[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.
____________________