creates a mandatory carbon cap and trade program.
  Before doing so, however, I want to take a moment to thank the 
chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator 
Domenici, for his hard work on the bill. Senator Domenici has worked 
exceedingly hard to craft truly bipartisan consensus legislation. I 
commend him for that work. I commend everyone that has worked on this 
bill under his direction. It is extremely important we have an energy 
policy.
  I remember 1973 when OPEC shut off the supply. We had gas lines for 
what little natural gas there was. At that time, the seat I now hold 
was held by Senator Cliff Hansen from Wyoming. He expressed the need 
for an energy policy. Ever since that time we have been talking about 
the need for an energy policy. Now is the time we can have an energy 
policy. Let's finish the job.
  From the time I was first elected to be the mayor of Gillette, WY, 
during the energy boom years of the 1980s, I have advocated the need 
for a comprehensive national energy policy. I come to the Senate today 
as a strong advocate for such a policy and to share my support for the 
version of the bill pending before the Senate. We have debated the 
merits of a comprehensive Energy bill for years. We have come close to 
passing an Energy bill on a number of occasions. At the end of the day, 
however, the Congress has not made those discussions a reality and our 
inaction has caused the energy situation in our Nation to worsen.
  Oil prices have reached nearly $60 a barrel, more than double what 
they were in 2000. Unfortunately, as our demand for gasoline has 
increased, our Nation's refining capacity has not. This has led to 
record-high gasoline prices, and while high natural gas prices have 
helped my State, they continue to have damaging effects on consumers 
across the Nation.
  Without a comprehensive national energy strategy, there is no end in 
sight for the problems we see. The high energy prices that are hurting 
small business will continue to make increased investment in those 
businesses difficult. The high energy prices that limit the ability of 
families to go on vacations will continue to make those trips more and 
more rare. The high energy prices that make it difficult for lower 
income people to pay their bills each month will continue to price them 
out of proper heating in the winter and proper cooling in the summer.
  Never before has there been a time when it is more appropriate for 
Congress to act. Before the Senate, we have a comprehensive Energy bill 
that is a step in the right direction. This bill balances the need for 
increased domestic production while maintaining a commitment to 
environmental protection and energy conservation. It will help reduce 
our dependence on foreign sources of oil and will enhance our energy 
security.
  This bill provides a blueprint for future energy production. At the 
same time, it addresses our energy needs of today. In its current form, 
the bill recognizes that the production of energy and the protection of 
environment are not mutually exclusive. It recognizes we can grow our 
economy and conserve energy.
  Specifically, I am pleased this bill includes a number of important 
provisions that support and promote clean coal development. Coal is an 
extremely important resource in Wyoming and throughout our Nation. We 
have as many Btu's in coal in Wyoming as the Middle East has in oil. 
Wyoming has the largest coal reserves in our Nation. In fact, the 
county in which I served as a mayor has more coal than most foreign 
countries. Thus, any comprehensive energy solution that seeks to lessen 
our dependence on foreign energy sources must make coal a central part 
of the discussion.

  Recognizing this, H.R. 6 authorizes $200 million per year for fiscal 
years 2006 through 2014 to be spent on clean coal technologies. It also 
incorporates a number of necessary changes to the Mineral Leasing Act 
to promote the development of our Federal coal resources.
  The bill also repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, 
also known as PUHCA. PUHCA was enacted to eliminate unfair practices 
and other abuses by electricity and gas holding companies by requiring 
Federal control and regulation of interstate public utility holding 
companies. In 1935, that made sense. But today, with the oversight by 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, by State public utility 
commissions, by the Department of Justice, and by the Federal Trade 
Commission, what was once a useful and necessary tool now unnecessarily 
stands as a barrier to increased investment in transmission capacity.
  I am pleased that the tax title of the bill includes a provision to 
address our Nation's need for increased refinery capacity. I am pleased 
that it promotes increased investment in renewable technologies, such 
as wind power and hydrogen. There is no question that we need to pass 
the energy bill we are debating because it will truly benefit our 
nation.
  While I support this bill as it is currently written, the amendment 
that is currently pending would have a disastrous effect on our economy 
and would ignore principles that the Senate laid out in previous 
debates dealing with the issue of climate change. Passage of an 
amendment like the one before us, that would implement a mandatory 
carbon cap-and-trade program, would jeopardize my support of the 
overall bill. I want to take a moment to share my staunch opposition to 
that amendment.
  Climate change is a topic that we have debated for years. This topic 
should be familiar to us. Nonetheless, it is important to share a 
historical

[[Page S6903]]

perspective about where the Senate stands on climate change and to make 
clear that the proposal we are discussing, which implements a mandatory 
carbon cap-and-trade program, flies in the face of the Senate's stated 
position on global climate change.
  I took advantage of the opportunity to go to Kyoto for the global 
climate change conference that was held there. At that conference, the 
Kyoto Protocol was drafted. One of the things I noticed when I got to 
the conference was that the United States was the only country there 
that thought it was an environmental conference. The rest of the world 
approached it as an economic conference, one where they had an 
opportunity to slow down the U.S. economy and allow for growth in their 
nations.
  On the other hand, we approached it as an environmental conference. 
In doing so, we laid out some strict guidelines for our delegation to 
work within as they tried to reach an agreement. Unfortunately, on the 
last night some of those were compromised. The United States made some 
agreements that would be impossible for us to ever meet.
  Before the debate first began in Kyoto about the need to control 
carbon emissions--that was in 1997--the Senate made a clear and direct 
statement of principle on that subject. When it came to negotiations on 
climate, we stated that any agreement that did not treat all nations, 
both developed and developing, equally was unacceptable. We also made 
it clear that we would not support an agreement that would cause 
serious harm to our economy. By a vote of 95 to 0, on July 25, 1997, 
the Senate approved the Byrd-Hagel resolution that explicitly stated 
the Senate's position.
  The Byrd-Hagel resolution addressed the concerns of those who believe 
that a global climate change policy would ``result in serious harm to 
the United States economy, including significant job loss, trade 
disadvantages, and increased energy and consumer costs.''
  It also addressed concerns that any effort to reduce global emissions 
would be imposed only on developed nations, ignoring developing nations 
where emissions would continue to rise without any effective controls. 
Let me repeat that again. We would oppose any efforts to reduce global 
emissions that would be imposed only on developed nations, ignoring the 
developing world where emissions would continue to rise without any 
effective controls.
  Now, the Senate agreed to take this position in the 105th Congress. 
Since that time, nothing has changed. The science behind global climate 
change remains uncertain. The modeling that many used to ``prove'' that 
climate change exists remains fatally flawed. Yet we continue to have 
the same debate year after year.
  We ignore the fact that the Bush administration has taken steps to 
reduce our carbon emissions. We ignore the fact that as a nation we are 
doing better than nearly every European signatory of the Kyoto Protocol 
when comparing greenhouse gas intensity reductions.
  We also ignore the fact that climate change is a global problem. 
Unless we engage the developing world, whatever reductions we have in 
the United States will not improve the situation on a global scale.
  We are just a couple of years from having China exceed the emissions 
that we have in the United States. They will do so without any of the 
environmental safeguards that we have already put in place.
  When I was at the Kyoto conference, I had an opportunity to meet with 
the Chinese delegation. I had a couple things that I was interested in: 
One, why they thought, as a developing nation, they should not have to 
do anything to address climate change; and, just as importantly, at 
what point they thought they would no longer be a developing nation so 
they could participate in this.
  They let me know they expected to always be a developing nation and 
to never have a part in the Kyoto Protocol. It is pretty easy to sign 
something that you do not have to do anything on, especially when it 
will force one of your main economic competitors to comply and reduce 
their production.

  Then, I even asked: Is there any time at some future, unspecified 
date that you would be willing to participate? They said no. That is as 
loose as you can make it: some future, unspecified date. And they are 
not interested in participating.
  Not only is the rest of the developing world not participating. The 
biggest polluter--in a couple of years--is not going to be a part of 
any of the action to reduce carbon emissions in the world.
  Now, instead of working to improve the science and to improve 
technologies that will inevitably reduce the amount of carbon released 
into the atmosphere, a number of my colleagues focus on the need for a 
mandatory carbon cap-and-trade system. They focus on implementing what 
can only be described as another energy tax. Such a tax will cause the 
United States to lose jobs and will shift production to other parts of 
the world where the environmental standards are not as strict. Instead 
of having the effect of lowering the amount of carbon that seeps into 
our atmosphere, the effect will be the opposite as those developing 
nations allow for production without any environmental controls.
  Yet, without sound science, without sound economics, and without the 
developing world, some Senators continue to insist that we must 
implement a cap-and-trade system in the United States.
  As stated by the Cooler Heads Coalition:

       The risks of global warming are speculative; the risks of 
     global warming policy are all too real.

  The proposal offered by my colleagues from Arizona and Connecticut 
ignores the principles expressed in the Byrd-Hagel resolution. Passage 
of their mandatory cap-and-trade proposal will dramatically harm our 
economy at home without incorporating the developing world. It would 
lead to a drastic increase in transportation costs and home electricity 
costs. It would be costly for small business owners, and it would cause 
manufacturers to pay even more than they already do for natural gas.
  Overall, according to the Independent Energy Information 
Administration, the Nation's energy costs would increase between $64 
billion and $92 billion in 2010, between $152 billion and $214 billion 
by 2020, and between $220 billion and $274 billion in 2025.
  My constituents simply cannot afford to have us enact such 
legislation. If we, as a Senate, really want to stand for improving 
global conditions, then we need to stand behind the principles of the 
Byrd-Hagel Resolution, as we did earlier this afternoon when we voted 
in favor of an amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska. His 
legislation took a technology-based approach at home and encouraged the 
spread of the technology to the developing world. It made sound 
environmental and economic sense, and I voted in favor of that 
proposal.
  While I oppose the pending amendment on policy alone, I think it is 
important for my colleagues to recognize the overall impact of 
including the current amendment in the Energy bill. Passage of this 
proposal has the potential to derail this important legislation. The 
Senate and House versions of the Energy bill are very different, and 
even without a climate change amendment, the conference with the House 
will be difficult. The addition of a mandatory carbon cap and trade 
program could be the poison pill that brings this Energy bill to a 
halt.
  Why are we going to risk derailing a comprehensive Energy bill to 
implement a system that will harm our economy and will have little 
effect on the amount of carbon emissions released into the atmosphere? 
Why are we moving forward with something when the science behind the 
proposals remains unproven and the models used to prove that science 
remain flawed?
  We must consider all of these issues as we cast our vote on this 
amendment. I will be opposing it, and I will urge other Members to do 
the same.
  It is important to note, that although I oppose any attempt to 
include a mandatory carbon cap-and-trade program in the Energy bill, I 
strongly support the overall Energy bill. Comprehensive energy policy 
will undoubtedly benefit our Nation, and I look forward to working with 
my colleagues to finally make this legislation a reality.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S6904]]

  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 839

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lautenberg, I call up 
amendment No. 839 and ask that once it is reported by the clerk, it be 
set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. REID], for Mr. Lautenberg, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 839.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require any Federal agency that publishes a science-based 
 climate change document that was significantly altered at White House 
   request to make an unaltered final draft of the document publicly 
                       available for comparison)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

                   TITLE      --SAVE CLIMATE SCIENCE

     SEC. --01. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Save Climate Scientific 
     Credibility, Integrity, Ethics, Nonpartisanship, Consistency, 
     and Excellence Act'' or the ``Save Climate SCIENCE Act''.

     SEC. --02. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Federal climate-related reports and studies that 
     summarize or synthesize science that was rigorously peer-
     reviewed and that cost taxpayers millions of dollars, were 
     altered to misrepresent or omit information contained in the 
     underlying scientific reports or studies.
       (2) Reports of such alterations were exposed by scientists 
     who were involved in the preparation of the underlying 
     scientific reports or studies.
       (3) Such alteration of Federal climate-related reports and 
     studies raises questions about the credibility, integrity, 
     and consistency of the United States climate science program.

     SEC. --03. PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--Within 48 hours after an executive agency 
     (as defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code) 
     publishes a summary, synthesis, or analysis of a scientific 
     study or report on climate change that has been modified to 
     reflect comments by the Executive Office of the President 
     that change the force, meaning, emphasis, conclusions, 
     findings, or recommendations of the scientific or technical 
     component of the study or report, the head of that agency 
     shall make available on a departmental or agency website, and 
     on a public docket, if any, that is accessible by the public 
     both the final version and the last draft version before it 
     was modified to reflect those comments.
       (b) Format and Ease of Comparison.--The documents shall be 
     made available--
       (1) in a format that is generally available to the public; 
     and
       (2) in the same format and accessible on the same page with 
     equal prominence, or in any other manner that facilitates 
     comparison of the 2 texts.

     SEC. --04. ENFORCEMENT.

       The failure, by the head of an executive agency, to comply 
     with the requirements of section --02 shall be considered a 
     failure to file a report required by section 102 of the 
     Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. ).

     SEC. --05. ANNUAL REPORT BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL.

       The Comptroller General shall transmit to the Congress 
     within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and 
     annually thereafter, a report on compliance with the 
     requirements of section --02 by executive agencies that 
     includes information on the status of any enforcement actions 
     brought under section 104 of the Ethics in Government Act of 
     1978 (5 U.S.C. App. ) for violations of section --02 of this 
     Act during the 12-month period covered by the report.

     SEC. --06. WHISTLEBLOWER EXTENSION FOR DISCLOSURES RELATING 
                   TO INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE SCIENCE.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 
     2302(b)(8) of title 5, United States Code, are amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (ii), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
       (3) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
       ``(iii) tampering with the conduct of Federally funded 
     climate-related scientific research or analysis, altering or 
     omitting the findings of Federally funded climate-related 
     scientific research or analysis, or directing the 
     dissemination of climate-related scientific information known 
     by the directing employee to be false or misleading,''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 1212(a)(3) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``regulation, or gross'' and inserting 
     ``regulation; gross''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following: ``or tampering with 
     the conduct of Federally funded climate-related scientific 
     research or analysis, altering or omitting the findings of 
     Federally funded climate-related scientific research or 
     analysis, or directing the dissemination of climate-related 
     scientific information known by the directing employee to be 
     false or misleading;''
       (2) Section 1213(a) of such title is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
       (ii) by inserting ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B); 
     and
       (iii) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) tampering with the conduct of Federally funded 
     climate-related scientific research or analysis, altering or 
     omitting the findings of Federally funded climate-related 
     scientific research or analysis, or directing the 
     dissemination of climate-related scientific information known 
     by the directing employee to be false or misleading;''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
       (ii) by striking ``safety.'' in subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting ``safety; or''; and
       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) tampering with the conduct of Federally funded 
     climate-related scientific research or analysis, altering or 
     omitting the findings of Federally funded climate-related 
     scientific research or analysis, or directing the 
     dissemination of climate-related scientific information known 
     by the directing employee to be false or misleading.''.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate resumes consideration of the Energy bill tomorrow morning, 
Senator Feinstein be recognized in order to offer an amendment relating 
to LNG; provided further that there be 60 minutes equally divided for 
debate, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote in 
relation to the Feinstein amendment.
  I further ask that following the debate on the Feinstein amendment, 
Senator Byrd be recognized in order to offer an amendment related to 
rural gas prices; provided further, that when the Senate resumes debate 
on the McCain-Lieberman climate change amendment, there be 3 additional 
hours for debate, with Senator McCain or his designee in control of 90 
minutes, Senator Domenici in control of 30 minutes, and Senator Inhofe 
in control of the remaining 60 minutes; further, that following that 
debate, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the McCain 
amendment and there be no second-degree amendments in order to the 
amendment prior to the vote. I understand this has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we had another good day debating the 
amendments on this Energy bill, and we disposed of a number of them. We 
are going to return tomorrow with a lineup in the morning, and we are 
going to talk about that in a minute. We are going to have amendments 
relating to the LNG, liquefied natural gas, the world gas prices, to 
SUVs and the continuation of the climate change debate. Having said 
that, I remind everyone this is our second week of considering this 
bill. I am very pleased and thankful for the cooperation we have had on 
both sides of the aisle. Our leader has said on a number of occasions 
that we need to finish this bill this week. Therefore, on behalf of the 
majority leader, I now send a cloture motion to the desk to the 
underlying bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 6, a bill 
     to ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and 
     reliable energy.
         Bill Frist, Pete Domenici, Lamar Alexander, Kay Bailey 
           Hutchison, Jim DeMint, Michael Enzi, Ted Stevens, Larry 
           Craig, Craig Thomas, Mike Crapo, Conrad Burns, David 
           Vitter,

[[Page S6905]]

           Richard Burr, Kit Bond, Wayne Allard, Jim Inhofe, Lisa 
           Murkowski, George Voinovich.

  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that the live quorum be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. For the information of all Senators, this vote will 
occur on Thursday. In the meantime, I expect another full day to 
tomorrow with votes throughout the day. The cloture vote Thursday will 
enable us to bring this debate to a close and have a final vote on 
passage of the Energy bill this week.

                          ____________________