[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 84 (Wednesday, June 22, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6980-S7063]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 6, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 6) to ensure jobs for our future with secure, 
     affordable and reliable energy.

  Pending:

       Wyden/Dorgan amendment No. 792, to provide for the 
     suspension of strategic petroleum reserve acquisitions.
       Schumer amendment No. 805, to express the sense of the 
     Senate regarding management of the Strategic Petroleum 
     Reserve to lower the burden of gasoline prices on the economy 
     of the United States and circumvent the efforts of OPEC to 
     reap windfall profits.
       McCain/Lieberman amendment No. 826, to provide for a 
     program to accelerate the reduction of greenhouse gas 
     emissions in the United States.
       Reid (for Lautenberg) amendment No. 839, 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.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, will be recognized to offer an 
amendment in relation to LNG.
  The Senator from California.


                           Amendment No. 841

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 841.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], for herself 
     and Ms. Snowe, Mr. Reed, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. 
     Collins,

[[Page S6981]]

     Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. 
     Cantwell, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Schumer, and Mrs. Murray, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 841.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit the Commission from approving an application for 
the authorization of the siting, construction, expansion, or operation 
  of facilities located onshore or in State waters for the import of 
 natural gas from a foreign country or the export of natural gas to a 
 foreign country without the approval of the Governor of the State in 
                  which the facility would be located)

       On page 311, after line 24, add the following:
       ``(3)(A) The Commission shall not approve an application 
     for the authorization under this section of the siting, 
     construction, expansion, or operation of facilities located 
     onshore or in State waters for the import of natural gas from 
     a foreign country or the export of natural gas to a foreign 
     country without the approval of the Governor of the State in 
     which the facility would be located. Subject to subparagraph 
     (B), if the Governor fails to submit to the Commission an 
     approval or disapproval not later than 45 days after the 
     issuance of the final environmental impact statement on the 
     proposed project, the approval shall be conclusively 
     presumed. If the Governor notifies the Commission that an 
     application, which would otherwise be approved under this 
     paragraph, is inconsistent with State programs relating to 
     environmental protection, land and water use, public health 
     and safety, and coastal zone management, the Commission shall 
     condition the license granted so as to make the license 
     consistent with the State programs.
       ``(B) In the case of a project not approved before June 22, 
     2005, and for which the final environmental impact statement 
     was issued more than 15 days before the date of enactment of 
     this subsection, this paragraph shall apply, except that the 
     Governor of the State shall submit the approval or 
     disapproval of the Governor not later than 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of this subsection, or approval shall be 
     conclusively presumed. If the Governor disapproves the 
     project within that period, neither the Commission nor any 
     other Federal agency shall take any further action to approve 
     the project or the construction or operation of the 
     project.''.
       On page 312, line 1, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)''.
       On page 312, line 24, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of Senators Snowe, 
Reed, Sessions, Kennedy, Collins, Dodd, Boxer, Clinton, Lieberman, 
Cantwell, Kerry, Schumer, and Murray, to offer this amendment to the 
Energy bill on the siting of liquefied natural gas import terminals. 
Let me clearly state that the problem is not whether to site these LNG 
terminals, but where. To give control to a remote Federal agency, when 
States are concerned about the safety of residents near a proposed 
site, we, the cosponsors of this amendment, believe is a mistake.
  This Energy bill would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
known as FERC, exclusive authority over siting onshore liquefied 
natural gas facilities. Our amendment would provide each State's 
Governor the same authority to veto, approve, or attach conditions to 
onshore liquefied natural gas facilities as they now have with respect 
to offshore liquefied natural gas facilities. This amendment is not 
concurrent siting. It does not require the applicant duplicate the 
application process, nor does it add additional time and money to the 
entire application process. It simply states Governors will have 45 
days to approve, veto, or attach conditions to a project after FERC 
issues its final environmental impact statement.
  This chart, I think, says it all. Increased demand for LNG means we 
need new natural gas supplies, and liquefied natural gas is one of the 
options available to us. Let me be clear. I do not oppose liquefied 
natural gas sites in California. Liquefied natural gas is clean energy 
and it is less costly than other forms.
  What this chart shows is there are 34 potential sites for liquefied 
natural gas. Those are the blue circles, clustered around the gulf, off 
of Florida, off of the northeast coast, off of California, and one in 
the Pacific Northwest. It points out that eight sites in the United 
States have already been approved by FERC. It shows three are approved 
for Mexico, two are approved for Canada, and there are five existing 
sites at this time. Clearly this Nation is on its way to using 
liquefied natural gas.
  The United States holds less than 4 percent of total world reserves, 
and California produces less than 15 percent of the natural gas it 
consumes, so if there is to be this form of clean energy, it must be 
imported. That is why Governor Schwarzenegger, the California Public 
Utilities Commission, the California Energy Commission, and the State 
Governors Association, all agree the State needs new natural gas 
supplies and that LNG terminals may help put downward pressure on 
increasing natural gas prices.
  The chairman and ranking member of the Energy Committee believe FERC 
should have the final say over siting LNG terminals. On the other hand, 
we agree with the Governors of California, Massachusetts, Louisiana, 
Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Delaware, who stated in a letter dated 
May 25, that:

       Without State jurisdiction, there is no guarantee a project 
     will be consistent with the homeland security or 
     environmental requirements for a particular locality, or 
     whether the project adequately addresses the energy demands 
     of the respective State or region. We support legislation 
     that would provide for concurrent State and Federal 
     jurisdiction over LNG and other energy facilities.

  I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                     May 25, 2005.
     Hon. Pete Domenici,
     Chairman Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. 
         Senate.
     Hon. Lamar Alexander,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy, U.S. Senate.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
         U.S. Senate.
     Hon. Byron Dorgan,
     Ranking Member Subcommittee on Energy, U.S. Senate.
       Dear Senators: As you consider the energy bill now before 
     your committee, we urge your support for maintaining the 
     right of coastal states and communities to participate 
     meaningfully in the planning and permitting of significant 
     energy projects on our shores and the outer continental shelf 
     immediately adjacent to state waters.
       As Governors, we recognize the need for a comprehensive 
     energy policy that will lessen our dependence on foreign 
     sources and modernize the nation's infrastructure, 
     development, and distribution system. We see this need daily 
     as we address the economic concerns of citizens and 
     businesses within our states. However, provisions of the 
     Energy Policy Act of 2005 (H.R. 6), as passed by the House of 
     Representatives, unacceptably pre-empt state and local 
     jurisdiction over siting of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and 
     other energy facilities.
       Based on current and previous siting controversies, there 
     is little reason to believe that the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission (FERC) is willing or able to address 
     legitimate, long-standing state and local concerns with the 
     siting of on and offshore projects. The provisions in H.R. 6 
     entrust FERC with ``sole authority'' for the permitting of 
     LNG and other energy facilities, and relegate state and local 
     agencies, which currently play a strong role in the process, 
     to after-the-fact consideration and unreasonable timelines. 
     Without state jurisdiction there is no guarantee a project 
     will be consistent with the homeland security or 
     environmental requirements for a particular locality, or 
     whether the project adequately addresses the energy demands 
     of the respective state or region. We support legislation 
     that would provide for concurrent state and federal 
     jurisdiction over LNG and other energy facilities.
       We would welcome the opportunity to work together with 
     Congress to develop a permitting process that balances the 
     need for increased energy production with the maintenance of 
     a robust role for states and local governments. In the 
     meantime, we urge you to maintain the common sense measures 
     that allow those most directly affected to have a voice in 
     the siting of energy facilities.
           Sincerely,
     Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger,
       California.
     Gov. Kathleen Blanco,
       Louisiana.
     Gov. Donald Carcieri,
       Rhode Island.
     Gov. Mitt Romney,
       Massachusetts.
     Gov. Ruth Ann Minner,
       Delaware.
     Gov. Richard Codey,
       New Jersey.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this letter is buttressed by the 
letter just received from the National Governors Association, 
supporting this amendment, which will shortly be on everyone's desk. I 
ask unanimous consent that second letter be printed in the Record.

[[Page S6982]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               National Governors Association,

                                    Washington, DC, June 21, 2005.
     Hon. Pete Domenici,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Bingaman: On 
     behalf of the National Governors Association, I write to ask 
     you to support the Feinstein/Snowe/Reed/Seesions amendment to 
     the Energy Policy Act of 2005 on the sitting of liquefied 
     natural gas (LNG) facilities. As stewards of state resources, 
     governors must have the authority to determine what is in the 
     best interest of their state. This modification recognizes 
     the critical role governors play within their states, as well 
     as within a natural energy policy, while avoiding an 
     unnecessary pre-emption of state authority.
       Governors recognize the importance of a comprehensive 
     energy policy and support the promotion of a diverse and 
     reliable portfolio of energy sources. However, any national 
     energy policy must also recognize the authority of states in 
     decision-making and not allow for the federal pre-emption of 
     that authority. This policy extends to the siting of LNG 
     facilities of state land or in state waters. Given the impact 
     any proposed energy project can have on state and local 
     resources, economy and infrastructure, governors must have 
     the ability to review those impacts and approve or reject LNG 
     projects that fall under state jurisdiction.
       The bipartisan amendment offered by Senator Feinstein, 
     Snowe, Reed, and Sessions would require gubernatorial 
     approval of any application regarding the siting of LNG 
     facilities located onshore or in state waters, thus providing 
     concurrent jurisdiction over these projects. This is the same 
     authority granted to governors under the Deepwater Ports Act 
     of 1974 for offshore projects and it is reasonable to request 
     the same authority for projects that could have an even 
     greater impact on states. Therefore, the governors urge you 
     to support the amendment in an effort to reach a fair 
     compromise that retains state authority while promoting a 
     diverse national energy policy.
       Governors commend both of you for your leadership in the 
     effort to enact a new national energy policy and look forward 
     to working with you as the legislation continues to move 
     through Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                             Raymond C. Scheppach,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. States will be responsible for the safety of these 
facilities for a long time after they are sited. That is why it is so 
important to preserve the rights of the States to participate in the 
process to determine where these facilities should be located. For LNG 
facilities that are being sited offshore, the Governor has the right to 
approve or veto a project now, yet this bill gives the State less input 
for facilities that are located on shore, in our busy ports, and near 
closely packed communities. This is completely illogical to me. It 
simply does not make sense. To give the Governor the veto power over a 
deepwater port more than 3 miles from land, and yet refuse to give that 
Governor any veto power over a site that might be located in the heart 
of the densest metropolitan areas of our country is completely 
illogical.
  In a conversation I had recently, last week, with Chairman Pat Wood 
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, he said even if the 
Federal Government sited an LNG facility, it would not be built as long 
as a Governor opposed it. If that is in fact the case, then why not 
give the Governor of a State the necessary authority?
  Let me explain how this works. Under the Deep Water Port Act, which 
was amended in 2002 to regulate the process for siting offshore LNG, an 
LNG terminal that is located in Federal waters beyond the 3 miles of 
the State's territorial waters must be approved by the Federal 
Government, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Maritime Administration, and 
the Governor of the adjacent coastal State.
  Under the pending Energy bill, the Governor would have no veto 
authority for siting onshore LNG terminals. In other words, if the 
Governor of California or Massachusetts or anywhere else were to decide 
an LNG terminal posed too great a safety risk to the 400,000 people 
living close--let's say to the Port of Long Beach; that is the only 
proposed onshore project in California--then the Governor would have no 
authority, the State would have no authority to veto that project. But 
if that same project were located offshore, more than 3 miles away from 
the Port of Long Beach, the Governor would be able to veto it. That is 
nonsensical, in my view.
  Some of my colleagues will argue that States already have a veto 
under the Coastal Zone Management Act. However, I have received a 
letter from Chairman Wood that says in fact the State does not have a 
veto authority under this law. In a letter to me dated June 15, 
Chairman Wood states that:

     . . . [F]ollowing an adverse consistency determination by a 
     State, the Secretary of Commerce can, on his own initiative 
     or upon appeal by the applicant, find after providing a 
     reasonable opportunity for detailed comments by the Federal 
     energy agency involved, and from the State, that the activity 
     is consistent with the objectives of the Coastal Zone 
     Management Act or is otherwise necessary in the interests of 
     national security.

  What does this mean? That means if the State were to find that the 
onshore LNG terminal would negatively impact the State's coastline, the 
Secretary of Commerce could take it upon himself to overturn that 
decision. Clearly, this removes any State authority.
  I ask unanimous consent to have a series of letters that I have 
exchanged with the Chairman of FERC printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    June 14, 2005.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: As a follow-up to our discussion on 
     Friday, June 10, 2005, enclosed is a description of how 
     states, under the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Air 
     Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water 
     Act), can in effect ``veto'' proposed LNG projects that are 
     onshore or in state waters. Also enclosed is the chart you 
     requested identifying which coastal state agencies, in 
     addition to those in California, have permitting authority 
     under these three Acts.
       I believe the existing legislative provision in section 381 
     of the Senate bill (June 8, 2005) maintains current state 
     ``veto'' authority over proposed LNG projects. While the bill 
     appropriately clarifies the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission's exclusive authority to site LNG facilities that 
     are onshore or in state waters, section 381 also specifically 
     reserves state authorities under the Coastal Zone Management 
     Act, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. As we 
     discussed, state implementation of these Acts gives states a 
     means to in effect ``veto'' proposed LNG projects. With the 
     single exception of the Texas Railroad Commission, which is 
     elected, every coastal state agency that administers these 
     Acts, including those agencies in California, are headed by 
     gubernatorial appointees. As you are aware, the current 
     chairs of the administering agencies in California were 
     appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger.
       If I may be of further assistance in this or any other 
     matter, please don't hesitate to contact me.
           Best regards,
                                                    Pat Wood, III,
                                                         Chairman.
       Enclosures.
                                  ____


              States' Roles in Administering Federal Laws


                            Clean Water Act

       Pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 
     1341, an applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct 
     any activity (including construction and operation) which may 
     result in any discharge into navigable waters must provide 
     the licensing or permitting agency a certification from the 
     state in which the discharge originates or will originate. If 
     the certification is denied, no license or permit can be 
     granted. We are aware of no instance in which a proposed LNG 
     project does not involve a discharge requiring certification.
       In addition, section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 
     1344, requires permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
     for the discharge of dredged or fill material. In considering 
     such permit applications, the Corps requires applicants to 
     obtain a section 401 permit, giving the state two 
     opportunities under the Clean Water Act to block LNG 
     projects. Again, we are aware of no LNG project that does not 
     require a section 404 permit.
       Thus, if a state denies Clean Water Act certification for 
     an LNG project, the Commission and the Corps cannot authorize 
     construction of the project.


                      Coastal Zone Management Act

       Section 307(c) of the Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 
     U.S.C. 1456(c), requires an applicant for a federal license 
     or permit to conduct an activity affecting the coastal zone 
     to provide to the licensing or permitting agency a 
     certification that the proposed activity complies with the 
     enforceable policies of the affected state's coastal zone 
     management program. If the state does not concur with the 
     certification, no federal license or permit may be issued. 
     LNG import or export projects are located in the coastal 
     zone. In consequence, if a state does not concur with a 
     certification by an LNG project proponent,

[[Page S6983]]

     the Commission cannot authorize construction of the project.


                             Clean Air Act

       Section 502 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7661(a), makes 
     it unlawful for any person to operate a source of air 
     pollution (as detailed in that Act) except in compliance with 
     a permit issued by a permitting authority. States are 
     authorized by the Administrator of the EPA to be permitting 
     authorities. We believe it unlikely that an LNG project would 
     not require a Clean Air Act permit. Based on the foregoing, 
     as discussed with respect to the Clean Water Act, a state can 
     deny a necessary Clean Air Act permit.
                                  ____


      COASTAL STATE AGENCIES ADMINISTERING CLEAN WATER ACT, CLEAN AIR ACT, AND COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     State                     Agency                     Agency head         Elected/appointed   Clean  Air Act
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL.............  Department of Environmental        Director Trey Glenn....  Appointed (by the                X
                  Management.                                                 Commission).
CA.............  CA Coastal Commission............  Chair Meg Caldwell.....  Appointed.........
CA.............  Environmental Protection Agency..  Sec. Allan Lloyd.......  Appointed.........
CA.............  Air Resources Board..............  Chairman Barbara         Appointed.........               X
                                                     Riordan.
CT.............  Department of Environmental        Commissioner Gina        Appointed.........               X
                  Protection.                        McCarthy.
DE.............  Department of Natural Resources    Sec. John Hughes.......  Appointed.........               X
                  and Environmental Control.
FL.............  FL Department of Environmental     Sec. Colleen Castille..  Appointed.........               X
                  Protection.
LA.............  Department of Natural Resources..  Sec. Scott Angelle.....  Appointed.........
LA.............  Department of Environmental        Sec. Mike McDaniel.....  Appointed.........               X
                  Quality.
MA.............  Executive Office of Environmental  Sec. Ellen Roy           Appointed.........
                  Affairs.                           Herzfelder.
MA.............  Department of Environmental        Comm. Robert W.          Appointed by                     X
                  Protection.                        Golledge.                Secretary of OEA.
MD.............  Department of Natural Resources..  Sec. Ronald Franks.....  Appointed.........
MD.............  Department of the Environment....  Sec. KendI Philbrick...  Appointed.........               X
ME.............  State Planning Office............  Martha Freeman.........  Appointed.........
ME.............  Department of Environmental        Chairman Richard         Appointed.........               X
                  Protection.                        Wardwell.
MS.............  Department of Marine Resources...  Chairman Vernon Asper..  Appointed.........
MS.............  Department of Environmental        Director Charles         Appointed.........               X
                  Quality.                           Chisolm.
NC.............  Department of Environmental and    Sec. William G. Ross...  Appointed.........               X
                  Natural Resources.
NJ.............  NJ Department of Environmental     Comm. Bradley Campbell.  Appointed.........               X
                  Protection.
NY.............  Department of State..............  Sec. Randy A. Daniels..  Appointed.........
NY.............  Department of Environmental        Commissioner Denise      Appointed.........               X
                  Conservation.                      Sheehan.
OR.............  Department of Land Conservation    Director Lane Shatterly  Appointed.........
                  and Development.
OR.............  Department of Environmental        Director Stephanie       Appointed.........               X
                  Quality.                           Hallock.
PA.............  Department of Environmental        Sec. Kathleen Ann        Appointed.........               X
                  Protection.                        McGinty.
RI.............  Coastal Resources Management       Chairman Michael E.      Appointed.........
                  Council.                           Tikoian.
RI.............  Department of Environmental        Director W. Michael      Appointed.........               X
                  Management.                        Sullivan.
SC.............  Department of Health and           Comm. C. Earl Hunter...  Appointed.........               X
                  Environmental Control.
TX.............  Railroad Commission of Texas.....  Chairman Victor          Elected (Term
                                                     Carrillo.                expires 1/10).
TX.............  TX Commission on Environmental     Chairman Kathleen        Appointed.........               X
                  Quality.                           Hartnett White.
VA.............  Department of Environmental        Director Robert Burnley  Appointed.........               X
                  Quality.
WA.............  Department of Ecology............  Jay Manning............  Appointed.........               X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                                 
                                  ____
                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, June 14, 2005.
     Hon. Pat Wood, III,
     Chairman, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman Wood: Thank you for your letter detailing how 
     the States can, in effect, ``veto'' an LNG project
       Based on your letter and the attachment entitled ``States' 
     Roles in Administering Federal Laws,'' I assume that the 
     situation is as you describe:
       If a state denies a Clean Water Act certification, the 
     ``Commission and the Corps cannot authorize construction of 
     the project.''
       Under the Coastal Zone Management Act, ``if a state does 
     not concur with a certification by an LNG project proponent, 
     the Commission cannot authorize construction of the 
     project.''
       Under the Clean Air Act, ``a state can deny a necessary 
     Clean Air Act permit.''
       Therefore, I assume that this is absolute. You did not say 
     ``dependent upon an appeal.'' You make no reference to an 
     appeal, therefore I assume this is an absolute statement in 
     view of the fact that your letter lacks any mention of 
     appea1.
       Please let me know if I am mistaken in my understanding of 
     your letter.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senator.
                                  ____

                                                    Federal Energy


                                        Regulatory Commission,

                                    Washington, DC, June 15, 2005.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: Thank you for your letter of June 
     14, responding to my letter of the same date regarding state 
     authority under the Clean Water Act, the Coastal Zone 
     Management Act, and the Clean Air Act to preclude proposed 
     liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects that are onshore or in 
     state waters. You asked about the possibility of appeals from 
     the referenced state actions under these statutes.
       As I wrote earlier, the denial by a state of a Clean Water 
     Act certification, a Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) 
     concurrence, or a Clean Air Act permit will prevent the 
     Commission and other federal agencies from authorizing the 
     construction of LNG facilities. But, Applicants aggrieved by 
     state decisions may have a right to appeal.
       Under section 307(c)(3)(A) of the CZMA, 16 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 1456(c)(3)(A), following an adverse consistency 
     determination by a state, the Secretary of Commerce can ``on 
     his own initiative or upon appeal by the applicant
     find[ ], after providing a reasonable opportunity for 
     detailed comments from the Federal agency involved and from 
     the state, that the activity is consistent with the 
     objectives of [the CZMA] or is otherwise necessary in the 
     interest of national security.'' At least some states also 
     provide for review of initial CZMA decisions in state court.
       It is my understanding that under the Clean Water Act and 
     the Clean Air Act, the various states have differing 
     administrative and judicial review procedures; the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, which oversees the 
     implementation of these statutes, may have more detailed 
     state-specific information regarding these procedures. And, 
     as is true of all of the Commission's orders, any approval or 
     denial of an LNG project under the Natural Gas Act is also 
     subject to review in the United States Courts of Appeals.
       It remains the case that unless and until a state decision 
     barring an LNG project is overturned, the Commission cannot 
     authorize the construction of that project.
       If I may be of further assistance in this or any other 
     matter, please don't hesitate to contact me.
           Best regards,
                                                   Pat Woods, III,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, that is why my colleagues and I are 
offering this amendment today, to provide States with a real veto 
authority if a project were to violate the State's environmental 
protection, land and water use, public health and safety, and coastal 
zone management laws. In this post-9/11 world, I think we have to look 
a little differently at the siting of all facilities, and especially 
the specific risk that LNG terminals pose. A December 2004 report by 
Sandia National Laboratories concluded that LNG tankers could, in fact, 
be a potential terrorist target. If the worst case scenario were to 
occur, a tanker could in fact spill liquefied natural gas that, in 
about 30 seconds, could set off a fire that would cause second-degree 
burns on people nearly a mile away.
  I admit this is a small probability. Nonetheless, it is such, and 
therefore it has to be considered. In siting these terminals, that 
factor is a factor of relevant consideration. That is why this 
amendment is so important. States must have a role in siting LNG 
facilities in order to protect the welfare of their citizens.
  Out of the 40 proposed LNG terminals in this Nation, the FERC 
believes only a dozen will actually be built. Since Governors have the 
responsibility of ensuring the safety of their constituents, it makes 
sense to me to allow the States to have a significant role in the 
siting of these facilities. If there are other options besides putting 
these facilities in busy ports or near population centers, they should 
be sited where they pose the least danger to people, not just where 
they make the most economic sense. Therefore, we present this amendment 
to the bill.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and I turn the 
floor over to Senator Kennedy for as much time as he consumes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will be 60 minutes for debate equally divided. That started with the 
presentation of the Senator from California.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.

[[Page S6984]]

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes, if that is 
agreeable with the Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It is.


                             Senator Durbin

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first I want to pay tribute to a very 
good friend, and that is Senator Durbin. I have had the good 
opportunity and great honor of representing Massachusetts in the Senate 
now for over 40 years. I believe Senator Durbin is one of the most 
gifted, talented, able, and dedicated Members of the Senate with whom I 
have had the opportunity to serve. I believe he has a great love for 
this country, a great respect for the Senate, and a great love for his 
State of Illinois. I think every morning when he rises, he is looking 
out for the struggling middle class and the working families of this 
country. I have enormous respect for his dedication and his commitment 
to those who serve in the Armed Forces.


                           Amendment No. 841

  Mr. President, I congratulate and thank my friend and colleague from 
California for offering this amendment. I rise in strong support of 
this amendment. She has made a very compelling case. I want to add some 
additional points to what I think is a very persuasive, commonsense 
approach to the whole issue of LNG.
  I support the development of LNG. She has placed her finger on the 
most important aspects of it. We need it as a country. It ought to be 
embraced and expanded and supported. But at least the issues of safety 
and security ought to be able to be presented to the decision making 
bodies in this Government. Too often that has not received the 
consideration it deserves.
  I want to add that at this moment, although I think this Energy bill 
moves us forward on many issues--from the new incentives for energy 
conservation to expanding our portfolio of renewable electricity--it 
has no clear plan for energy independence and it fails to provide 
needed relief from the high gas prices that are slowing our economy and 
that are being paid for by families all across this country. Millions 
of American households face a genuine energy crisis because of gas 
prices which are at their highest levels in years. The national level 
now is $2.13 a gallon, and in Massachusetts the price of regular 
gasoline is 24 percent higher than in 2001. We should explore all 
options for lowering gas prices immediately, including a more rigorous 
investigation of price gouging at the pump.
  Our dependence on foreign oil is an albatross around our neck. The 
technology is there to rapidly reduce imports of foreign oil by making 
greater investments in solar and hydroelectric and other renewable 
energy sources. Success is within our reach if we set a clear target.
  That is why I gave strong support to Senator Cantwell, who offered 
the amendment to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 40 percent in 
20 years. I am disappointed it did not receive the full support of our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle because reducing our 
dependence on foreign oil is an important part of a comprehensive 
national strategy.
  As Senator Feinstein mentioned, LNG is part of all of this energy 
debate and discussion. She has talked very compellingly about the 
safety issues. LNG, as has been pointed out, is a highly hazardous and 
explosive material, as its track record clearly shows. At 40 LNG 
facilities in the world, serious accidents have occurred at 13 of them 
since 1944. In 1944, an accident at a facility in the United States 
killed 128 people. An accident at an Algerian facility killed or 
injured over 100 people. A Sandia Lab report released in December 
confirms our worst fears: If an LNG tanker or facility catches fire, 
the lives of residents within a 1-mile radius would be endangered by 
the resulting explosion.
  The United States has not built an LNG facility in an urban area in 
over 30 years. There are 32 proposals under consideration. One of these 
facilities is in Weaver's Cove at the mouth of the Taunton River in 
Fall River, MA, a city of 100,000. And your city could be next.
  Let me point out what we are facing in Weaver's Cove in Fall River. 
If you can see this chart, these small areas are homes. This circle 
represents 1 mile; 9,000 individuals live within that radius. Here is 
Somerset School. One thousand children go to that school every single 
day. And the Wiley School, which 165 students attend; St. Michael's 
School, another 165 children go every single day.
  To transport LNG to the proposed facility at Weaver's Cove, also 
raises serious safety issues. A 33-million-gallon tanker has to travel 
31 miles of coastline, through narrow waterways, along some of our most 
pristine areas, including Narragansett Bay, one of the populous 
estuaries in the United States. To reach the facility, the explosive 
liquefied natural gas would have to travel under five bridges, which 
are also likely targets for a terrorist attack.
  Based on these facts, there is overwhelming opposition to the new 
facility in Fall River. The mayor of Fall River opposes it, as does the 
city council. The people of Fall River strongly oppose it. They are not 
against LNG, but there are 9,000 people living in this area. We are 
talking about the fact of moving this tanker up a narrow sealane for 31 
miles.
  Despite their pleas, FERC is moving forward with the approval of the 
site. FERC has ignored repeated requests from the mayor, myself, and my 
colleague Senator Kerry to discuss the issue. The congressional 
delegation has appealed to Secretary Chertoff of the Homeland Security 
to visit this site and we hope he will soon.
  This amendment, as the Senator has pointed out, gives the Governor of 
a State where the site is proposed a voice in the process. It creates a 
true Federal-State partnership. That is how we regulate the siting of 
other hazardous facilities. That is how we should decide the placement 
of LNG facilities.
  We need a responsible approach that makes sense in this new era where 
security must be a high priority. I hope this amendment will be 
accepted.
  I thank the Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.
  I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe. Then I ask 
unanimous consent to yield 7 minutes to Senator Reed from Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. SNOWE. I thank Senator Feinstein for yielding me time on this 
amendment. I have cosponsored this amendment because it is critical to 
involve States in the decisionmaking process of liquified natural gas 
terminal siting.
  Natural gas, like renewable energy, should and will have a major 
place in our 21st century energy policy. Similar to my colleagues in 
other rural states, I have had concerns about the high cost of fuel. 
And similar to my colleagues in northern states, I have heard the 
concerns of the outrageous cost of oil in relation to our winter 
heating costs. I recognize the importance of creating a national plan 
that ensures that both the supply of energy is increased and our demand 
for energy is curtailed.
  It is critical, as the Feinstein-Snowe amendment presents, that we 
have a responsibility to make sure that at the dawn of the 21st 
century, we have the ability to select placement of liquified natural 
gas sites deliberately and with all the potential problems addressed. 
The only truly effective way of ensuring safe and effective placement 
of LNG sites is to involve local concerns in the process. States simply 
need to have a role in deciding where the best LNG sites exist.
  The Feinstein-Snowe legislation gives concurrent Federal and State 
jurisdiction for the siting of LNG facilities so that State governments 
are not preempted from the decisionmaking process for the location of 
future LNG facilities.
  Let's talk about the scale of these tankers. The placement of an LNG 
facility has profound effects in the local community environment, 
ecosystem, fishing industry, and residential commercial communities 
that are intrinsically linked to the ocean. The decision to 
fundamentally change the nature of a coastal community in the placing 
of an LNG site should only be made by including all people in and all 
actors affected by the siting. This amendment ensures the State 
governments can provide insight into the location process.

  My State of Maine has a coastline that is more than 5,000 miles long,

[[Page S6985]]

which is why there is great interest in siting LNG facilities at 
different locations along its coast. Over this past year in Maine, the 
controversial siting of LNG facilities has found both support and 
opposition, finding some residents supporting a substantial source of 
economic development and revenues and others opposed because of concern 
about a potential terrorist target, interference with the lobster 
industry, navigation and spoiling the coastal vistas and land values. 
Each community has had the opportunity to have its say through 
referendums. Each resident was able to cast a vote, whether yes or no, 
as to what he or she thought was best for their community and for their 
State.
  I have had great concerns about handing this very siting decision 
solely over to a Federal agency and feel very strongly there should be 
a process in place where the Governor, speaking for the people of 
Maine, must have an equal opportunity to democratically put a voice to 
what happens in their own back yard. What has occurred in the various 
communities is a perfect example as to why States should be given a say 
in the sitings of these facilities. States simply must have input into 
such a major decision. We are not talking about the siting of a 
neighborhood ball park or a new Wal-Mart but a processing facility that 
totally alters the coastal landscape and a facility that needs to be 
fed LNG from 13-story-high tankers coming into the port each and every 
day.
  In its current form, the Energy bill before the Senate gives 
exclusive authority to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 
selecting LNG sites. This would effectively eliminate any input from 
State governments into the selection of these locations. Moving total 
control to FERC transfers an enormous power to an unelected Federal 
agency which has no accountability to the local communities affected. 
Without the amendment, local sentiments will go unheard or be simply 
ignored. To foist upon a State and a local community and to exclude 
them from the process is clearly unwise.
  Within our Union of States, unique State concerns must be recognized 
in Federal Government decisions. It is the States rights issue, plain 
and simple. The placement of an LNG facility in a given locality alters 
the landscape of that community. They are entitled to be involved in a 
decisionmaking process that allows the voices of the community to be 
heard.
  Let us ensure that the safety, the environment, and local concerns 
are observed and that we include our State governments as coequals.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Feinstein-Snowe 
amendment. I thank the Senator from California for offering it. It is 
so critical, knowing the experience that has occurred in Maine. With 
many communities having voiced their opinions on a particular siting 
for an LNG facility, it is important they are able to participate in 
the process. I do not believe we should allow the Federal Government to 
supercede the ability of people to ultimately make a decision that 
transforms the landscape that clearly does have a direct effect and 
impact on those communities. That is a decision that should be 
determined by the people in a particular State. That is what has been 
happening in my State. It should be able to happen and occur in each 
and every State in the country. We should not allow Federal legislation 
to supercede or to prevent States from being able to voice their 
opinions, their decisions, and their own regulations with respect to 
siting these facilities.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Feinstein as a 
cosponsor of this amendment, along with my colleagues, Senator Snowe, 
Senator Sessions, Senator Kennedy, and many other cosponsors.
  The siting of liquefied natural gas import terminals is a critical 
issue of importance to me and my neighbors in Rhode Island as the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is considering two proposals: the 
KeySpan Energy proposal in Providence, RI, and a Weaver's Cove Energy 
proposal in Fall River, MA. Both of these have a huge impact on the 
people of Rhode Island.
  LNG ships will have to transit Narragansett Bay to get to both of 
these facilities. The route of transit would be this way, coming off of 
Block Island Sound. It will pass between Newport, RI, and Jamestown, 
RI. Newport is one of the most populated cities in our region. It is 
densely populated. We all know it as a place of tourism and recreation. 
The boats, literally, would be within hundreds of yards of critical 
installations--hotels, hospitals, et cetera. Then it would move up, if 
it is going to Weaver's Cove in Fall River, this way, and would move up 
under several bridges until it got to the city of Fall River.
  The KeySpan proposal would require the transit of a ship going up 
this way and then moving up around and all the way into Providence, RI, 
the most densely populated part of the State of Rhode Island, with a 
huge concentration of people and, indeed, where all of these bay-side 
areas are being developed intensively.
  This project poses serious risks to the State of Rhode Island and the 
State of Massachusetts. Therefore, it is incumbent we provide local 
authorities with the ability to effectively involve themselves in the 
decisionmaking process. We understand there are certain Federal laws 
that give authority to the State to participate in these decisions--the 
Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, Coastal Zone Management Act--but 
none of them give the kind of clear involvement and clear leverage that 
State leaders need to effectively involve themselves in this 
decisionmaking.
  Our amendment ensures that States have an authentic voice in the 
siting of LNG terminals by giving Governors the same authority to 
approve or disapprove onshore terminals that they now have over 
offshore terminals under the Deepwater Port Act.
  It seems incongruous that Governors would have the authority to 
essentially veto an offshore project but they have no meaningful 
involvement on onshore projects placed in the heart of urban areas.
  Let me show you the impact this proposal will have on the city of 
Providence. The KeySpan proposal would be situated right here, as shown 
on this chart. Within a very short radius, we have our largest hospital 
in the State of Rhode Island, our major medical center. We have 
thousands of homes. We have the downtown business area. Anything that 
happened here would have catastrophic effects on the State of Rhode 
Island.
  To say the Governor cannot take into consideration factors such as 
safety and security ignores the current situation we face as a nation. 
These are very attractive targets to those people who want to seriously 
harm us, both in a physical sense and a psychological sense. We have to 
provide, I believe, at the local level, a meaningful way for Governors 
to participate in the siting of these facilities.
  Again, it is not just a situation where they do not want it in their 
particular area. We understand there is a need for liquefied natural 
gas. We understand it is becoming an increasingly more important 
component of our energy sector. But we have to have the ability to look 
at safety issues and security issues.
  This is particularly important after the report from the Sandia 
National Laboratories that said a terror attack on a tanker delivering 
LNG to a U.S. terminal could set off a fire so hot it would burn skin 
and damage buildings nearly a mile away. A mile from this facility 
encompasses huge swathes of Providence, RI, Cranston, RI, East 
Providence, RI, major medical facilities. This would be a devastating 
blow.
  Now, the odds of such an attack, we hope, are very low, but the low 
odds, together with the huge consequences, suggest we have to be 
careful about this. We have to, I believe, give our local leaders, our 
Governor particularly, the ability to participate in this approval 
process.
  I am confident this amendment will do that. It will require FERC and 
other Federal agencies to work more closely with Governors and State 
environmental authorities and the first responder agencies that have 
firsthand knowledge of the geography and the population of these 
particular areas.
  We want to bring more natural gas to our communities, but we do not 
want to jeopardize the safety and the security of our communities in a 
world

[[Page S6986]]

today, regrettably but actually, very dangerous and very capable of 
these types of attacks on these types of facilities.
  So I urge all of my colleagues to support Senator Feinstein. I thank 
her for her leadership. This is very typical of her very thoughtful 
review of this bill but particularly this aspect of LNG.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine, the 
Senator from Rhode Island, and the Senator from Massachusetts for their 
comments. I believe that consumes the time I have; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time do 
we have in opposition to the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Thirty minutes. I yield to the distinguished junior 
Senator from Tennessee 7 minutes to start our debate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
New Mexico and also the Senator from California for her contribution to 
the debate.
  Let me begin by saying what we are talking about here. Sometimes we 
jump into subjects assuming everybody knows what we are talking about 
and it is not altogether clear.
  We are talking about bringing natural gas from other countries into 
the United States to put in our pipelines, which then would be 
transported to be used in our industries, which use it to make 
chemicals and cars and other things, such as our industry which makes 
fertilizers for our farmers, and to use it in our homes so we can heat 
and cool them.
  We have a terrific problem with natural gas. There is a lot of talk 
about gasoline, a lot of speeches being made about the prices at the 
pump. That is by far not the biggest problem we have in the United 
States right now in terms of energy. Our biggest challenge is the price 
of natural gas.
  Now, why is that? For example, down in Tennessee--I have used this 
example many times, but it sticks out vividly in my mind--there is a 
company called Eastman Chemical. They employ 10,000 or 12,000 people--
blue-collar workers, white-collar workers. They have for three 
generations. Forty percent of their cost is natural gas to make 
chemicals. There are 1 million blue-collar workers just like that 
across our country.
  The price of natural gas in the United States is at a record level. 
It has gone from the lowest in the industrialized world to the highest 
in the industrialized world at $7 a unit. If it stays there, more and 
more of those jobs are going to be in Germany and other places where it 
is cheaper. So if we do not bring the gas in, the jobs are going out.
  Now, how can we get a greater supply of gas? The Domenici-Bingaman 
bill has everything in it to help do that, but most of it is over the 
long term. New nuclear power would help, but it will be a few years. 
Coal gasification with carbon sequestration would help, but it will be 
a few years. Oil savings will help. It will take a little while, too.
  The only thing that is going to help right now is new supplies--and 
it is pretty hard to get that in the United States--conservation--that 
is really where we ought to start--and the only thing left is liquefied 
natural gas.
  The experts--the American Gas Foundation--say to us, if we bring in 
liquefied natural gas, the price of $7 a unit might go down. It might 
go down to $5 a unit. These jobs might stay here. These farmers might 
not have such a big pay cut, and the homeowners might get a break. But 
if we do not bring in natural gas, which is a very small part of our 
supply right now--2, 3, 4 percent--if we do not bring it in, the price 
of natural gas may be $13 a unit.
  That will be a crisis for this country. It will not matter what the 
price of gasoline is in this country. If the price of natural gas is 
$13 a unit, we will not have anybody with enough money to buy gasoline 
because they won't have any money. They won't have a job. Their job 
will go overseas.
  Why are we not bringing in more liquefied natural gas? Because we 
need terminals to store it in before we put it in our pipes. We only 
have four. We need a few more. We have 31 applications for those 
onshore and offshore. But we have a process that is broken. It is 
filled with uncertainty. It is in the courts. If we do not give it some 
certainty, the jobs will go overseas, the farmers will be taking a pay 
cut, and the homeowners are going to be paying bills they cannot afford 
to pay. So what the Domenici-Bingaman legislation does is give it some 
certainty.
  Now, there is always the question of, What is the right balance of 
Federal authority--when you are dealing with foreign commerce and a 
national issue like this and security and safety--and local input? I 
find myself usually on the same side of the debates as the Senator from 
California. She was a mayor. I was a Governor. And I do not think we 
raise the principle of federalism high enough in our debates. But it 
does not always trump everything.
  I happen to think the Domenici-Bingaman proposal is the right 
balance. First, what it does is it streamlines and makes more efficient 
the site process. In other words, if you want to file an application 
for a liquefied natural gas terminal, you go to one place. That would 
be the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It has the responsibility. 
Someone needs to have the sole responsibility for siting these plants.
  Then, what do you do about State and local governments? Well, there 
were a lot of choices. One choice would have been to cut them out. That 
is not the proposal here. I would not have supported it if it were.
  Here is what a Governor can do: A Governor has many rights under the 
Coastal Zone Management Act in terms of the location of an LNG 
terminal. If a Governor objects under the Coastal Zone Management Act, 
it is true the Secretary of Commerce might override them. But in a 
country that values federalism, if a Governor objects in a strong way, 
that is a very powerful decision.

  But even if the Governor were overridden, the Governor has some other 
tools at his or her disposal, if the Governor objects. There is the 
clean water certificate, which the State issues. There is the clean air 
certificate, which the State issues. Nothing in this act changes that. 
The State still has to do it.
  So there are three: the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Air 
Act, and the Clean Water Act.
  Now, in addition to that, nothing in this legislation speaks of 
eminent domain. We do not grant eminent domain. There is no explicit 
grant of eminent domain in this legislation, and there are local zoning 
and land use planning rules in almost every community that would have 
to be respected.
  So I believe if I were the Governor of a State and I really did not 
want an LNG terminal, I would have plenty of tools in my arsenal to 
make my case.
  We have 31 applications around the country. We only need a few more 
LNG terminals. It will be better for the regions of the country if they 
are located in the proper place. I do not know why the people in New 
York City would want to pay super-high natural gas prices. If they do 
not, they need a terminal up there so the gas does not have to be 
shipped up from New Orleans.
  So all these factors have to be taken into account. But my points are 
these: I believe the Domenici-Bingaman legislation has achieved the 
right balance on crisis issues. If there is one thing this legislation 
does--this whole bill does--that is important, that will affect the 
largest number of Americans, it is it will lower the price of natural 
gas. This may be the most important provision in the bill for that 
purpose because it will permit the bringing in of an immediate supply 
of natural gas. When the supply comes in, the price should stop going 
up and, hopefully, begin to go down, especially if all the other 
provisions in here--for conservation, alternative energy, oil savings--
are used.

[[Page S6987]]

  So I commend the Senator for his proposal. It is the right balance. I 
believe it is the most crucial part of the legislation we are 
considering if what we want to do is bring down prices. It gives the 
Governor a good measure of authority and respects local zoning and land 
use issues sufficiently to permit us to go forward and find a few more 
places. My guess is there will not be a natural liquefied gas terminal 
unless there is some consensus within the community and the State that 
it should be there.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me speak also in opposition to the 
Feinstein amendment. Federal jurisdiction over the siting of import and 
export terminals is constitutional, it is appropriate, it is a 
necessary part of this energy bill, in my view, and of any rational 
national energy policy.
  Obviously, as the Senator from Tennessee was just pointing out, an 
adequate natural gas supply is extremely important to our Nation's 
economy. The regulation of foreign commerce, such as import and export 
terminals for LNG, is a Federal role under our Constitution.
  The States have a legitimate interest, an interest in protecting 
their environment and the health and safety of their citizens. But the 
Feinstein amendment is not necessary because State participation 
authority in the LNG siting process is already very robust. For us to 
add another provision of law that says after the NEPA process is 
completed a Governor can come in and veto the siting of an LNG facility 
would be bad policy. In my view, the amendment being offered ignores 
the current State authority and turns the process on its head.
  Today, for both offshore and onshore LNG proposals, State agencies 
with environmental expertise and related permitting authority are 
active participants in the NEPA process. Furthermore, an applicant must 
obtain all of the required State and local permits before that 
applicant can construct and operate an LNG terminal.
  The bill which we have reported out of the committee does not take 
away any existing State authorities related to the LNG siting process. 
And the key Federal statutes that provide States permitting authority--
those statutes are explicitly protected in our committee bill. It 
strikes a balance between Federal and State interests.
  The Deepwater Port Act Gubernatorial veto, which has been referred to 
by the Senator from California, is not a good model for us to follow in 
this legislation. It was enacted in 1974 to provide a process for 
siting deepwater oil ports. The Governors' veto authority in the 
Deepwater Port Act has never been utilized. We are not certain why, but 
I would argue it is an artifact from a time when the environmental 
statutes that States currently can use were very new and were untested. 
The National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, of 1969, was just in its 
infancy in 1974.
  The NEPA process has evolved since the 1970s to require a thorough 
and wide-ranging public review of the environmental impacts of Federal 
actions and a consideration of alternatives to the proposed actions. 
Many other environmental statutes--the Coastal Zone Management Act 
mentioned by the Senator from Tennessee, the Federal Water Pollution 
Control Act, and the Clean Air Act--were also enacted in the early 
1970s. These Federal statutes delegate significant permitting authority 
to the States.
  The Feinstein amendment is not workable as it is currently drafted. 
It allows the Governor to veto a proposed terminal after the entire 
NEPA process has been completed and a final environmental impact 
statement has been issued. Yet the amendment does not require the 
Governor or the relevant State agencies to participate in that same 
NEPA process. This is a process that can take up to a year to complete. 
It is a process that is designed to involve all interested parties and 
to identify all of the significant environmental and safety issues that 
need to be resolved.
  The amendment also allows the Governor to require the FERC to impose 
conditions on the LNG project to make it consistent with State 
environmental laws. But the veto and the consistency provisions in the 
Feinstein amendment duplicate authorities the States already have under 
other laws. The Coastal Zone Management Act requires that an applicant 
seeking a Federal permit to construct an LNG terminal in a coastal area 
prove to the State that the activity will be consistent with the 
State's coastal laws. If the State denies the consistency 
determination, the Federal permit cannot be issued. This effectively 
vetoes the project. There is a limited right of appeal to the Secretary 
of Commerce.
  The Clean Water Act requires that an applicant obtain from the State 
a section 401 certification that the facility will comply with the act, 
including the State's water quality standards. Denial of this 
certification effectively vetoes the project as the only appeal that is 
provided for is to the State courts.
  The committee bill does not take away any of these powers, nor does 
it affect the State and local laws that require project developers to 
obtain dozens of permits for LNG facilities.
  I ask my colleagues: Why do we need to add this additional authority? 
It will discourage States from engaging in the NEPA process for a 
project that is in its early stages, when alternative sites can be 
identified and safety measures can be required. Indeed, the prospect of 
the Governor waiting to interject himself and the State at a later 
point in the project after the environmental impact statement is done 
will discourage industry from developing the LNG terminals that the 
country will need in the future.
  Let me mention one other fact. I know the Senator from Rhode Island 
was talking about problems. He mentioned the KeySpan project in his 
State. FERC currently is actively engaged in assuring that these 
facilities are sited in safe locations. The Energy Daily, on May 23, 
had an article in it with the headline ``FERC Staff Flunks Rhode Island 
LNG Facility on Safety.''
  In this article they point out that ``the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission staff, in a final environmental impact analysis, said Friday 
that a controversial liquefied natural gas terminal project in Rhode 
Island would flunk Federal safety standards with inadequate earthquake 
protection and an insufficient fire buffer.''

  Then the article goes on to say:

     . . . it is highly unlikely that FERC would vote to approve 
     the project over the findings of the final [environmental 
     impact statement] which said rather bluntly: ``KeySpan's 
     LNG's proposed LNG import terminal would not meet current LNG 
     safety standards . . . [and] KeySpan LNG has not provided any 
     data to show that the proposed import terminal can be brought 
     into compliance with the current safety standards.''

  I cite that to make the point that FERC is doing its job. They are 
not trying to put facilities or permit facilities at locations that are 
unsafe. They are taking into account the concerns of the local 
community and the concerns of the States. They are flunking 
applications where those concerns are valid.
  We have tried to protect the rights of States and local communities 
in this legislation. I believe we have done that. I urge that we not 
adopt the Feinstein amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I hope that Senators and those advising 
Senators listened carefully to the two arguments that have already been 
made. In particular, I commend both Senators. But let me say, if you 
listen carefully to the argument that Senator Bingaman, my colleague 
from New Mexico, just made, it should be clear that there is no 
intention in our legislation that local authorities be usurped. There 
is no intention that the environmental law of the land--NEPA--not be 
complied with. As a matter of fact, it is required.
  There is nothing in this law that will take a myriad of State and 
local requirements and do anything other than say they must be complied 
with.
  I have behind me a chart which summarizes that permit and 
certification approval that must take place before we get to the final 
stages. And you go through a myriad of activities. We are talking about 
California: Fish and Wildlife, the Department of Transportation, 
regional water quality, California State Historic Preservation, storm 
water discharge associated with construction--we can go on and on, all 
of these things, including a full analysis as required by the National 
Environmental Policy Act, NEPA.

[[Page S6988]]

  As we wrote this bill, we were trying to write national energy 
policy. Our country has been accustomed to a myriad of regulatory 
constraints and litigation before issues that are significant to our 
Nation's energy come to an end. We decided that there was protection 
with reference to the citizens, the location, and the States in the 
existing law of our land, and we didn't touch it. We merely said, in 
the final analysis, the last step will be decided by FERC, the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission.
  This is a national energy issue. For anyone who thinks this is purely 
a simple issue of whether a Governor, when this process is all 
completed, ought to be able to say with a pen ``I veto this,'' that is 
not the case. Any Governor who wants to participate and have a 
meaningful decisionmaking involvement has ample opportunity to do so, 
and they will. They will be heard.
  In the final analysis, this country cannot wait and sit around and 
say: We will wait until this matter is litigated. We will wait until we 
see how many Governors want to say no, until we find one that will say 
yes. When, as a matter of fact, out of a myriad of applications--one, 
two, three, or four--one will have been deemed by every single 
environmental, every single test, every zoning law to be safe and 
sound. The country is dependent upon natural gas and the price of it 
for our future well-being. That has been stated over and over. This is 
an issue about whether we have a fertilizer industry. This is an issue 
of whether we import what we need to grow our crops or whether we 
produce it here. This is an issue whether America produces the 
chemicals we need for our lifestyle.
  Why is it that? Because natural gas is the primary ingredient to all 
those things and more. As the Senator from Tennessee said, we had the 
luxury of the lowest natural gas prices. Natural gas was not in 
abundance when it was the lowest. Sure, we have a lot more natural gas 
we are producing in America. But the Senator from Tennessee indicated 
that we are doing everything we can to maximize our production. I want 
to add to his litany of what we are doing, to assure those who produce 
natural gas in America, we are not forgetting about them in this 
legislation. We are trying to give them every opportunity to produce 
more. We have streamlined their permitting process. We want America to 
produce it. But the one chance we have to bring back that competition 
that comes, when you have enough so that demand does not totally set 
the price but supply has something to do with it, is to let it be 
imported.

  I wish I wasn't here saying that. I wish I could say America is not 
going to have to import natural gas. I tried my best before I started 
this bill. The Senator from New Mexico looked at it. I found those who 
say we cannot survive the next 25 years without very large increases in 
the natural gas that we need to use. We have to add a huge amount to 
what we can produce to survive.
  What happens if we have a bottleneck of significant proportions on 
getting that natural gas into the country? The $7 plus per unit will go 
to $8. It will to go $9. It will go to $10. One prediction is it will 
go to $13. On the way, America will be going out of business. As it 
goes up, we are going out. We are going to lose jobs everywhere. All we 
are suggesting is, don't add to it. I would imagine if you looked in 
the world and you looked inside and said analyze how safe can the 
siting of one of these ports in an inland location, how safe can you 
make the site, you probably would say we have done everything that you 
could imagine to make sure that happens.
  The only thing we have said is, when it is all finished--months and 
months, maybe even years--you can't then say a Governor can come a long 
and say no.
  Nobody should think this is a States rights issue. This is a 
reasonable approach to an American problem of significance. Any 
Governor who is worth his salt--and probably all of them are--you can 
rest assured will be involved in this process. They will be involved. 
They just are not going to be able to say: Well, I watched it all, I 
have looked at it all--or, as Senator Bingaman says, perhaps they will 
let it all go by--and when we are finished, I will make a decision. 
They could say that. But I don't think that is going to happen.
  First of all, we are not going to let that happen. But nobody is 
going to do that. They are going to get involved in all of these things 
that are here. In California, on the local level, you have to go 
through the Port of Long Beach, a harbor development permit, a building 
permit, the Port of Long Beach Development, city of Long Beach 
Engineering and Public Works. All of these things have to be done. We 
are not going to roll anybody over.
  But in the final analysis, the States should be involved in that. If 
a Governor is concerned about his people, he should be involved. And, 
frankly, there is no doubt in my mind that if some mistakes are being 
made, they are going to get caught. Senator Bingaman just cited one. 
They aren't even close to a permit in one application. What has FERC 
said? They sent their people out to look at it. They said: Forget about 
it. It flunks the test. They didn't only fail their test, they would 
fail anybody's test. It would fail the test of any one of these 
entities. So it wouldn't be built.
  But let me suggest, we have gone through making mistake after mistake 
by piling regulatory authority upon regulatory authority, to the extent 
that we have ended up saying:
  OK, give up. We are just not going to do that.
  The best example is nuclear power. I don't mean to have a big debate 
on it. But we decided that we should take care of that by litigation. 
We said: We will purify the shortcomings by going to court. We found 
out, if you to go court enough times, you kill anything because you 
can't get the money invested. It is a business. It must be done on the 
basis of financial returns, probability and risk.
  I also want to say that something has been said here today about the 
risks involved in LNG. I don't want to get into a debate of risks 
involving LNG ports.
  I suggest the Sandia National Laboratory report that was alluded to 
earlier by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. But rather 
than pick one section from it and reading it, it concludes that the 
chances anything serious will happen are minuscule. Everything you do 
of significance has a risk. If you don't want to risk your legs wearing 
out, don't get out of bed in the morning. Lay in bed your whole life. 
You sure won't hurt your knees. You may not be able to do anything, but 
you sure won't hurt your knees. Don't worry about that risk. There is a 
risk in everything involved in energy, but a minor risk when it comes 
to LNG ports. That is throughout this Sandia report.
  That is an aside, just to say nobody is trying to take a risk-laden 
act for the location of a site and escape scrutiny. Nobody is 
suggesting that in this bipartisan bill that passed the committee 22 to 
1. Nobody is suggesting that. Nobody is suggesting we are enhancing the 
risk of doing something we must do. Not at all.
  I will close by saying something I believe everybody should 
understand. It is consensus interpretation that right now, today, 
without this bipartisan bill, the Federal Government has a say-so about 
location. I can cite various commissions, various legal opinions. But 
understand that when such an issue is contentious, imagine how long it 
could take to get a decision made about something important to a 
country--how many years.
  I note the presence on the floor of a distinguished lawyer, the 
Senator from Alabama. I don't know where he is on this issue. As a 
States rights Senator, he probably thinks this is a States right issue. 
I am a States rights Senator, too, but I don't think it is. He knows 
how many years of litigation it would take. Would it take one? It could 
take four or maybe more. It would go through district court, Federal 
court, an appeal, they would redo it, and then somebody files an 
injunction and they take another appeal--while FERC says, why don't we 
locate a port and bring this LNG in here.
  I close by saying that we are dependent upon crude oil from overseas 
for our very survival. I wish I could tell you we are not going to 
become dependent upon natural gas from overseas, but that is not the 
case. We are going to be. You know, those countries are going to spend 
so much money making sure they develop the kinds of boats needed to 
bring it over here that

[[Page S6989]]

are safe. I heard from one country that they are going to invest 
billions of dollars for the safety of the hulls of those ships that are 
going to bring it over here because they, too, know they cannot have 
accidents. All of this means this is profitable to somebody who 
produces it. We hope we don't make it such that it is more profitable 
because the supply is limited because we cannot act.
  So this is a provision in our bill which says: Act with extreme 
prudence. Act only after you go through every hoop you could go 
through. But don't, at the end of it all, say: Governor, after all, it 
is a national problem studied by everybody, with environmental impact 
statements completed, local zoning ordinances, and the Governor could 
get involved and argue and send his people, and when it is finished, he 
can take out his pen and say I veto it. I don't think that is the way 
to do it.
  I have not made my argument with as much legal precision as my friend 
Senator Bingaman, but I do believe I have stated the case--not the case 
for California, but the case for America. Let me say there is no better 
advocate than Senator Feinstein. But I must admit there is no State 
that makes more decisions against producing energy in their State for 
their people than California.
  My time is expired. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from 
California, Senator Feinstein, as a cosponsor of an amendment to ensure 
there is State authority in the siting of liquified natural gas (LNG) 
facilities.
  I am troubled by section 381 of the underlying Senate energy bill 
that preempts State authority and gives exclusive authority to the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to approve or deny an 
application for the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of 
LNG facilities within state boundaries. Extreme care must be taken to 
ensure that no energy project undermines the economic and environmental 
well-being of a State. The provision in the energy bill undercuts the 
rights of States to determine how best to protect their natural 
resources, economy and residents. It erodes State authority under the 
Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act, to name but a few landmark environmental pieces 
of legislation that have established and affirmed the critical role of 
States in setting energy policy.
  Our amendment seeks to provide dual jurisdiction for States and the 
Federal Government, with respect to LNG facilities, similar to the 
provisions of the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 and as last amended in 
2003. We are not inventing any new authority. Our straightforward 
amendment would require that FERC shall not approve an LNG license 
without the approval of a Governor. It defies common sense to have the 
voice of the States silenced by the Federal Government. The will of the 
people must be heard.
  Frankly, I do not see the need to turn our siting authority on its 
head. It is my understanding that as many as six LNG facilities have 
recently been approved by FERC and two additional facilities have been 
approved by the Maritime Administration (MARAD). These new facilities 
would join the 4 currently operating LNG facilities--facilities that 
have been in existence for many years. In February, the current FERC 
Chairman stated that he expected at least eight new terminals for LNG 
to be built in the next 5 years. That many have already received FERC 
clearance, but there are another 16 proposals with FERC, 7 proposals 
with MARAD and another 10 potential sites identified by project 
sponsors.
  I understand the need for increasing our supply of natural gas. But I 
am concerned that an over-reliance on LNG will simply shift this 
country from a reliance on foreign oil to a reliance on foreign sources 
of LNG. It is my understanding that Iran, Qatar and Russia hold more 
than half of the world's natural gas reserves. In April, Qatar, Iran, 
Egypt, Nigeria, Venezuela, and other natural gas producing nations met 
to discuss LNG pricing concerns, leading many to believe there is a 
will to some day form an OPEC-like structure.
  One of those LNG proposals before FERC would be located in Long 
Island Sound. While this structure is not onshore, it is still within 
State boundaries. It would tentatively be positioned about 11 miles 
from Connecticut and 9 miles from New York. According to the company's 
own pre-filing with FERC, the floating storage and regasification unit 
(FSRU) would be about 1,200 feet long and 180 feet wide. That is longer 
than 3 football fields and a bit wider than one field. The structure 
would stand 100 feet above the surface of the water. That is about one-
third the height of the Capitol from the base to the top of the Statue 
of Freedom. After warming the LNG to a gas, it would be transported in 
a NEW pipeline under Long Island Sound to an existing underwater 
pipeline. The structure would receive LNG shipments every 3 to 4 days 
and these tankers are projected to be nearly 1,000 feet long.
  These are not benign actions. The construction of the LNG structure 
and a new pipeline, combined with the ongoing tanker activity would 
have an immediate and immense impact on Long Island Sound and the 
states of Connecticut and New York. Tanker activity alone could cause 
such an exclusion zone that normal commerce and recreation on Long 
Island Sound could be dramatically impaired. It is imperative that the 
governor have authority to determine whether this project is safe, 
economic and reliable.
  Let us not forget, this proposed structure would be smack in the 
middle of Long Island Sound. Any attempt to move it away from 
Connecticut only moves it closer to New York and vice versa. Long 
Island Sound is an estuary of national significance, but it is only 21 
miles at its widest. There is not a lot of wiggle room for this 
structure. More than 8 million people live and vacation on or around 
Long Island Sound. Connecticut and New York have already spent millions 
of dollars and dedicated millions more to restore the health of the 
Long Island Sound ecosystem. A healthy habitat ensures a prosperous 
recreational and commercial fishing industry, boating, swimming, and an 
overall thriving tourism industry. Long Island Sound provides an 
economic benefit of more than $5 billion to the regional economy.
  So, as this process moves along, decisions regarding the siting of an 
LNG facility must take into account its safety and security, its 
environmental impact, its actual energy benefits and its general fit 
within Long Island Sound. LNG facilities must be sited smartly and our 
governors must have a final say. I ask my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in relation to the 
Feinstein amendment.
  The issue of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, has become one of great 
concern In my home State of Alabama and to many others across the 
country. I believe it is important that LNG be part of our Nation's 
comprehensive energy plan. However, we must ensure that these 
facilities are safe and are sited in appropriate locations that have 
the support of the local communities and the State.
  I recognize that the Federal Government should have the authority to 
site and permit these facilities--but not without the input of the 
State and the local community. I do not believe that the Federal 
Government should run rough-shod over State and local interests. It is 
imperative that they be protected throughout the siting process. To 
that end, I believe that a clear and direct line of communication 
between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and State and local 
governments be established--because I do not believe that the current 
process provides such an avenue.
  However, I do not believe that the Feinstein amendment is the 
appropriate way to ensure this relationship. While I am firmly 
committed to States rights, I believe that giving a State ``veto'' 
power over the siting of an LNG terminal is contrary to the 
Constitution and in my opinion, not in the best interests of our 
Nation. The interstate commerce clause clearly places matters of 
interstate and foreign commerce in the hands of the Federal Government.
  I believe that we can provide an avenue for State and local 
involvement while still preserving the constitutional role of the 
Federal Government in matters of interstate commerce. To that end, I 
have worked with Chairman

[[Page S6990]]

Domenici and Senator Bingaman to craft language that strikes that 
important balance. I believe that we have crafted a proposal that does 
just that and would encourage my colleagues to consider that language 
before we end debate on the issue of LNG.
  The proposal that I reference will provide our State and local 
communities with a strong voice in the permitting and siting process of 
LNG facilities while maintaining the critical role of the Federal 
Government in interstate and foreign commerce. This language ensures 
that State and local authorities are represented by a single party or 
agency throughout the process and that their concerns regarding safety, 
security, coastal conservation and environmental protection are clearly 
articulated and acknowledged. In addition, the language also clearly 
lays out the process for developing a cost sharing plan between the 
industry and the State, local, and Federal agencies tasked with 
maintaining safety and security around the facility. This will ensure 
that these facilities do not tax the response systems to the detriment 
of the surrounding community.
  I have been involved in the debate over LNG for the last several 
years and my goal and concern has been and always will be to protect 
the citizen's of Alabama while also providing an opportunity for the 
development of a critical asset. I thank Chairman Domenici for his 
willingness to work on this issue and find a common ground.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to co-sponsor Senator 
Feinstein's amendment to provide Governors with veto authority on the 
siting of onshore liquified natural gas, LNG, facilities. This is an 
extremely important issue in California, and I commend my colleague for 
her amendment.
  The energy bill we are debating hands full authority for LNG siting 
decisions to a federal entity, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, FERC. It denies States a role in deciding whether and where 
LNG terminals may be located on our coastlines.
  This is a misguided proposal.
  Does FERC have a better understanding than a State's Governor of the 
potential environmental impact of an LNG facility located on or near 
the State's shore? Does FERC better understand the potential safety 
risk of facilities located near residential areas? Is FERC better 
qualified than a State to judge whether a proposed LNG facility would 
pose an unacceptable security risk to the area? Can FERC make a better 
judgment than the Governor of a State as to whether the benefits of an 
LNG facility will outweigh the drawbacks?
  The answer to all of these questions is ``no.'' Only individual 
States can determine the best solution for their citizens when so much 
is at stake in terms of safety, security, and the sanctity of our 
environment.
  We in California are all too aware that the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission's decisions may not be in our best interests. For too long 
during California's energy crisis in 2000-2001, FERC ignored the 
problem and took no action to help. Even today, four years later, we 
are still waiting for FERC to order refunds on the unjust and 
unreasonable rates charged by energy companies that were manipulating 
the market. We in California do not trust FERC to protect our 
interests.
  I recognize that this country has a growing need for natural gas 
resources, and the construction of LNG facilities will help meet that 
need in the years to come. I am not arguing that no LNG terminals 
should be constructed on or close to our shores. I am simply arguing 
that FERC should not be the final arbiter in determining where those 
facilities are located. Each State deserves to decide for itself 
whether the benefits of such a facility outweigh the costs.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by Senator Feinstein. This amendment is an important, 
commonsense tool that will provide States with the authority they need 
to protect their citizens' safety, security, and environment.
  The underlying bill grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission for the siting of LNG facilities. 
Unfortunately, this model minimizes the opportunity for important State 
interests regarding public safety, security, and environmental concerns 
to be adequately addressed within the LNG siting process.
  The Feinstein amendment is simple--it allows the Governor of affected 
States to approve, veto, or condition the siting of onshore liquefied 
natural gas, LNG, terminals based on safety, security, environmental, 
and other concerns. In addition to providing Governors a clear role in 
bringing safety and security challenges to light, it also provides them 
with the tools to have those concerns adequately addressed.
  Furthermore, the Feinstein amendment makes sense. Under the Deepwater 
Port Act of 1974, the Governors of adjacent coastal States already have 
the ability to veto, approve, or condition the siting of LNG terminals 
located outside of their jurisdiction in Federal waters. Affected 
States should have the same authority over LNG facilities on their land 
or bodies of water that they already have over facilities sited in 
Federal waters. The Feinstein amendment grants states this important 
role over LNG facilities proposed within their jurisdiction.
  The Feinstein amendment is critical to assure that safety and 
homeland security concerns related to LNG facilities are addressed. 
Since 1944 there have been 13 serious accidents at onshore LNG 
facilities. A recent LNG accident in Algeria killed 27 workers, injured 
74 others, and was reported to be the worst petrochemical fire in 
Algeria in more than 40 years.
  Several reports have cited the potential homeland security challenges 
posed by LNG terminals, delivery tankers and their role in a potential 
terrorist attack. The potential impacts of a well-coordinated terrorist 
attack are immense. A December 2004 report by Sandia National 
Laboratories, reported that an intentional LNG spill and resulting fire 
could cause ``major'' injuries to people and ``significant'' damage to 
structures within approximately .3 miles of the spill site, more 
moderate injuries and structural damage up to 1 mile from the spill 
site, and lower impacts out to 1.5 miles.
  Given these potential safety and homeland security concerns, 
Governors should have a clear role to play in the siting of LNG 
facilities within their jurisdiction. I urge my colleagues to support 
the Feinstein amendment that will support the rights of States to 
adequately protect their citizens' safety, security, and environment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I understand I have a minute 
remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. However, Senator Sessions has asked to speak for 3 
minutes, and then I would like to have 1 minute to wrap up, if I might. 
I ask unanimous consent that the time be extended in that regard.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, I have no objection if 
we add to that that we have the same amount of time added to our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There would be 3 minutes additional to each 
side. Is there objection?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Three minutes for Senator Sessions, and 1 minute for 
Senator Domenici, and 1 for me?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. As the Chair understands the request, there 
would be 3 minutes for Senator Sessions, Senator Feinstein's remaining 
1 minute, and 3 minutes for Senator Domenici.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Three additional minutes?
  Mr. DOMENICI. We are adding 3 minutes to the Senator's time, so we 
should get 3 minutes. The Senator's doesn't count because she has it 
anyway.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. OK.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I express my admiration for the Senator 
from New Mexico and his leadership on this bill. In his heart, he is 
right and fundamentally correct that this country needs to produce more 
energy. The State of Alabama has been very aggressive in supporting our 
Nation's need for energy. We have wells drilled right off our coast, 
far off our coast, and we believe that is good for this country. As a 
matter of fact, off our coast, beyond a 3-mile or 9-mile limit it is 
Federal

[[Page S6991]]

waters and States don't have control over that. To bring an LNG 
terminal into a community can cause some real problems.
  I appreciate the leadership of Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman 
in offering an alternative solution to this approval process. But I 
frankly don't think it is sufficient. We have to have some ability for 
the local governments to have real, meaningful objections raised for 
the safety of the people in the community. So that is what I am 
concerned about.
  At this time, the suggestions that are made in good faith, are not 
sufficient. There is no doubt that natural gas is important to our 
country. Higher demand is there every day. Our supplies will dwindle 
unless we bring on new sources. Liquefied natural gas can be brought 
into this country. It burns cleaner than most other fuels. If we can 
bring it in in large numbers, it will be good for America. But to say 
that a State or a Governor cannot participate fundamentally with some 
real power I think would be a dangerous step. That is why I must 
reluctantly oppose the current language and support Senator Feinstein's 
language.
  Also, our community of Mobile, my hometown, wrestled with an LNG 
terminal recently. They wanted to place it pretty close in and there 
was a great deal of concern expressed about safety. I frankly am not 
one capable of analyzing the scientific data that was raised in that 
regard. But I will say that serious concerns were raised and the 
Governor did participate. As a result, I think a new site and a new way 
of bringing that in would be established, if it is done at all.
  So I say my concern is that we have to have a more meaningful 
participation by the Governors. I thank the Senator for his good-faith 
response, but I must support this amendment, as I think it is the right 
step. I agree fundamentally that interstate transportation of product 
is a Federal Government issue----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. But creating a terminal may not be. I thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, there is 3 minutes remaining in 
opposition to the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me speak briefly. I thank my 
colleague for yielding me some time to conclude my remarks here, and I 
compliment him on his statement. The Constitution is very clear. It 
says in article I of the Constitution--and Senator Byrd isn't on the 
floor, but he is usually reading this to us--that ``the Congress shall 
have the power''--then it lists a whole bunch of things--``to regulate 
commerce with foreign nations and among the several States and with the 
Indian tribes.''
  This is a question of siting import and export terminals, so that we 
can conduct business with foreign nations. Clearly, there are major 
authorities that States and local governments have to participate in 
this process and to object. Anybody who has tried to site one of these 
terminals--and I have talked to several of them--will tell you there 
are a lot of people in the process who can say ``no'' and that ``no'' 
will stick.
  The States clearly are in that position. The States, under the 
Coastal Zone Management Act, have the ability to say no, if they do not 
determine that the permitting or that the applicant who is seeking a 
permit is consistent with the State's coastal laws. Under the Clean 
Water Act, the State can say no and deny a certification under section 
411 if they determine that the proposal has not complied with the State 
water quality standards. There are a variety of places where the State 
can say no and, of course, local communities as well.
  What we have tried to do in the underlying bill is to be sure that 
once the need for process is completed, once the State has signed off 
on various permits and certifications, then there is not an additional 
problem that can be raised by the Governor of the State. Presumably, 
that government will have been involved in every stage of this process, 
and that State's appropriate agencies will have been involved in every 
stage of the process. But we need to have some finality to this, and we 
need to be able to be sure FERC can go ahead with the siting if they 
determine, after all this has been done, that in fact this is a safe 
project that makes sense and ought to be permitted. That is all we are 
trying to do in the bill.
  The amendment of the Senator from California would have the effect of 
saying to Governors that you have the final word. Regardless of what 
FERC determines, regardless of what the process reveals, regardless of 
any of that, if you still don't like it, you can say no. That is not a 
good process. That will not give the confidence and assurance that is 
needed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I urge defeat of the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Chafee as an original cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. In the first place, there is no Federal delegated 
authority for safety. Let me give you an example, a case in point of 
what that means. That case in point was presented by Senator Kennedy on 
the Fall River placement of an LNG facility in the heart of river 
territory in Massachusetts. Three schools are in the area, with 9,000 
people in the immediate area. It was opposed by the State government 
and every local city and town. But the FERC staff recommended the 
project go forward in the final environmental impact report.
  FERC is no guardian of safety. This is a case in point to give 
Governors some authority. The Deepwater Port Act gives Governors 
authority offshore. They should have it on shore, too.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from California if she 
would be interested in having an additional minute. You know there is 
something in this question.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Senator's generosity overcame me for a minute.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator from California will have one minute, and 
we will have one minute.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. It is the Senator's right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request for 1 additional minute on each side? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Deepwater Port Act gives Governors 
the right of veto over an LNG port 3 miles or more offshore, but this 
bill prevents them from having any authority if there is a proposal for 
an LNG terminal right on State land, right in the heart of a 
metropolitan area, right where it presents a danger to citizens, right 
where it could present an environmental disaster. This is an 
idiosyncracy which is wrong. All we have done is replicate the 
Deepwater Port Act's authority.
  The other point I wish to make is there is in this bill the right of 
appeal. There is the right of the Commerce Department to step in and 
reverse anything a State does in this regard. There will be LNG 
terminals sited, let there be no doubt about it. The key is to site 
them smartly, to site them where they make the best sense.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield my minute to Senator Craig.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I hope Senators today will oppose the 
Feinstein-Snowe amendment for a very clear reason. In 1974, when the 
Senator from California refers to this port act, we did not have a lot 
of the law in place that we now have today.
  This is not a closed-door process. Using the Natural Gas Act allows 
FERC to do all it needs to do to protect the public--public hearings, 
public involvement. If we are going to let NIMBYism at the State level 
destroy the ability of this country to build the kind of natural gas 
infrastructure we need today, that we do not have today that is driving 
the chemical industries offshore, that are shooting our prices

[[Page S6992]]

up, then allow NIMBYism to exist within the law.
  I am a State rights person.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRAIG. I will not yield. This is a closing statement. We have 
Senators who need to have the vote and get to their committees.
  I am a State rights advocate, but I also recognize the Constitution 
and the interstate commerce clause and what we have to do to facilitate 
this. I ask Senators to vote to table the Feinstein amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to table the Feinstein amendment 
and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The 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) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 146 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Akaka
     Allen
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Collins
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Martinez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Reed
     Reid
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Vitter
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Conrad
     Johnson
     Thune
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, obviously there is no time agreement, 
but I understand Senator Byrd is ready to go, to proceed with his 
amendment. I understand that is going to be accepted. We will have 
somebody take my place here to manage our side.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I understand Senator Byrd is preparing 
to offer his amendment. I ask for the Senator's consent to speak for 3 
minutes on a different subject before he begins.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the 
Senator from Louisiana is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, we just had a very vigorous and I think 
enlightening discussion about liquefied natural gas plants and the 
situation our country is in, about the desperate--and that is not too 
strong a word--the desperate need we have for additional gas in the 
Nation. We had a very good debate about how we were going to provide 
this additional gas. The technology, which has just been established in 
the last few years, allows us to drill for gas in places all over the 
world, convert it to a liquid, transport it to our shores, turn it back 
into a gas, and turn on our lights, provide our energy, and help our 
economy move forward.
  I thought the debate was excellent and in great detail. As usual, 
Senator Feinstein presented her position beautifully. We received 
letters from the Governors. Of course, our leaders, the two Senators 
from New Mexico, also stated their positions very clearly and the vote 
has taken place. Regardless whether the Domenici position prevailed, 
which it did in this case, or if the Feinstein position had been agreed 
to, we still have the situation of having four liquefied natural gas 
plants in the Nation today, only four. The largest one is in Louisiana. 
We are getting ready to bring in what some estimate are as many as 40 
or 50 of these new plants. They have to go somewhere.
  I hope as this debate goes on, we can make the wisest decisions about 
the siting of these plants regarding their safety for our communities, 
their safety for the environment, and a revenue-sharing provision that 
would allow the communities that do host these liquefied natural gas 
plants to share some of the revenues because of the impacts that will 
occur. One way or another, there will either be security impacts or 
some environmental impacts--some impacts that the communities that do 
not bear this responsibility will now bear. This is particularly 
appropriate because this gas is not going to be used by the borough or 
the county or the parish in which it is sited; it is going to be used 
by the whole Nation.
  I am going to have an amendment. It is going to be a sense-of-the-
Senate amendment to get a study underway to see how these revenues 
could be shared appropriately with the 50 or 60 or 70 sites that are 
going to be determined in our country--whether they are in West 
Virginia, whether they are in Louisiana, whether they are in 
Massachusetts or California. Our communities deserve to have some 
funding to help with these impacts.
  I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his graciousness in 
allowing me to speak, and I put the Senate on notice that this 
amendment will be coming later this afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 869

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will shortly offer an amendment to the 
Energy bill to provide relief for rural workers, some relief for rural 
workers from high gas prices. Before I do that, I thank Senators 
Grassley and Baucus for their time and their efforts concerning my 
amendment. Always courteous, always candid, always gentlemen--each 
embodies the spirit and the harmonious character of a U.S. Senator. I 
am talking about Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus.
  I will shortly send to the desk a modified version of my amendment 
which I have discussed with the chairman and ranking member of the 
Finance Committee and their staffs.
  I will also ask Senators Lincoln, Rockefeller, Harkin, and Pryor be 
added as cosponsors, but I am not asking that right at this moment.
  We debate the Energy bill today in the context of skyrocketing life-
altering gasoline prices. The people out there watching the Senate 
through those electronic lenses, many of them know what I am talking 
about. The American public is reminded, day after day after day--as 
they drive to work, as they drive their children to school, as they 
drive to the local market, they are reminded of the outrageous cost of 
gasoline and how it squeezes their pocketbooks--how it squeezes your 
pocketbooks. That fact alone is probably the single most important 
catalyst for this Energy bill. Yet Senators candidly acknowledge, as 
has the President, that no energy policy can immediately deliver lower 
prices at the fuel pump.
  I don't say that to criticize the efforts of the managers of the 
bill. They rightly are looking to the future with the hope of weaning--
weaning--America from its dependence on foreign oil. I have been 
talking about this for years.
  They are setting admirable goals and I hope that we move quickly to 
meet them. But--that conjunction ``but''--in the meantime, while we 
wait for countless production incentives and numerous Federal programs 
to take effect, American workers--American workers--suffer, suffer 
daily at the fuel pump. The impact of high gas prices is burdensome in 
many cases and devastating in others.
  I addressed the Senate recently about this issue, as I have addressed 
it many times, highlighting the impact that

[[Page S6993]]

high gas prices have had on rural areas in this country. You talk about 
rural areas; look at Maine. Look at West Virginia. Look at that map. I 
will talk about it in a moment. Residents of rural areas must drive 
longer distances to work and from work, inflicting burdensome costs on 
workers. Rural areas have less access to public transportation. This 
means subways and buses are not usually available to rural workers.
  Look at my State, a mountain State. Senators ought to know what it is 
like to wind around those mountains, up and down; steep going up and 
going down sometimes is worse. In Appalachia--that is what we are 
talking about, what I am talking about right now is Appalachia. Rural 
roads--come on over, Senators, and try some of those rural roads. Your 
head will be dizzy and you will be holding on with your fingertips and 
your fingernails will be white. It is tough. In Appalachia, rural 
roads, twisting and winding and bending around the hills and mountains, 
exacerbate the financial pain.
  When gas prices spike, rural workers often have no extra income to 
absorb the increase, forcing painful cuts in essential expenditures. 
High gas prices hurt local businesses as workers are forced to scale 
back leisure activities and everyday comforts. Economic activity slows, 
communities are impacted, and savings shrink. These communities are 
crying out for action. They have no alternative means of transportation 
available to them to avoid driving, no subways. Go over to the 
Alleghany Mountains, you will not find subways. Those mountains are 
beautiful. I tell you, there is nothing like them, the Alleghanys. 
Appalachia, no subways. No mass transit. They are unlikely to benefit 
much from the energy conservation incentives designed for their urban 
counterparts.
  These rural workers--hear me, hear me--these rural workers seek 
immediate relief. They want some help. They grow increasingly 
frustrated with the hemming and the hawing of their representatives in 
Congress--not only in Congress but in the White House. They do not want 
equivocations about economic theories. They are all well and good, 
those theories. These workers do not want tutorials about tax policy. 
What do they want? They want relief. And today, I am going to submit an 
amendment that would be a partial answer. We have to start giving some 
attention to this problem and to these people.
  This amendment would create a new transportation fringe benefit for 
eligible rural workers. Employers could offer these workers 
compensation for their costly gasoline purchases. Those expenditures 
for gasoline, up to $50 per month, by rural workers who can carpool, 
would be excluded from their taxable wages, providing immediate relief.
  The amendment would cost $123 million over 5 years. It is my 
understanding, based on discussions with the Finance Committee, that an 
offset would be provided later in the day.
  This amendment is the result of a compromise. Legislation is 
compromise. There are different opinions around here. Senators 
represent different areas with different problems. Sometimes we cannot 
have it all the way we would like. Not everything is the way we want. 
We have to compromise. Legislation means compromise. We have to have a 
bill. You do not go for the kill on every bill, but you do what you 
can. Sometimes you have to not do as much as you would like to do, but 
you do something, and later you do something more.
  This amendment is the result of a compromise with the Finance 
Committee. I have been in Congress now 53 years. How about that--53 
years in the House and Senate. I started out in the House. But you have 
to compromise. You have to do that in the House, compromise. You cannot 
have everything like you want it, but you get something for the people 
you represent. You help them a little here and a little there and then 
a little more here and a little more there. That is the way it is done.
  This amendment is the result of a compromise with the Finance 
Committee. It represents an acknowledgment by the Senate that rural 
workers can be affected more directly and harshly by high gas prices 
and that the Senate is beginning to respond to that reality.
  This amendment can help to provide immediate relief to rural workers. 
It cannot do everything, but we are doing something. It can help to 
provide relief to working mothers, to fathers, both of whom are 
searching for ways to stretch their paychecks just a little bit 
further. You can only stretch that paycheck so far. It will not stretch 
any further.
  It will benefit residents from the northern most areas of Maine. We 
can see Maine looking at the chart, right up there at the top, way up 
there, way up there. It will benefit the northern most areas of Maine, 
down the east coast, down the east coast, into the Appalachia region--
there is home sweet home to me, Appalachia--Kentucky, Tennessee, and 
into the Southern States of Mississippi and Alabama. It will benefit 
residents throughout the rural heartland of America.
  The dark areas are being pointed out by this fine young man. These 
dark areas are what we are talking about. These are the rural areas. 
Look at them on this map. The urban areas are the yellow areas. Look 
how big the map is when it comes to the rural areas. That is where a 
lot of real people live. You talk about the grassroots of America. Go 
back to the rural areas. Those people in the rural areas have to drive 
to work. They do not have mass transit in most of these areas. We are 
talking about the heartland of America: Iowa, Nebraska, the Dakotas, 
westward. Turn westward young man, westward. West through Montana and 
Idaho, and along the west coast. Rural areas in California. California 
has rural areas, too. Oregon, Washington--rural areas along the west 
coast into Washington, Oregon, and California.
  As the chart beside me shows, and I hope the camera is focusing on 
these rural areas, rural workers in every State--name the State--rural 
workers in that State would benefit from this amendment, workers who 
reside in the rural areas, the green areas. I will point out Appalachia 
again. If you have not been there, you ought to go and see what those 
people have to contend with. See what workers in Appalachia have to 
contend with. It is not just Appalachia; it is all over the country, 
throughout the country, every State. There are many in these rural--the 
green--areas who are forced to drive to work due to a lack of public 
transit. They do not have Metro. We have the Metro in the District of 
Columbia. They do not have it over there. They would be eligible to 
benefit from this amendment.

  The Finance Committee has offered a tax package to this bill 
providing $18 billion in energy supply and efficiency incentives, many 
of which I support. The Finance Committee package will yield long-term 
benefits for the American people. As I have said, the chairman and the 
ranking member have been very gracious in considering my views 
regarding these matters. But the House of Representatives passed $8 
billion of very different tax incentives, much of them going to big 
oil, which today is reaping an enormous windfall.
  I say to the distinguished Senator from New York, there are a lot of 
people up there in rural areas in New York--Chuck Schumer, yes. He and 
Senator Clinton--man, they look out after their people. May the Lord 
bless them.
  Much of the benefits are going to big oil, which today is reaping an 
enormous windfall from the high price of gasoline. Let me say that 
again: The House of Representatives passed $8 billion. How much is 
that? That is $8 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. Now you 
can get an idea of what we are talking about. Eight billion, $8 for 
every minute since Jesus Christ was born. These different tax 
incentives, $8 billion of very different tax incentives, much of them 
going to big oil, which today is reaping an enormous windfall from the 
high price of gasoline. These tax breaks are in addition to the 
billions of dollars in taxpayer revenues dedicated annually to these 
companies.
  This is an opportunity to vote for an amendment that will provide 
some relief--not enough but some. The Senate is, finally, about to 
recognize this problem. This is an opportunity to vote for an amendment 
that will provide relief directly and immediately. To whom? The little 
guy. The little guy. Man, you talk about me now, the little guy. The

[[Page S6994]]

Presiding Officer is for the little guy. That is what this amendment is 
about.
  This is an opportunity to help working men and women today. Not 
enough, not enough, but it is a good start. We do not have to wait and 
hope gas prices will decrease. We can take some action now.
  I urge adoption of this amendment which I now send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself, 
     Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Pryor, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 869.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 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 Internal Revenue code of 1986 to provide relief 
                         from high gas prices)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC. __. INCOME TAX EXCLUSION FOR CERTAIN FUEL COSTS OF RURAL 
                   CARPOOLS.

       (a) In General.--Section 132(f)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (defining qualified transportation fringe) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Fuel expenses for a highway vehicle of any employee 
     who meets the rural carpool requirements of paragraph (8).''.
       (b) Limitation on Exclusion.--Section 132(f)(2) of such 
     Code (relating to limitation on exclusion) is amended by 
     striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A), by striking 
     the period at the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting ``, 
     and'', and by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) $50 per month in the case of the benefit described in 
     subparagraph (D).''.
       (c) Rural Carpool Requirements.--Section 132(f) of such 
     Code is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(8) Requirements for employees participating in rural 
     carpools.--
       ``(A) In general.--The requirements of this paragraph are 
     met if an employee--
       ``(i) is an employee of an employer described in 
     subparagraph (B),
       ``(ii) certifies to such employer that--

       ``(I) such employee resides in a rural area (as defined by 
     the Bureau of the Census),
       ``(II) such employee is not eligible to claim any qualified 
     transportation fringe described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of 
     paragraph (1) if provided by such employer,
       ``(III) such employee uses the employee's highway vehicle 
     when traveling between the employee's residence and place of 
     employment, and
       ``(IV) for at least 75 percent of the total mileage of such 
     travel, the employee is accompanied by 1 or more employees of 
     such employer, and

       ``(iii) agrees to notify such employer when any subclause 
     of clause (ii) no longer applies.
       ``(B) Employer described.--An employer is described in this 
     subparagraph if the business premises of such employer which 
     serve as the place of employment of the employee are located 
     in an area which is not accessible by a transit system 
     designed primarily to provide daily work trips within a local 
     commuting area.''.
       (d) No Exclusion for Employment Taxes.--Section 3121(a)(20) 
     of such Code (defining wages) is amended by inserting 
     ``(except by reason of subsection (f)(1)(D) thereof)'' after 
     ``or 132''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to expenses incurred on and after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and before January 1, 2007.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have nothing further right now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator still wish to have cosponsors 
added to the amendment?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes. I thank the Chair for remembering that. The names of 
those cosponsors I send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Senators Lincoln, Rockefeller, Harkin, and Pryor--I ask 
unanimous consent that they be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I am ready to vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Is there further debate on the 
amendment? If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 869) was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank all Senators.
  I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was adopted. I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.


                           Amendment No. 805

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent we return to 
consideration of amendment No. 805, a previously pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is now pending.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I will address this amendment. As I 
understand it, we might be able to call for a vote shortly because I 
will not speak for that long.
  Madam President, I rise today offering an amendment that will express 
the sense of the Senate that the Federal Government should take long 
overdue action to curb the record-high gasoline prices that are 
plaguing America's consumers at the pump.
  We know there are two aspects to the energy problem we face in 
America. If anything, the more important is the long-term problem, and 
there we need conservation and new energy sources and new exploration. 
In my judgment, at least, this bill does a tiny, little bit of that, 
not close to enough of what we need, particularly on the conservation 
side.
  But we also have a short-term problem. That short-term problem is the 
record-high prices of gasoline. It is caused by a number of things: 
Obviously, increasing demand here in America and worldwide, China and 
India, in particular, but at the same time, it is also caused by the 
fact that we are up against a cartel, OPEC, and OPEC manipulates the 
production of oil.
  If OPEC were in the United States, if those 11 countries were 11 
companies, they would be brought up on antitrust laws. They play havoc 
with the gasoline markets. A few months ago, while demand was climbing, 
they cut back production by a million barrels. Realizing they had 
overdone it, even from their own point of view, they then asked their 
members to increase production by 500,000 barrels a day. But that was a 
paper reduction. It did not really come into the markets.
  So the bottom line is this: We have a serious problem in terms of 
OPEC. Many think we are powerless to deal with it in the short term--
for the long term, as I mentioned, there are ways to deal with it--but 
I do not believe that is the case because we have an ace in the hole; 
that is, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It is now full. It has not 
been full in a long time. There are 700 million barrels of oil, or 
close to that, sitting in the Louisiana and Texas oil flats.
  If we were to strategically use that oil in a swap, which would not 
decrease the amount of oil in the Reserve but would be a tool to bring 
down prices, and then we would buy back the oil or have the oil 
replaced in this swap when the price comes down so we would actually 
put more oil into the Reserve than when we started, we could do a lot 
of good for drivers in this country.
  The last time the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was used--and it can be 
used, by law, for this; President Clinton did it in October of 2000, 
after I spent a lot of time importuning him to do it--prices went down 
considerably. I have no doubt, if the sense of the Senate resolution is 
adopted and the President follows it, that prices would go down again.
  Madam President, I see my good friend from New Mexico is here. I am 
told it would be his preference that we have a vote by 12:10. So I will 
only speak for another 3 or 4 minutes.
  Madam President, I would like to offer another amendment, not speak 
about it, but just lay it down, and then give the remaining 4 or 5 
minutes to my colleague from New Mexico, and then we would have a vote. 
If that is OK with the Senator from New Mexico, that is what I would 
propose we do.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I say to the Senator, could we try, in 
that arrangement, to give me 5 minutes, even if we go over a minute or 
2 beyond 12:10?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Great. I will try to keep my remarks brief because I 
have spoken about it before.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The other amendment, have we seen it or know anything 
about it?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Yes, it has been filed.


                           Amendment No. 811

  Madam President, while we are talking about it, I ask unanimous 
consent

[[Page S6995]]

to temporarily lay aside the pending amendment so that I may offer 
amendment No. 811.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer], for himself, Ms. 
     Cantwell, and Mr. Lautenberg, proposes an amendment numbered 
     811.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, 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 provide for a national tire fuel efficiency program)

       On page 120, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:

     SEC. 142. MOTOR VEHICLE TIRES SUPPORTING MAXIMUM FUEL 
                   EFFICIENCY.

       (a) Standards for Tires Manufactured for Interstate 
     Commerce.--Section 30123 of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by inserting after the first 
     sentence the following: ``The grading system shall include 
     standards for rating the fuel efficiency of tires designed 
     for use on passenger cars and light trucks.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) National Tire Fuel Efficiency Program.--(1) The 
     Secretary shall develop and carry out a national tire fuel 
     efficiency program for tires designed for use on passenger 
     cars and light trucks.
       ``(2) The program shall include the following:
       ``(A) Policies and procedures for testing and labeling 
     tires for fuel economy to enable tire buyers to make informed 
     purchasing decisions about the fuel economy of tires.
       ``(B) Policies and procedures to promote the purchase of 
     energy-efficient replacement tires, including purchase 
     incentives, website listings on the Internet, printed fuel 
     economy guide booklets, and mandatory requirements for tire 
     retailers to provide tire buyers with fuel-efficiency 
     information on tires.
       ``(C) Minimum fuel economy standards for tires, promulgated 
     by the Secretary.
       ``(3) The minimum fuel economy standards for tires shall--
       ``(A) ensure that the average fuel economy of replacement 
     tires is equal to or better than the average fuel economy of 
     tires sold as original equipment;
       ``(B) secure the maximum technically feasible and cost-
     effective fuel savings;
       ``(C) not adversely affect tire safety;
       ``(D) not adversely affect the average tire life of 
     replacement tires;
       ``(E) incorporate the results from--
       ``(i) laboratory testing; and
       ``(ii) to the extent appropriate and available, on-road 
     fleet testing programs conducted by the manufacturers; and
       ``(F) not adversely affect efforts to manage scrap tires.
       ``(4) The policies, procedures, and standards developed 
     under paragraph (2) shall apply to all types and models of 
     tires that are covered by the uniform tire quality grading 
     standards under section 575.104 of title 49, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (or any successor regulation).
       ``(5) Not less often than every three years, the Secretary 
     shall review the minimum fuel economy standards in effect for 
     tires under this subsection and revise the standards as 
     necessary to ensure compliance with requirements under 
     paragraph (3). The Secretary may not, however, reduce the 
     average fuel economy standards applicable to replacement 
     tires.
       ``(6) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to preempt 
     any provision of State law relating to higher fuel economy 
     standards applicable to replacement tires designed for use on 
     passenger cars and light trucks.
       ``(7) Nothing in this chapter shall apply to--
       ``(A) a tire or group of tires with the same SKU, plant, 
     and year, for which the volume of tires produced or imported 
     is less than 15,000 annually;
       ``(B) a deep tread, winter-type snow tire, space-saver 
     tire, or temporary use spare tire;
       ``(C) a tire with a normal rim diameter of 12 inches or 
     less;
       ``(D) a motorcycle tire; or
       ``(E) a tire manufactured specifically for use in an off-
     road motorized recreational vehicle.
       ``(8) In this subsection, the term `fuel economy', with 
     respect to tires, means the extent to which the tires 
     contribute to the fuel economy of the motor vehicles on which 
     the tires are mounted.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 30103(b) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended in paragraph (1) by striking 
     ``When'' and inserting ``Except as provided in section 
     30123(d) of this title, when''.
       (c) Time for Implementation.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation shall ensure that the national tire fuel 
     efficiency program required under subsection (d) of section 
     30123 of title 49, United States Code (as added by subsection 
     (a)(2)), is administered so as to apply the policies, 
     procedures, and standards developed under paragraph (2) of 
     such subsection (d) beginning not later than March 31, 2008.

                           Amendment No. 805

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be laid aside and we return to the pending business, which is 
amendment No. 805.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Madam President.
  Now, so we have this ace in the hole, the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve, which has been used before; it is not a long-term solution. 
But right now OPEC calls all the shots. They know that they can, more 
or less, set the price, particularly at a time of rising demand. If we 
were to strategically use, if you will, the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve, we could break OPEC's resolve, break OPEC's will, and actually 
deal with the problem of high gasoline prices in the short term. It is 
virtually the only way to do it.
  So I would say to my colleagues, we cannot order the President to do 
it, so this is simply a sense of the Senate that says we should do it. 
I believe drivers throughout America--whether they are driving trucks 
thousands of miles or driving kids to school or anything in between--
are looking at us to see if we will do something. This amendment 
signals our desire and ability not to simply take it on the chin over 
and over again from OPEC but, rather, to use our strategic weapon, the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, as it has been used before, to both lower 
gas prices and let OPEC know we have good cards in our hand that we can 
lay on the table and use.
  With that, Madam President, since the amendment has been discussed 
before, and this is an issue I have been involved with for years and 
years, I will, in the interest of time and getting a vote on this 
amendment quickly, yield the floor so my colleague from New Mexico 
might respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, first, might I say to my good friend 
from New York, I respect his continuous efforts in this regard. But I 
would say, do not misunderstand that to mean I think his amendment will 
do any good.
  I think, first of all, the Senate should know the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve is not a reserve to supply the United States with oil on a day-
by-day basis. It is a reserve in the event we have a crisis.
  We had a crisis that started this. That is why we started the 
Reserve. We had a crisis because Iran, years ago, decided to cut us 
off. They did not cut us off by a huge amount, but just enough to send 
a turmoil into the market. Our prices skyrocketed, and the United 
States said: Well, let's find a place to put some oil that we can 
retrieve if we have a crisis.
  Now, everybody should know a crisis does not mean the price is too 
high or the price is too low. It means America has suffered an untoward 
shock, a war that all of a sudden happened, and we started drawing 
down, not an ongoing, everyday event that we just play and have to work 
in the marketplace.
  Now, how much do we have? Years ago we thought we had a very big 
reserve. In 1985, we said: We want to have 118 days of supply; that is, 
if we needed it, and needed it every day, continually, to supplement 
what we had domestically, we had 118 days. Because of our growing 
dependence and other things, we now have 59 days. The Reserve is 59 
days of import protection.
  I ask the Senate, is 59 days too much? I wish we could tell the 
American people we had 259 days. But we have 59. It will soon be 
filled. So anybody worrying about amendments saying, Don't put in any 
more; it will soon reach its capacity, I say, Good. That is what it 
ought to be.

  Now, the Senator says: Let's start taking it out now, a million 
barrels a day for 30 days, with another possibility of a million 
barrels a day for 30 more days. To what end? Do you think those who 
control the price by controlling production would sit by and say, ``The 
United States is going to use its reserve. We don't think they should. 
It is kind of dumb. But they are going to put it on the market''? In a 
minute, they could cut production, and any impact using up this 
important reserve would have on the market would go away. So we would 
be doing a unilateral act and endangering our security because we would 
be minimizing the security potential of SPR, and we would not get any 
good out of it. There

[[Page S6996]]

is no assurance doing what is suggested will have any significant 
impact on the price of oil.
  I know the Senator has said it will bring the price down, but it just 
does not make sense. A million barrels a day, when we use 20 million 
barrels--just think of that--how could it have an impact, when the OPEC 
cartel is a player, and they could make their adjustments?
  So what I see this as is no insurance at all of anything positive and 
an absolute assurance of something very, very bad for America--
negative--because we will have increased our risk of not having oil 
when we need it from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that we put in in 
order to take it out when we had an untoward, sort of an attack on the 
flow of oil by some activity outside our control.
  Mr. President, while I compliment the Senator for wanting to say to 
Americans, We want to get the price of oil down, I want to say we 
worked hard in this Energy Committee. We did everything humanly 
possible. And if it was as easy as saying, Let's just sell the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we would have done that, I say to the 
occupant of the chair, who was a very active participant.
  Anybody could have made a motion: Let's start selling the petroleum 
reserve. Nobody did that because we understand it as an activity that 
is self-defeating. As a matter of fact, Madam President and fellow 
Senators, instead of doing some good--and I say this in all deference 
to my friend from New York--it would probably do us some harm. Whatever 
you take out for this purpose probably adds to the security risk of 
this great Nation.
  Again I repeat, we have 59 days of supply. We wish we had 118, as we 
started out shooting for. And now we would start diminishing that--and 
I cannot tell you how much; a pretty good chunk--a million barrels a 
day for 30 days, plus 30 more million barrels.
  So having said that, I do not think we should do this.
  Madam President, the time has expired, as I understand it.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Indeed.


                     Amendment No. 805, as Modified

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I have a technical modification to the 
amendment. There was a drafting problem. I would like to modify the 
amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator you have the right to modify your 
amendment. Go ahead.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that line 22, 
title (c), be stricken and that on line 23 of page 4--OK. I will send 
the modification to the desk.
  Mr. DOMENICI. You do not need consent.
  Madam President, he has a right to modify it; is that not right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 805), as modified, is as follows:
       On page 208, after line 24, add the following:

     SEC. 303. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING MANAGEMENT OF SPR.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the prices of gasoline and crude oil have a direct and 
     substantial impact on the financial well-being of families of 
     the United States, the potential for national economic 
     recovery, and the economic security of the United States;
       (2) on June 13, 2005, crude oil prices closed at the 
     exceedingly high level of $55.62 per barrel, the price of 
     crude oil has remained above $50 per barrel since May 25, 
     2005, and the price of crude oil has exceeded $50 per barrel 
     for approximately \1/3\ of calendar year 2005;
       (3) on June 6, 2005, the Energy Information Administration 
     announced that the national price of gasoline, at $2.12 per 
     gallon, could reach even higher levels in the near future;
       (4) despite the severely high, sustained price of crude 
     oil--
       (A) the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries 
     (referred to in this section as ``OPEC'') has refused to 
     adequately increase production to calm global oil markets and 
     officially abandoned its $22-$28 price target; and
       (B) officials of OPEC member nations have publicly 
     indicated support for maintaining oil prices of $40-$50 per 
     barrel;
       (5) the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (referred to in this 
     section as ``SPR'') was created to enhance the physical and 
     economic security of the United States;
       (6) the law allows the SPR to be used to provide relief 
     when oil and gasoline supply shortages cause economic 
     hardship;
       (7) the proper management of the resources of the SPR could 
     provide gasoline price relief to families of the United 
     States and provide the United States with a tool to 
     counterbalance OPEC supply management policies;
       (8) the Administration's policy of filling the SPR despite 
     the fact that the SPR is nearly full has exacerbated the 
     rising price of crude oil and record high retail price of 
     gasoline;
       (9) in order to combat high gasoline prices during the 
     summer and fall of 2000, President Clinton released 
     30,000,000 barrels of oil from the SPR, stabilizing the 
     retail price of gasoline;
       (10) increasing vertical integration has allowed--
       (A) the 5 largest oil companies in the United States to 
     control almost as much crude oil production as the Middle 
     Eastern members of OPEC, over \1/2\ of domestic refiner 
     capacity, and over 60 percent of the retail gasoline market; 
     and
       (B) Exxon/Mobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell Group, Conoco/
     Philips, and Chevron/Texaco to increase first quarter profits 
     of 2005 over first quarter profits of 2004 by 36 percent, for 
     total first quarter profits of over $25,000,000,000;
       (11) the Administration has failed to manage the SPR in a 
     manner that would provide gasoline price relief to working 
     families; and
       (12) the Administration has failed to adequately demand 
     that OPEC immediately increase oil production in order to 
     lower crude oil prices and safeguard the world economy.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the President should--
       (1) directly confront OPEC and challenge OPEC to 
     immediately increase oil production; and
       (2) direct the Federal Trade Commission and Attorney 
     General to exercise vigorous oversight over the oil markets 
     to protect the people of the United States from price gouging 
     and unfair practices at the gasoline pump.
       (3) For the period beginning on the date of enactment of 
     this Act and ending on the date that is 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, 1,000,000 barrels of oil per 
     day should be released from the SPR.
       (4) If necessary to lower the burden of gasoline prices on 
     the economy of the United States and to circumvent the 
     efforts of OPEC to reap windfall crude oil profits, 1,000,000 
     barrels of oil per day should be released from the Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve for an additional 30 days.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the chair. If I could make one brief point to my 
colleague.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Sure.
  Mr. SCHUMER. First, we are only calling for 60 million barrels, at 
max, to be used. There are 700 million barrels there. Second, this is a 
swap, which is what was done before. So within 6 months, with 
presumably the price lower, the amount of oil would be replaced and 
more so.
  Those are two points I wanted to make. I am ready to have a vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I need no additional time. I move to 
table the Schumer amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on the motion. 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 Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from 
South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 147 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--39

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Carper
     Clinton
     Collins
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy

[[Page S6997]]


     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Conrad
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Thune
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I believe under the previous order, 
the Senate returns now to the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Arizona and myself; am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator calls for the regular order 
with respect to that amendment.


                           Amendment No. 826

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I call for the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Regular order is called for. That amendment is 
now pending.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. McCAIN. Can the Presiding Officer tell us the parliamentary 
situation, the time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona controls 90 minutes; 
the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, has 30 minutes; and the 
Senator from Oklahoma has 60 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, with the consent of my friend from 
Arizona, at this point I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I rise to support the McCain-
Lieberman amendment. If anyone does not believe what 99.9 percent of 
the scientific community believes--that global warming is, in fact, a 
reality--if anyone does not believe that, then they are living in a 
cave and not recognizing what is happening to our planet.
  Whenever I think of global warming, my mind's eye suddenly goes back 
to 1986, looking out the window of our spacecraft back at planet Earth. 
There on the rim of the Earth, we could see the thin little film which 
is the atmosphere which sustains all of life. With the naked eye from 
orbit, you can actually see how we are starting to mess up the planet.
  Coming across South America, I could see with the color contrast on 
the face of the Earth below in the Amazon region the destruction of the 
rainforests. Then I could look to the east at the mouth of the Amazon 
River, and I could see the result of the destruction of those trees 
hundreds of miles upriver by the silt that has discolored the Atlantic 
Ocean for hundreds of miles. And so, too, in different parts of the 
Earth, we saw this wonderful creation, and it became apparent to me 
that I needed to be a better steward of what we have on planet Earth.
  If we are creating a greenhouse effect, which 99.9 percent of the 
scientists say we are, and if it is trapping the heat on planet Earth--
the heat that comes from the Sun that cannot radiate out into space--
and if the Earth is heating up, as it is, what is going to be the 
natural consequence? The oceans are going to rise because ice is going 
to melt. The temperature of the Earth is going to increase.
  What does that say for those of us who live on the eastern seaboard, 
particularly a land known as paradise which is a peninsula that sticks 
down into the middle of hurricane highway? That is my land. That is the 
State of Florida. What it says is the seas are going to rise and 
threaten most of Florida's population, indeed, most of the coastal 
population of the United States. What it also says is by heat rising, 
the storms are going to become more ferocious and more frequent. The 
plagues and pestilence are going to increase and, I say to my 
colleagues in the Senate, this is not a condition we want to have 
happen to this beautiful creation that is our home suspended in the 
middle of nothing and is called planet Earth. Yet that is what is 
happening.
  We best get about the process of straightening it out. That is why I 
support the McCain-Lieberman amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Florida for 
his very powerful statement supporting this amendment. We all bring a 
unique perspective to the Senate, but nobody brings the same 
perspective as Senator Nelson. He was up in space, he was an astronaut 
before he came to the Senate, so he has that big picture.
  He also has a very local understanding, as he said, because of the 
threat that the rising water levels will place on Florida. The occupant 
of the chair is a distinguished Senator from Alaska. We can already see 
evidence in Alaska of water rising.
  One of the great reinsurance companies, from a pure business point of 
view, supports antiglobal warming legislation because they project that 
within 10 years, we are going to be spending $150 billion a year to 
compensate for climate-driven disasters.
  There was a particularly notorious Emperor of Rome who is remembered 
for fiddling while Rome burned. I believe we here in Washington are 
fiddling while the planet warms and while the waters rise. I honestly 
do believe this amendment we offer today gives us a chance to turn that 
around. I thank my friend from Florida very much.
  I now yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for 1 minute?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I am glad to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, as the Senator from Florida points out, 
this chart shows the areas in Florida subject to inundation with a 100-
centimeter sea level rise. This is what we see happening. The red is 
the area of his State that would be inundated. I thank the Senator from 
Florida for his commitment and his keen understanding of this dire 
emergency.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, if the Senator will yield and 
if I may comment, all of those red portions, save for the very southern 
tip of Florida, which is the Everglades, sit mainly along the coast. 
That is where the population of Florida mainly resides. Why can't the 
United States insurance industry understand this and get behind this, 
with the exception of the reinsurance company about which the Senator 
from Connecticut just spoke? Why can they not understand that it is in 
their economic interest because it is going to be their insureds who 
are going to be threatened?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for 
pointing out that point. And I thank--it must be Vanna White holding 
the chart.
  I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of the Senator from Vermont, that 
he be allowed to remain seated--he just had recent knee surgery--as he 
delivers his remarks for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, in my many years of public service, I 
have always tried to push our national Government forward on a greener, 
more sustainable path. That is the path that Vermont has chosen, and 
that is the way that seems to be most sensible to me. I have worked 
hard to promote recycling, efficiency, renewable energy, alternative 
fuels, conservation, and in general the wise and sensible use of our 
energy resources.
  I consider wasting energy a symptom of bad management and economic 
inefficiency. It also strikes me as an inconsiderate and irresponsible 
behavior that visits the sins of one generation upon the next. That is 
what this debate is about. What will we leave our future generations if 
our actions and vision are too shortsighted and wasteful? We, the 
United States, have wasted more energy than any other country or 
civilization on Earth, even as we have built the Nation into an 
economic and technological superpower.
  America's incredible growth through energy has not been cost free. We 
are dangerously dependent on foreign sources of petroleum. Public 
health has suffered and still suffers from pollution from fossil fuel 
combustion. But perhaps the most costly in the long run to our economy, 
the public health, national security, and the quality of life for 
generations to come is our continuously growing greenhouse gas 
emissions. These carbon emissions are the product of our vast 
inefficiency in producing and consuming energy.
  Right now, carbon concentrations in the atmosphere are still at an 
alltime

[[Page S6998]]

high. According to credible scientists, that level has not been higher 
at any time in the last 420,000 years. The United States can take the 
blame for approximately 40 percent of the total carbon loading now in 
the atmosphere, and we are adding more than our share every year.
  We have a moral responsibility to remedy that. We have a chance in 
this Energy bill to begin making reductions in our emissions. Congress 
must lead on this issue because there is a tremendous vacuum in this 
administration. The President and the Vice President would prefer that 
we stick our heads in the sand and hope that it all will go away. 
Voluntary measures are useless against a problem of this scale. We must 
use taxes or a market-based program, such as a cap-and-trade program, 
that will motivate American ingenuity and innovation. We must be 
aggressive in funding domestic and international programs to 
decarbonize our energy supplies. We must use trade opportunities and 
negotiations to export energy-efficient American products and services. 
We have a choice in this bill. We can defer action, letting the problem 
get worse and more costly with each passing year, or we can act now to 
reduce our wasteful global warming emissions.
  My colleagues should remember that generations to come will look back 
at the climate votes on this bill. If we do not act responsibly, they 
will know who to blame for the sea level rise that will threaten their 
communities, the extra intensity of hurricanes, the loss of glaciers, 
or more frequent heat waves and floods. They will know who wasted the 
chance to do the right thing for them in the future.
  The Senate must adopt strong legislation that reduces our greenhouse 
gas emissions. No major energy policy bill will get my support without 
it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, seeing none of my colleagues on the 
floor, I will proceed for a moment or two and then suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  Yesterday, Senator McCain and I laid down the basic arguments for our 
amendment. The fact is that the planet is warming. It is warming as a 
result of human actions. This is no more just a matter of science, 
although most scientists agree with this. We can see it. We can see it 
in the kinds of satellite photos that Senator McCain showed such as in 
the case of the State of Florida. The most graphic evidence is the 
satellite photos of the polar icecaps. The way in which they have 
diminished, shrunk, over the last 10, 15, 20 years is startling, with 
the obvious effect that the water is rising.
  One could pick their favorite story of evidence. The one that we cite 
a lot is the Inuit people, the native people in northern Canada, saw 
robins a few years ago for the first time in their 10,000-year history. 
They did not have a word for ``robin.'' They had to create a word. That 
reality is something my friend from Vermont is aware of. Senator 
Jeffords has been a great crusader, in the best sense of the word, for 
environmental protection. He is from the green state, as he says. He 
has been a wonderfully green Senator in the best sense of that term, 
and I thank him for his support of this amendment.
  This amendment is the only amendment that will come before the Senate 
that will do something about global warming. With all respect to the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska yesterday, it offers 
some technology support, it may request a report or two, but all of its 
goals are voluntary. We found out in the 1990s that voluntary goals do 
not work, that the planet has continued to warm. The result of that 
conclusion was the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The Bush administration has now 
taken us out of that protocol. I wish to make very clear that the 
amendment Senator McCain and I have introduced sets goals for a 
reduction of greenhouse gases by the United States much below what 
Kyoto requires. In fact, I think if one puts the Hagel amendment of 
yesterday on one side and the Kyoto Protocol on the other, Senator 
McCain and I are right in the middle where we like to be. In this case, 
substantively, we are in the middle.
  This amendment makes meaningful reductions, by 2010, to reduce 
American emissions of greenhouse gases to the 2000 level. It creates a 
meaningful market, and it is the only one that does that. It is not 
oldtime command and control. This is bringing in an enormous number and 
range of emissions reduction options for businesses and other sources 
of greenhouse gas emissions. The allowances are allocated at the point 
of emissions to electricity and industrial sectors. Agriculture can 
participate in this program on a voluntary basis. They are not covered 
mandatorily at all.
  This is a tremendous opportunity for the agriculture sector of our 
economy to come in voluntary and say, I want to earn some credits by 
reducing some sources of greenhouse gas or, even more, I want to make 
some money by holding some of my land in uses that will absorb carbon 
dioxide and therefore achieve some credits that can be sold. In our 
amendment, this is a maximum opportunity for innovation and cost 
savings.
  One of the foremost studies conducted by a group at the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology concluded that per-household cost of the 
passage of this bill--we are going to hear a lot of numbers about 
this--is in the range of $15 to $20 per year more per household. I am 
sure if the average American householder were asked whether he or she 
would pay $15 to $20--frankly, a lot would be willing to pay a lot 
more--to deal with the problem of global warming so that we can 
preserve this planet and turn it over to our children as close as 
possible to the way we found it, they would say yes. That is not even 
taking into account the innovative, cost-saving technologies that this 
bill will support in research.
  It is a comprehensive technology strategy that we offer. We have a 
new title this year that creates a technology program funded by the 
sale of allowances, not appropriations; would stimulate innovation at 
each of the three critical phases of innovation: engineering, full-time 
construction, and bringing it to market. The language in this amendment 
says that the funding would go to a series of possible uses, including 
but not limited to biofuels, solar, advanced clean coal, and nuclear. 
All of the technologies must meet environmental and economic criteria 
to gain support, and any technology beyond the ones we mentioned is 
eligible for funding. This is a real economic investment and economic 
growth section of this bill.
  I know there are some who are concerned about the mere mention of 
nuclear. The fact is, today 20 percent of electric power generated in 
America comes from nuclear plants. They are functioning safely. Some of 
them are getting to a point where they are going to have to be 
replaced. This amendment simply opens the door to some research in the 
next generation of possible savings on nuclear powerplants. It is not 
an endorsement. It is not a win or a lose strategy. Anybody who has a 
good idea for proposing or doing some research in a technology or a 
system that could reduce greenhouse gases, that person can apply to 
this public corporation we are setting up for funding under this 
proposal. We do not want to close the door on any technology that will 
give us the power to run our society and help us deal with the 
greenhouse gas global warming problem, and that includes but is not 
limited to, as we say, nuclear.
  We also have some very important funding for a separate program for 
the retooling of manufacturing facilities, particularly targeted to 
advanced technology automobiles--a major source of greenhouse gas 
emissions, a major consumer of oil.
  Interesting fact that probably a lot of people do not appreciate: 
Only 2 percent of the source of electric power in this country today is 
oil-driven. That is pretty amazing. Most of it is coal, twenty percent 
is nuclear, and the rest is a mix of renewable sources. When it comes 
to the transportation sector, just about 95 percent is driven by oil 
products. That is a big source of greenhouse gas emissions and, of 
course, a big source of our vulnerability to the kind of crazy oil 
price shocks we are now experiencing that run through and eat up the 
budget of every family and every business in our country. So here we 
offer funding for the retooling of automobile manufacturing facilities.
  This is the only climate amendment that really does something and 
does it

[[Page S6999]]

comprehensively. It passes the emissions test, it passes the market 
test, and it passes the technology test.
  I know the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, is soon going to be on 
his way to speak on behalf of the bill. I know my colleague, Senator 
McCain, will return to the Senate floor to join in this discussion.
  I yield the floor, and 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. LIEBERMAN. 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. LIEBERMAN. Assuming my friend from Colorado is here to speak on 
our amendment, I yield to him from the time allocated to Senator McCain 
up to 10 minutes. Is that enough or would the Senator like more?
  Mr. SALAZAR. I think 10 minutes will do it.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, the energy legislation that is currently 
being considered by this Senate is very good energy legislation. From 
my point of view, our vision is to get to energy independence for 
America. The cornerstones of our getting to energy independence in 
America are set forth in this legislation. They include efficiency and 
conservation, which is a very significant component of this bill; 
second, enough emphasis on renewable energy because we know that can 
help us get to energy independence with the right emphasis on 
renewables; third, technology because the technological revolution we 
are working on will allow us, for instance, to convert our massive 
resources of coal into zero emissions coal, and coal gasification has 
great promise; and fourth, the development, in a responsible way, of 
additional fuel resources.
  I think those cornerstones will help us get a long way down the road 
toward the energy independence that we require in this country so we 
are not held hostage to the importation of foreign oil.
  As important as this Energy bill is, I also strongly believe it is 
incomplete unless we address the challenge of global warming, which is 
the subject of the McCain-Lieberman amendment which is now before this 
body. I applaud both Senator Hagel and Senator Pryor for their efforts 
yesterday in the successful passage of the global warming amendment to 
the Energy bill. I believe it will put the spotlight on the reality of 
global warming before us.
  I am also proud to be a very strong supporter of the legislation of 
Senators McCain and Lieberman because that will help us get down the 
road to real progress on the issue of global warming.
  Climate change is a very real and very present problem. We are no 
longer at the stage where we ask whether the climate of our world is 
changing. In the words of the recent USA Today article, the headline 
read, ``The Debate's Over.''
  Our climate, the climate that has nurtured life on this planet for 
millennia, is changing, and we--each and every one of us--are bringing 
that change about.
  Climate change in our world poses a significant and real economic 
danger to our country. We know what is causing climate change. 
Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, are piling up in the 
atmosphere, where it stays for decades, for centuries--for a very long 
time, where it traps the heat on this Earth.
  We know the amount of these greenhouse gases is rising and that it is 
higher now than at any time in the last 400,000 years. It is higher at 
this time than at any time in the last 400,000 years. We know these 
gases trap more of the Sun's energy on Earth than is being released 
back into outer space. If we do not start cutting global warming 
pollution, the pile-up of greenhouse gases will lock our planet into a 
future of such rapid climate change that the results could be 
devastating to our children and to future generations of Americans and 
future generations of the population of this world.
  This understanding of the climate change challenge we face is 
international in scope. Last week, the heads of the National Academies 
of Science--these are not fly-by-night scientists or academies or 
institutions but the National Academies of Science of all the G8 
countries--the UK, France, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, and Canada, 
plus those of Brazil, China and India--joined the head of the U.S. 
National Academy of Science in an unequivocal statement calling for 
``action . . . now to reduce significantly the buildup of greenhouse 
gases in the atmosphere'' of our Earth. We must listen to the science.

  Colorado, my State, has a lot at stake when it comes to global 
warming. We have a world-class tourist industry that has flourished 
because of our State's natural beauty, its mighty rivers, expansive 
forests, and majestic plains. Colorado has the best ski areas, I would 
venture, in the world, and some of the best big game hunting and 
fishing anywhere in the continental United States. Tourism employs 
almost 1 in 10 people in Colorado. In some parts of our State along the 
I-70 corridor, it employs almost 50 percent of the people who live 
there.
  The likely outcomes of global warming are clear. Losses of forest and 
meadows in our mountains, reduced stream flows, and significantly 
reduced snowpack. Those realities pose unacceptable threats to my 
State, and the same can be said about every State in America.
  Colorado's municipal and agricultural life is imperiled as well. 
Colorado is an arid State, similar to most of our States in the West. 
We have low annual precipitation rates. Our abundant agriculture and 
our booming cities are dependent on winter snowpacks and reliable 
spring runoff. Scientific studies predict less and less snowpack across 
the West, including in the Colorado Rockies. Studies also predict 
reduced runoff of the water upon which our water supply system depends. 
These warnings are dire. These warnings are frightening. They are not 
abstract concerns about the effects of a warming Earth. We know from 
recent experience the kinds of effects that prolonged drought can have 
on our major Colorado river systems. The droughts for the last several 
years that have left Lake Powell below a 50-percent level tell us this 
is a real issue across the West.
  There are signs that this continuing change in climate across our 
world needs to be addressed. For me, in a very personal way, I saw the 
devastation to agriculture across the State of Colorado when we had the 
most severe drought that our State has had in over 400 years. I saw the 
pain in the eyes and in the hearts of farmers and ranchers who had to 
give up their lands and farms and cattle herds because the drought had 
caused such an economic devastation to the pastures and to the meadows 
that they relied on for their cattle operations.
  We must do something about global warming. It is an imperative that 
we act now. We, in the Senate, have a responsibility so that we can be 
proud, 10 or 20 years from now, when our children look back and ask: 
What did this Senate do? Did they take a position of courage, to 
address the issue of global warming or did they simply walk away from 
an issue because they thought it was too tough to handle?
  Next month, at the G8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, the United 
States will be the only nation among the G8 that has refused to embrace 
a mandatory program to cut greenhouse gas pollution. America's closest 
ally, Britain's Tony Blair, has put climate change at the top of the G8 
summit agenda. The heads of Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, and 
Russia have all signed their nations on to mandatory targets, and they 
have all joined a global market in which anyone who finds a better, 
cheaper or faster way to cut global warming pollution can profit by 
their ingenuity.
  By contrast, denial and delay in addressing the problem means not 
only that the problem is getting worse every day but that American 
businesses, farmers, scientists, and bankers are being left out and 
cannot benefit from the kind of active carbon trading market that 
exists in the European Union today.
  We need renewed leadership in America on this issue. Two years ago, 
Prime Minister Tony Blair came right here to this Capitol and stood 
with President Bush and addressed this body. In

[[Page S7000]]

speech after speech, Prime Minister Blair has said he is willing to 
stand by our Nation on the challenges of immediate security--the war on 
terrorism, and the campaign against weapons of mass destruction. But he 
also said America needs to stand with him in his fight against climate 
change. On the eve of the G8 meetings in Scotland, Mr. Blair has 
repeated that imperative.
  The amendment before us today, called the McCain-Lieberman amendment, 
is an amendment that takes us in the right direction. I am proud to be 
a sponsor of that amendment. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote 
in support of that amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I want very briefly to thank my friend 
from Colorado for a very powerful and learned statement. I appreciate 
his support very much.
  I am proud, as we think about how the debate has gone, the Senator 
from Arizona and I, the Senator from Connecticut, introduced it. 
Yesterday we had the Senator from California. Today we have Senators 
from Florida, Vermont, and Colorado.
  This is a national problem which is being recognized across the 
Nation. The fact is, if you put this amendment to the American people 
for a vote, it would pass overwhelmingly. I hope that sentiment can 
express itself here before long on the floor of the Senate.
  I note the presence on the floor of the Senator from Ohio, and I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about 
the amendment offered by Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman. Climate 
change is happening. There is simply no question about that. It is time 
the United States takes the lead in slowing its progress and in 
decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. The amendment before us now, while 
it certainly has a great deal of merit, is, I am afraid, drafted in a 
way that I cannot support at this time.
  First, the amendment, if adopted as currently written, sets an 
unreasonable schedule. Simply put, the energy sector would be unable to 
adjust quickly enough to adopt new technologies and new operating 
procedures in the limited time mandated by the amendment. When you are 
talking about energy, you cannot just change and pivot on a dime. It 
takes time to build infrastructure and capacity. As of today, the 
technology for capturing carbon is simply not ready yet. In essence, we 
have designed an engine that is not quite able to run yet.
  Second, the amendment uses the year 2000 as a baseline. This concerns 
me. It concerns me because the fact is that some companies' emissions 
were at an artificially low point in the year 2000, due to the 
recession and other economic fluctuations. A sound carbon control 
system has to be fair. If we provide no flexibility to that standard, 
some companies would bear a higher burden than other companies with 
emissions at a normal rate at that time.
  Third, the amendment does not provide a big enough upfront Federal 
investment into scientific research and development. We have to invest 
substantially more Federal dollars into the development of the 
technologies we need to reduce the greenhouse gases causing global 
warming. For instance, we need to dramatically increase funding for the 
Clean Coal Power Initiative. In the year 2005, we only funded this 
program at 25 percent of its authorized level. That must change.
  We must be bold. We need to be imaginative. We need to be visionary. 
This is truly a race, and we are not moving forward fast enough. 
Realistically, greater investments are not going to be made until we, 
as a Nation, pull our heads out of the sand and accept the reality that 
climate change is in fact occurring. In 1997, when the Senate debated 
the issue the last time, the science wasn't as good. Today, however, we 
know a lot more, and the science is unambiguously clear. Since 1997, we 
have had the 5 hottest years on record, and there is now a clear 
consensus that temperatures have risen globally at least 1 degree 
Fahrenheit over the last 100 years.
  Since 1997, the National Academy of Sciences, the Nation's most 
prestigious, most credible and most vigorous voice for the scientific 
community has said that:

       Temperatures are in fact rising [and that] national policy 
     decisions made now in the long term future will influence the 
     extent of any damage suffered by vulnerable human populations 
     and ecosystems.

  Almost daily we hear reports from the field of natural indicators of 
climate change.
  For example, glaciers are melting. Dr. Lonnie Thompson, distinguished 
professor of geological sciences at the Ohio State University, is an 
expert on the study of glaciers. All of his work points to one 
conclusion:

       Every glacier we have any data on is retreating . . . Our 
     best evidence for the current loss of tropical glaciers is 
     mainly due to rising temperatures, and those temperatures are 
     higher in many areas than they have been for more than 5,000 
     years, with the major increase occurring in the past 50 
     years. Glaciers operate on thresholds and as such are 
     extremely sensitive to global climate change.

  Other national indicators strongly suggest the Earth is warming. The 
sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctic is declining. Coral reefs are 
disintegrating. Snow cover is decreasing. The oceans are getting 
warmer, and extreme weather events are occurring with increased 
frequency.
  As the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, the United States 
has an obligation to take the lead in efforts to control climate 
change. We have an obligation to be an engaged global player. We have 
an obligation to urge other nations to join efforts to lower emissions. 
It is time for our Nation to get into the driver's seat and take the 
lead in developing the technology and the alternate energy sources that 
will become an inevitable part of our economy.
  Right now, we are falling behind. Japan and Europe are well on their 
way to developing the very technologies that will be necessary to 
retrofit our powerplants and make our cars environmentally friendly. We 
should be the ones developing that technology. We should be the ones 
designing and creating and inventing the tools we need to adapt and 
adjust to their future.
  Let me repeat: Climate change is happening and a shift to a new 
global energy economy is also happening. We cannot avoid it. It is 
inevitable. Without question, we are going to have to change operations 
and clean up our powerplants and find alternatives to oil and gasoline. 
Do we want to be the buyers of the technology that gets us there or, 
rather, do we want to be the sellers?
  This much is obvious: If we do not do something, in a few years we 
will be creating jobs, but they won't be in the United States. They 
will be in other countries. They will be in Europe; they will be in 
Japan; they will be other places. That is not the way to go. We will 
have ourselves to blame and no one else.
  I am pleased to say my home State of Ohio is beginning to position 
itself to face the future and is already involved in efforts to 
successfully transition to the new energy economy. Ohio has the 
opportunity to deploy, and in some cases develop, the very technology 
our own State needs so we can continue to burn coal in our powerplants 
but with dramatically lower emissions of nitrogen oxide, sulfur 
dioxide, and mercury.
  There is a process called integrated gasification combined cycle, 
IGCC, which will allow coal, including high- sulfur Ohio coal, to be 
burned more cleanly. The IGCC process immediately reduces the emission 
of nitrogen oxide. It also makes it possible, for the first time, to 
capture carbon before it is emitted into the atmosphere.
  This is the kind of technology that can put Ohio at the top. As James 
Rogers, chief executive of the Cincinnati-based Cinergy Corporation, 
said:

       I'm making a bet on gasification. I don't see any other way 
     forward.

  Similarly, Jason Grumet, the executive director of the National 
Commission on Energy Policy, called the IGCC process ``as close to a 
silver bullet as we are ever going to see.''
  Currently, there are only IGCC pilot plants operated in Florida and 
Indiana. However, American Electric Power, AEP, in Columbus and Cinergy 
Corporation are on track to build additional plants in Ohio and 
Indiana, respectively. AEP plans to build a $1.6 billion clean coal 
plant along the Ohio River in Meigs County.

[[Page S7001]]

  Ohio also can lead the way in commercialization of fuel cell 
technology which produces electricity by combining hydrogen and oxygen. 
Cars are one of the biggest emitters, of course, of carbon. Fuel cells 
have the potential of providing a carbon-free fuel source for vehicles. 
Ohio is ideally suited to develop this technology and, at the same 
time, help begin again its leadership in automotive technology.
  I applaud Ohio Governor Bob Taft for his new plan to invest 
significant funds in fuel cells. He has announced a 3-year extension of 
the Ohio fuel cell initiative which is a $103 million program aimed at 
making Ohio the leader in fuel cell technology. Over the last 3 years, 
already the State has awarded $36 million in grants to 24 future cell 
projects involving academic researchers and small companies. Indeed, 
Roger McKain, chairman of the Ohio Fuel Cell Coalition, was correct 
when he said:

       If you want to be in fuel cells, you should be in Ohio.

  Use of clean renewable sources of energy is another way to help slow 
climate change. As we all know, solar power is one of the most commonly 
recognized renewable sources. Ohio has several companies that are 
developing technologies to lead to widespread commercialization of 
renewables. For example, First Solar in Perrysburg, OH, is a leader in 
the development and manufacture of solar collection systems. And Parker 
Hannifin, headquartered in Cleveland, is developing a hydraulic drive 
system that can precisely position solar collectors used in a 
powerplant, thereby increasing their efficiency.
  I encourage the State of Ohio to do all it can to become a leader in 
energy technology. We are on our way, but we need to do more. It could 
help decide the future, quite candidly, of our great State.
  In closing, climate change is here. We have to face that fact. And we 
have to address it. We have to do it in a practical, workable, 
intelligent way. I look forward to working with my friends Senator 
McCain and Senator Lieberman in the months ahead to craft a bill that 
will, in fact, work; a bill that will work for Ohio, a bill that will 
work for the United States, and a bill that will put the United States 
out front as a leader on global climate change in dealing with this 
problem.
  I am confident we can, in fact, draft a bill that will own up to our 
obligations to our children and our grandchildren and, at the same 
time, will have dates that are practical so the emerging technologies 
will be ready to meet the needs of the energy sector--technologies that 
will allow us, for example, to expand the use of Ohio coal, something 
we have in Ohio in abundance, and we have in this country in abundance. 
We can also craft a bill that will frontload more money in research and 
development and a bill that will use a baseline date that does not 
unfairly penalize certain regions of the country.
  I am confident we can work together to produce such a bill. We can do 
these things. If we do, the United States will have done the right 
thing. We will begin to make demonstrable progress in slowing the rate 
of climate change and in protecting our environment. History is on our 
side. History is on the side of passing a bill similar to this bill. It 
is imperative we get it right. It is imperative we do it right.
  I thank Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman for their courage, for 
their vision and their leadership in taking up once again this tough 
issue. We must finish the task. I look forward to working with them to 
do the right thing for Ohio, but, more importantly, to do the right 
thing for our country and for the world, for our children, and for our 
grandchildren.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Ohio. He has spoken with characteristic sincerity and thoughtfulness. 
We talked along the way. I am disappointed we cannot take care of the 
amendment today, but I am encouraged by the very strong statement he 
has made recognizing what has changed since we last took up this 
matter, seeing global warming is a real problem, and wanting to work 
together with Senator McCain and me and others to find a solution that 
is good for the planet, good for the country, and good for Ohio. I 
thank him for that outreached hand. I accept it, extend myself to him, 
and look forward to working together in the months ahead to reach a 
good, balanced, progressive solution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Sometimes we fall into the trap of thinking all wisdom is 
in Washington, DC. I noticed an op-ed piece in the Oklahoma Duncan 
Banner yesterday, written by Steve Fair, wherein he goes through all of 
his research on the outside, showing virtually all the science since 
1999 or since 1998 when Michael Mann came through with his hockey 
stick, has demonstrated very clearly that the science is not there.
  I ask unanimous consent this op-ed piece be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                        [From the Duncan Banner]

                           Is It Hot in Here?

                            (By Steve Fair)

       On USA Today's Wednesday June 15th editorial page, Senator 
     Jim Inhofe presented the opposing view on the issue of global 
     warming. The paper's position was that there is scientific 
     consensus that greenhouse gases are causing climate change 
     and that failure to implement reductions in those gases will 
     cause major problems for future generations. You've heard the 
     theories--a cow's flatulence in Oklahoma is melting the 
     glaciers in Alaska. It takes more faith to believe that than 
     to believe a sovereign God created the earth in 6 days.
       The title of Senator Inhofe's response to the paper was 
     Evidence is underwhelming. He pointed out that global 
     alarmists, whose intents are questionable, are promoting 
     mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. when 
     the scientific consensus does not warrant such action. As 
     chairman of the Senate's Environment and Public Works 
     Committee, Inhofe has access to far more detailed scientific 
     information on the global warming issue than the average 
     person.
       For years, the global warming issue has always been one 
     that was trumpeted by the environmental wackos--the tree 
     huggers. Their passion in saving the earth was only exceeded 
     by their commitment to killing babies in the womb. It was the 
     liberals that heralded the cause, but that has changed.
       On the front page of the same issue of USA Today there was 
     a story about the so-called Christian right. It seems a 
     number of conservative groups which have traditionally been 
     champions of moral issues have now expanded their borders to 
     include taking positions on issues like the environment and 
     human rights.
       One of these groups is the National Association of 
     Evangelicals, which represents 52 denominations with 45,000 
     churches and 30 million members across the country. The 
     current head of the organization is Reverend Ted Haggard, a 
     pastor from Colorado. The NAE takes traditionally 
     conservative stands on abortion, same-sex marriage and prayer 
     in schools, but recently took a turn to the left on their 
     position on the environment.
       Used to be a time that evangelicals warned about a 
     different kind of warming. They preached about the fires of 
     hell for the unrepentant, but under Haggard's leadership, 
     this group has taken a position on the environment. The group 
     passed a resolution that states that Christians should labor 
     to protect God's creation. Not many would disagree with that 
     statement, however when the group recently met in DC, the 
     Reverend disinvited Oklahoma US Senator Jim Inhofe because he 
     disagrees with him on environmental issues. Senator Inhofe 
     said the NAE should heed the scripture says that we are to 
     worship the Creator, not the creation.
       I read about the snub in Roll Call several weeks back, so I 
     contacted by phone and email the Reverend Haggard. I wanted 
     to discuss his reasoning for blackballing a Senator as 
     socially conservative as Inhofe.
       Haggard, who is an Oral Roberts University grad, did not 
     call me back, but did have an underling call me. The young 
     man was nice, but I told him I would only discuss my thoughts 
     with Haggard. I did ask if the reasons cited by Roll Call for 
     Senator Inhofe not being invited to address the group were 
     accurate. The young man confirmed they were. The pastor never 
     called me and I don't expect to hear from him since he knows 
     he cannot defend his position from scripture.
       If Rev. Haggard wants to preach his tree hugging views at 
     home or in his church, that's his business, but when he moves 
     it to the public square and wraps it in the guise of the 
     scripture, it becomes mine. The national media loves to paint 
     all Christian conservatives with the same brush and when 
     misinformed zealots like Haggard take their eye off the ball, 
     it hurts the cause. If Haggard wants to start a political 
     action committee called Christian Tree Lovers, then do it. He 
     could invite all the liberal Senators that agree with his 
     environmental views and perhaps they could discuss theology 
     as well. But to move the NAE into the environmental debate 
     when the thrust of that organization

[[Page S7002]]

     has always been first and foremost moral issues is dishonest. 
     If Haggard thinks it's getting hot, just wait until he 
     encounters angry social conservatives.
       Steve Fair is Chairman of the Stephens County Republican 
     Party. He can be reached via email at [email protected] or by 
     phone at 580-252-6284.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 10 minutes from 
Senator Domenici's allocation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have had quite a bit of discussion on 
climate change and whether it is due to manmade carbon dioxide. We ask, 
who should we believe? Who should we trust?
  On the one hand, we hear the world is ending, catastrophic climate 
change is upon us. The glaciers are melting, icebergs are breaking up, 
sea levels are rising, deserts are expanding, and somehow it is due to 
manmade carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
  On the other hand, when you look at history, we have natural 
variations: little ice ages and medieval warming periods. We have IPCC 
scientists on the one side who properly couch the lack of certainty in 
their knowledge, and we have policymakers coming up with certainty that 
they know the truth based on misreading of these scientists.
  As the distinguished chairman of the EPW Committee said, we have 
hockey sticks. That turned out to be the biggest fraud in the so-called 
scientific literature. It did not matter what you put into it, the way 
he set it up, it would cause a hockey stick. Subsequent tests showed it 
means nothing.
  We know Viking farmers used to farm in Greenland. Do you think it was 
warm then? Was that warming due to coalfired utilities and automobiles? 
I don't think so.
  I came across an interesting article in Investors Business Daily: 
``Trust Seal Pups' Assessment of Climate.'' Apparently, a seal pup's 
weight rises and falls with the temperature of the sea. When the sea 
temperatures are warmer, there are fewer fish. Seal pups' mothers must 
spend more time foraging for food and less time feeding their pups. The 
seal pups' weights decline. When waters are cooler, there are more fish 
and heavier seals.
  A recent University of California-Santa Cruz study shows that seal 
pup weights are now increasing in the Pacific Ocean and have been for 
the last several years. That corresponds with reports of sardine, 
anchovy, and salmon populations across the Pacific rebounding and 
growing as the waters cool.
  All of this information simply documents a natural 50-year cycle in 
the Pacific Ocean. It is called the Pacific decadal oscillation. Be 
sure and write that down because everyone will ask, what does PDO mean? 
Twenty-five years of cooling followed by 25 years of warming. We are 
now starting a cooling period.
  What does this prove? At a minimum, that we have a lot of fat and 
happy seal pups. What we do not know and cannot know now is whether the 
current ocean cooling is natural or manmade by carbon dioxide 
emissions.
  Scientists are attempting to explain the current warming and cooling 
trends through an understanding of the Earth's climate. However, the 
climate is composed of a myriad of complex variables.
  Casual observers have picked out visible warming examples, such as 
melting glaciers and permafrost as signs of manmade global warming. 
However, overall climate data is conflicting and gap filled.
  Ground-based temperature monitoring turned out to be skewed because 
it was located near newly urbanized areas and other heat-producing 
land-management activities.
  Satellite readings, in addition to showing the flaws of ground-based 
temperature readings, also turned up unexplained differences between 
the different layers of the atmosphere. Other atmospheric conditions 
beyond our understanding include the role of aerosols or other fine 
particles and water vapor.
  Apparently, our surface is brighter than it was a few decades ago. 
This may be related to airborne particles. This could be as variable as 
dust storms from China dimming sunlight and causing cooling and changed 
weather patterns.
  Also, a potential huge effect on climate are water vapor and clouds. 
Everyone knows that a clear night is colder than a cloudy night when 
the surface heat is allowed to dissipate. We do not know whether warmer 
temperatures will mean more vapor and clouds or less, more moisture or 
less, even warmer temperatures are not.
  Climate modeling is susceptible to mistakes and manipulation. We have 
the IPCC Summary for Policymakers not written by scientists who 
produced the 1,000-page report.
  We have the famous hockey stick producing the same results no matter 
what data is entered into the model. We have economic assumptions 
necessary to produce even the lowest temperature rise wildly 
optimistic. Does anyone really believe that Third World economic 
output, like that in Botswana and Zimbabwe, will reach parity with the 
United States by 2100? Of course not, but climate models depend on just 
this type of wild assumption.
  To be fair, modeling something like changes in the climate is 
extremely difficult. It is almost impossible. We are working hard to 
improve our understanding of climate, how it changes, and why it 
changes.
  The Bush administration, properly, is leading the world in funding 
for research on climate change. We are searching for answers, but we do 
not have a firm understanding of our climate, so we cannot have firm 
answers.
  Without this understanding of climate change, without the ability to 
blame climate change on human carbon dioxide emissions, we are now 
presented with major measures to find a solution to a problem we do not 
even know it will fix.
  The Europeans will say privately that even if we cannot prove that 
carbon dioxide is causing global warming, we should be ``better safe 
than sorry.''
  Unfortunately, if you believe in human-induced global warming, their 
solution--carbon mandates--will not make us ``safe.'' Kyoto would have 
had only a minimal effect on the total amount of carbon dioxide 
emissions in the atmosphere. McCain-Lieberman would only have a 
minuscule impact on total carbon dioxide emissions.
  What does that leave us with, if we are not ``safe''? It leaves us 
``sorry'' but not in ways that climate change proponents will admit.
  We will all be sorry if we impose carbon caps because of the massive 
human and economic toll it would take--the unacceptable number of jobs 
we would kill, the unallowable number of U.S. manufacturers that would 
be driven overseas to countries not having these restrictions, the 
unimaginable amount of domestic energy resources we would give up, the 
unthinkable burdens we would place on the economically disadvantaged.
  The sponsor of this amendment was quoted in the past as saying, ``My 
first priority is greenhouse gases.'' Well, my first priority is 
protecting our families and workers. McCain-Lieberman will hurt 
families, hurt our Nation's energy security, and drive jobs overseas. I 
do not want us to be imposing this pain on American families and 
workers when there is absolutely no assurance it will make any 
significant, if any, difference on climate change.
  Tight family budgets and outsourcing jobs to China--what do they have 
to do with an environmental amendment? How will fighting so-called 
climate change with this amendment hurt our seniors and struggling 
families? The answer is all around us.
  Every time we turn on a light it will cost us more. Every time we 
cool our homes to fight the blazing summer heat it will cost us more. 
Every time we turn up the furnace to fight the bitter winter cold, it 
will cost us more. Our fruits, vegetables, and grains, grown strong 
with fertilizer, will cost us more. Buying a product made of plastic 
will cost us more.
  All of these necessities depend upon electricity or natural gas as a 
raw material. McCain-Lieberman will drastically force up the price of 
both. Experts estimate the price of residential electricity would rise 
an additional 20 percent by the year 2020. How will this drastic 
increase happen?
  The amendment will force those who make electricity by burning coal, 
like we do in Missouri, to switch to high-priced natural gas, already 
in short supply, already causing burdens on

[[Page S7003]]

low-income people in my State, already forcing users of natural gas, 
petrochemical and plastic industries, to move out of the United States.
  That is why natural gas is already expensive. Supplies are limited. 
Think what will happen when we demand even more scarce natural gas to 
protect electricity? Prices will go up. Farmers who use it for 
fertilizer for their crops will drastically be affected.
  The average household would lose at least $600 each year by 2010 and 
up to $1,000 by 2020. But the hardest hit will be seniors and the poor. 
Higher power and cooling bills will hit those on fixed incomes the 
hardest. What will they cut? Food, lighting bills, drugs.
  What will employers cut when they face higher energy costs, higher 
prices for natural gas? They will cut jobs or move them overseas. 
Experts predict up to 40,000 lost jobs in 2010, rising to 200,000 lost 
jobs in 2020. Is that what we want to do, kill 200,000 jobs a year?
  So where does that leave us? I believe the solution is in new 
technologies to make clean energy without steep price 
increases, technologies that will protect our families and protect our 
workers, technologies that will make our environmental goals 
affordable, not job ending or poverty inducing.

  We need investments in hydrogen and fuel cells. We need investments 
in clean coal. We need technologies that will let us harness domestic 
fuel supplies and provide clean energy.
  And when we have these clean, affordable technologies developed, we 
need to deploy them on a commercial scale.
  We have super-critical pulverized coal technologies that in the near 
future will be so efficient that they will reduce the amount of carbon 
dioxide produced by 25 to 30 percent. And we are working on the Future 
Gen program to produce electric power with only water released into the 
environment.
  What we need now is to get serious about helping these technologies 
get to the market. They are more expensive than current plants, so they 
need some help. The appropriations process under Senator Domenici's 
leadership is putting more money into clean coal technology, and I 
thank him for that.
  This Energy bill under his leadership has technology deployment 
provisions that will make clean coal technology affordable. 
Additionally, Senator Hagel's amendment will authorize direct loans, 
loan guarantees, standby default coverage and standby interest coverage 
for technologies that reduce greenhouse gases. So I was happy to 
support that.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be granted 2 more 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. We could have clean and affordable technologies. This bill 
is moving us in the right direction. That is the way we should go. We 
have technologies such as mentioned by the Senator from Ohio, the 
integrated gasification combined cycle that turns coal into gas, allows 
for the capture of pollution and carbon, and someday will allow us to 
sequester carbon.
  This Energy bill is working to make more technology deployable. 
Senator Hagel's amendment will authorize direct loans. But we could be 
moving right now to clean up pollution.
  This spring in the Environment Committee, the Clear Skies 
legislation, proposed by the President would cut smog-producing 
nitrogen oxides by 70 percent, acid-rain-causing sulfur dioxides by 70 
percent, and mercury by 70 percent.
  These cuts would have come solely from electric power plants. Ninety 
percent of the local areas violating EPA air standards would come into 
compliance with this measure. However, our opponents have held this 
hostage saying that they do not want to clean up NOx, 
SOx, and mercury by 70 percent because they want to chase 
the ephemeral carbon cause of global warming.
  Well, it is not proven. Manmade emissions are not proven. But we know 
we can make progress. I considered attaching the Clear Skies 
legislation to this bill but, unfortunately, opponents would just use 
that as another excuse to kill both this bill and Clear Skies. But at 
the end of the day, if we can reject this unwise, overreaching McCain-
Lieberman proposal, we will be able to move forward with a measure that 
will work to increase our energy supply, reduce our dependence on 
foreign sources, and provide us cleaner energy.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the McCain-Lieberman amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the article I mentioned be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 Trust Seal Pups' Assessment of Climate

                           (By Dennis Avery)

       A new study of the weaning weights of California's elephant 
     seal pups predicts that a 25-year trend of Pacific Ocean 
     warming has ended.
       That means that the second half of a 50-year cycle has 
     begun to cool the northern Pacific. In addition, historical 
     fish catch data indicate the ocean cooling trend is likely to 
     last until about 2025.
       Burney Le Boeuf and David Crocker of the University of 
     California, Santa Cruz, monitored the weaning weights of 
     central California seal pups for 29 years, from 1975 to 2004. 
     The ocean's temperatures generally increased, and the pups' 
     weaning weights declined 21 percent over 24 years from the 
     study's beginning until 2000.
       The seal pups' weight decline coincided with an increase in 
     their mothers' foraging time of 36 percent. A decline in the 
     mothers' own weights confirmed that fish were relatively 
     scarce. After 1999, however, ocean temperatures began to 
     decline, fish became more abundant and the pups' weaning 
     weights abruptly began to rise. By 2004 the pups' weaning 
     weights had recovered to 90 percent of their 1975 weaning 
     size.


                            Anchovy Weather

       Seal pup weight trends confirm a cycle also found in 
     northern Pacific salmon catches. Columbia River salmon 
     numbers declined sharply after 1977.
       And Columbia River salmon catch data, which date back to 
     1900, clearly reveal 50-year cycles, with 25 years of salmon 
     abundance interspersed with 25-year periods of salmon 
     scarcity. Gulf of Alaska salmon catch data show a similar but 
     opposite cycle in salmon numbers. When the count of Columbia 
     salmon fishery is down, Alaskan salmon numbers are up.
       Dr. Francisco Chavez of the Monterey Bay Aquarium led a 
     2003 study that found shifts in sardine and anchovy 
     populations across the Pacific followed the same 50-year 
     cycle, and did so in such widely disparate places as 
     California, Peru and Japan, all with sharply different 
     fishing pressures. Chavez's data show the most recent shift 
     toward cooler temperatures, which favor anchovies over 
     sardines, occurred in the late 1990s.
       The previous shift toward warmer temperatures, which 
     disadvantaged the California seal pups and anchovies, 
     occurred in the mid-1970s. Researchers have begun to call the 
     50-year ocean cycle the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).
       During the PDO, ocean temperatures rise and fall, fish 
     species wax and wane, and fish are caught in different 
     places, but total ocean productivity remains stable.
       Do seals, salmon and sardines have some thing to tell us 
     about man-made global warming? Yes.
       Earth's temperatures have definitely increased since 1850--
     the end of the widely noted Little Ice Age--by 0.8 degrees 
     Celsius. However, 0.6 degrees of the warming occurred before 
     1940, and therefore before much human-emitted CO2 was 
     produced.
       After 1940, the Earth's temperature declined moderately 
     until the late 1970s, despite huge increases in human CO2 
     emissions and in defiance of the greenhouse theory. Is it 
     just coincidence that during this period the PDO was cooling 
     the Pacific?
       The current surge of public concern about human-caused 
     global warming occurred after the Earth's average 
     temperatures began to rise again in the late 1970s--which 
     coincided with the PDO's shift back to its ocean warming 
     phase.
       So does the recent shift in the PDO mean the Earth's 
     average temperatures will start to cool again? Was the 
     ``warmest decade'' of the 1990s an artifact of expanding 
     urban heat islands and a 25-year Pacific Ocean warming phase?


                              Up And Down

       Ice cores and seabed sediments have already told us that 
     the Earth has a 1ong, moderate, natural 1,500-year cycle that 
     raises temperatures in New York 2 degrees Celsius during its 
     warming phase and drops them 2 degrees Celsius during little 
     ice ages. The Little Ice Age, from 1300 to 1850, was the most 
     recent of these cooling phases.
       Now seal pups and sardines are instructing us that even 
     temperature trends as long as 25 years can mislead us about 
     cause and effect in the Earth's climate--which has been 
     cycling constantly for at least the last million years.
       We might want global climate modelers and the United 
     Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to address 
     evidence of the PDO before we agree to give up 85 percent of 
     society's energy supply on behalf of man-made global warming.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Delaware off my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for 
yielding

[[Page S7004]]

me time. And even more, I express my thanks to him and Senator 
Lieberman for the leadership they are providing on an enormously 
important issue for not just our country and our States but, really, I 
think for the world in which we live.
  I want to start off today with something of an admission. I want to 
admit to all of you that I am really a Johnny-come-lately on the issue 
of global warming. Not that long ago, I believed we needed more science 
to be able to justify action; that we needed more research to justify 
action. Not that long ago, I feared that taking meaningful action could 
very likely mean that we do harm to our economy.
  But with the passage of time, like a lot of our Republican friends 
and our Democrat friends, I have changed my mind. Over the past several 
years, I have become a believer. Global warming is real. We do need to 
do something about it. I have enough faith in American technology and 
our ingenuity and our know-how to believe we can do that without 
endangering economic growth.
  Two of the key people who have helped to educate me on this issue are 
Dr. Lonnie Thompson and his wife Ellen Mosely-Thompson. Both are 
professors at Ohio State University. Just last month, Lonnie was 
elected to the National Academy of Sciences. As an undergraduate 
student and graduate of Ohio State University, I am proud to say I know 
them, although neither of them was a professor of mine when I was a 
student there a long time ago.
  Doctors Thompson are not retired academics who sit in Columbus, OH, 
and pontificate about global warming. They get their hands dirty. They 
have led some 40 expeditions around the world--to the Himalayas, to 
Mount Kilimanjaro, and to the Andes in South America--in an attempt to 
figure out how global warming is changing the face of our most famous 
mountaintops.
  According to Lonnie Thompson:

       In 1912, there was over 12 square kilometers of ice on 
     Mount Kilimanjaro.

  When the Thompsons went to that mountain in February of 2000, it was 
down to about 2 square kilometers of ice. Lonnie Thompson projects 
sometime around 2015--that is 10 years from now--the ice that sits atop 
Mount Kilimanjaro will disappear entirely.
  From all their studies of glaciers and icecaps atop mountains in 
Africa and South America, Lonnie and Ellen Thompson have concluded that 
many of them will simply melt within the next 15 years because of 
global warming. And their fear is that little can be done to reverse 
that.
  I would like to share with you today several enlarged photos. I will 
start with one of the icecaps the Thompsons have studied in the 
Southern Andes. This first one shows what it looked like in 1978--27 
years ago and the second shows the same mountain in 2000. This area 
here may not look like a whole lot, but that is a 12-acre lake that 
exists today which did not exist in 1978. There is a lot less ice, a 
lot of melting, and now we have a lake where a glacier once stood.
  Now, that may or may not sound like a lot, but consider this: The 
Thompsons have observed that the rate of retreat has been 32 times 
greater in the last 3 years than it was in the period between 1963 and 
1978. Just think about that; 32 times greater that this glacier has 
retreated in the past 3 years than it did back in the 1960s and 1970s.
  Now, that is the Andes. Let's look at something just a little bit 
closer to home. Glacier Bay is located along the coast of southeastern 
Alaska. It is a national park and preserve filled with snow- and ice-
covered mountains. A lot of us have been there, visited, and seen them 
with our own eyes.
  This next photo is of the Riggs Glacier in Glacier Bay. It was taken 
by the U.S. Geological Survey, I believe, in 1941, over 60 years ago.
  Now, look at this next picture. It is also the same spot, taken in 
2004. There is no ice. The weather warmed up enough that we actually 
have vegetation. This might be the upside of global warming, but there 
is a downside as well, and that is what I am going to be focusing on 
today.
  These are just two examples, my friends, and there are plenty more we 
do not have time for today. Together I believe they spell out an ever 
more convincing case that our Earth is warming, and at an increasing 
rate, and what is more those of us who live on this planet are largely 
to blame.
  I want us to consider some facts as we know them. If we could take a 
look at this next chart. First of all, 9 out of 10 of the hottest years 
on record have occurred in the last decade. Arctic sea ice has shrunk 
by some 250 million acres--an area the size of California, Maryland, 
and Texas combined. Since 1995, more than 5,400 square miles of ice 
have broken off of Antarctica and melted.
  Skeptics will still try to claim that there is no official link 
between what we see happening across the globe and manmade greenhouse 
gases. But last month, scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space 
Studies announced that they have found the ``smoking gun'' in the 
global warming debate. What they have done is they have used 
sophisticated computer models and ocean-based measurement equipment. 
NASA scientists found by doing so that for every square meter of 
surface area, our planet is absorbing almost 1 watt more of the Sun's 
energy than it is radiating back into space as heat--a historically 
large imbalance that these NASA scientists tell us can only be 
attributed to human actions. Their conclusion:

       There can no longer be substantial doubt that human-made 
     gases are the cause of global warming.

  Their words, not mine.
  According to scientists, that imbalance will only get worse over the 
next century. Computer modeling shows that temperatures may well rise 
between 2 to as many as 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the 21st 
century depending on how well carbon emissions are controlled by us 
here on this Earth. The effects of our doing nothing could be 
catastrophic. As the Earth's temperature increases, the extra heat 
energy in the atmosphere likely will trigger even greater extremes of 
heat and drought, of storms and wind and rain and even sometimes of 
more intense cold. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 
unless global warming is controlled, sea levels will rise by as much as 
2 feet over the next 50 years. For our island nations and coastlines, 
that could mean literally entire communities and beaches wiped out.
  I like to joke, but it is really gallows humor, that in Delaware our 
highest point of land is a beach. A sea level rise of that magnitude 
would mean that people wouldn't be looking for beachfront property at 
Rehoboth or Dewey Beach. They might be looking for it closer to the 
State capital in Dover, DE, than any place along the shores we visit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
  Mr. CARPER. I thank the Chair.
  I also want to quote a Republican friend of mine who recently pledged 
to cut California's carbon dioxide emissions by more than 80 percent 
over the next 50 years:

       I say, the debate is over. We know the science. We see the 
     threat, and we know the time for action is now.

  I want to ask, what does the chief executive of California know that 
the chief executive of our country may not yet know? Our country is the 
largest emitter of greenhouse gases. The Governator knows that. He 
knows we account for almost 20 percent of the world's manmade 
greenhouse emissions. He also knows we account for about one-quarter of 
the world's economic output. The bottom line is, the United States has 
a responsibility to lead on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Does the 
Senator from Arizona wish to yield any additional time?
  Mr. CARPER. I don't believe my time has expired. Someone just told me 
I had 5 more minutes a minute ago. I would ask for 2 more minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the Senator 2 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let me check the calculation of allotted time.
  It is the understanding of the Chair that 10 minutes that had been 
yielded has been used.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield 3 additional minutes to the Senator from 
Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. CARPER. The United States has a responsibility to lead on this 
issue. Unfortunately, we have not seen a whole lot of leadership coming 
from

[[Page S7005]]

the White House or Congress on global warming--at least not yet. The 
McCain-Lieberman proposal before us is not Kyoto. It calls for more 
realistic timeframes for CO2 reductions and more flexibility 
for businesses to meet them. In my opinion, the time has come for 
action. That is not just my opinion, that is an opinion shared by a 
growing number of American businesses as well. They see the future. 
They are telling us to act now rather than later.
  In the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, most naysayers have 
moved away from questioning whether climate change is real. They have 
now pinned their excuse for inaction on the adverse effects carbon 
constraints would have on the economy. However, some forward-thinking 
businesses are starting to realize that doing something proactive on 
global warming represents an opportunity to enhance their bottom line.
  More American businesses are coming to realize that controls on 
carbon dioxide emissions are probably inevitable. They are saying it 
makes sense to take small steps now to avoid bigger problems later. A 
growing number of those companies have concluded that if we act to 
address climate change now, we can actually help them and their bottom 
line.
  Let me give a couple examples. Companies realize they can make money 
by being green. Last month, for example, GE chief executive Jeffrey 
Immelt said his company is prepared to support mandatory limits on 
CO2 while simultaneously moving forward to double revenues 
from environmentally friendly technologies and products to $20 billion 
within 5 years. Here is what Mr. Immelt said:

       We believe we can help improve the environment and make 
     money doing it . . . we see that green is green.

  In addition, more shareholders these days are demanding green 
portfolios. Evangelical and environmental groups as well as State 
pension fund officials, who together control more than $3 trillion in 
assets, get it. They are pushing resolutions at shareholder meetings 
that will compel companies to disclose their financial exposure to 
future global warming regulations. Their pressure has resulted in many 
companies developing global warming policies in order to decrease 
future liabilities and show a greener, more environmentally friendly 
portfolio.
  There is also more pressure among corporate peers to prove their 
environmental stewardship. JPMorgan recently announced that it would 
ask clients that are large emitters of greenhouse gases to develop 
carbon reduction plans. Similar commitments were made earlier by 
Citigroup and Bank of America.
  Other companies, such as DuPont, a major global manufacturer 
headquar- tered in Delaware, have already begun taking meaningful steps 
to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. In the mid-1990s, DuPont 
began aggressively maximizing energy efficiency as part of a global 
climate change initiative. This strategy allowed DuPont to hold their 
energy use flat while increasing production. Their efforts have reduced 
their greenhouse gas emissions by more than 60 percent and saved this 
company $2 billion. Chad Holiday, CEO of the company, said:

       As a company, DuPont believes action is warranted, not 
     further debate. We also believe that the best approach is for 
     business to lead, not to wait for public outcry or government 
     mandates.

  I, too, believe the time has come to act. I also believe that given 
the right initiatives, even more American companies will rise to the 
challenge.
  As businesses such as DuPont and GE have begun taking steps to 
address climate change, more and more States and cities are moving to 
do the same. Just this month, the U.S. Conference of Mayors unanimously 
passed a resolution calling on their 1,183 cities to try to meet or 
surpass emissions standards set by the Kyoto Protocol. Nineteen States 
have developed renewable portfolio standards in an effort to encourage 
more energy to be derived from cleaner and less carbon producing 
sources.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CARPER. I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, an additional minute is 
yielded.
  Mr. CARPER. There is good news and bad news in all this. On the one 
hand, you have all these cities and States taking their own course. 
While that is encouraging, on the other hand, for businesses that need 
some certainty and a national game plan, there is a problem with that. 
We don't need a patchwork quilt. What we need is the Federal Government 
to provide some leadership and certainty for our businesses.
  On Social Security, the President says we are going to have a big 
problem 20, 30, 40 years down the road. And in order to avoid a big 
problem, a big train wreck, we need to take some small steps now. 
Frankly, the same argument applies to global warming. Thirty, 40, 50 
years down the road, we are going to have a huge problem. It could be 
averted if we take some small, measured, reasonable steps today. The 
sooner we get started, the better off we will be and the less likely 
that a train wreck will occur 30 or 40 years later in this century.
  I yield back my time, and I thank my colleagues for their leadership 
and for the extra time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                     Amendment No. 826, As Modified

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Delaware for a 
very compelling statement. If anybody wasn't listening to what he had 
to say, look at the pictures, understanding that he didn't start out 
being in favor of this, but the science brought him in this direction. 
When people look at it with an open mind, they will join us. I thank 
him for his support.
  I ask unanimous consent to make a minor modification to the amendment 
Senator McCain and I have offered and send a modification to the desk. 
On page 100 of our amendment, it would strike lines 16 through 20. I 
believe it has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The modification is as follows:

       On page 100, strike lines 16 through 20.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Who yields time?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank my colleagues, Senators McCain 
and Lieberman, for bringing this debate to the Senate floor. Let me say 
to my colleague from Delaware, he has made a very compelling statement 
for sustaining the status quo. America and America's industries have 
awakened to the marketplace, and they are recognizing and moving this 
country toward cleaner energy and cleaner industry faster than any 
command and control Federal regulation could bring us there. Last year, 
a 2.3-percent reduction in greenhouse gases; this year a projected 3 
percent, and all within the economy and all within the initiative of 
boards of directors and city councils and urban areas. Why? Because 
there is a belief that it is necessary and important for us to drive 
down the emission of greenhouse gases without the Federal Government 
stepping in and taking away the very value of a free market and 
beginning to command and control a market and shape it in what could 
be, if not done well or on the wrong science, a distorted market false 
way.
  What we passed yesterday was very clear--incentivize, bring in new 
technology. The Hagel-Pryor amendment that was agreed to by a 
bipartisan majority is consistent with where this administration and 
where our initiatives have been going now for well over a decade.
  We are beginning to see the results. We haven't created a huge 
Federal bureaucracy. We haven't created a carbon czar. We haven't 
picked winners and losers. We have allowed the DuPonts and the other 
major companies of this country to recognize the value. We have even 
incentivized them to some extent. But more importantly, America 
recognizes that if we use our markets and our technology, we can be 
much cleaner than we are without commanding and controlling and 
creating a Federal bureaucracy that just might get it wrong.
  Here is what happens when you blend politics and bureaucracy. Let me 
make this point because Senator Lieberman

[[Page S7006]]

was on the floor yesterday making the point. I want to broaden what he 
said. It is important for us to understand the politics of the business 
we are in. The politics of the business is now the G8. We have the 
President going to the G8. The chairman of the G8 is Tony Blair. Tony 
Blair wants to get in favor with the political greens of Europe because 
he got out of favor with them in Iraq, and he is making climate change 
his initiative. But he is also over in Brussels bidding for more credit 
because he can't get his country there without shutting down the 
economy because the technology is not yet there to get Great Britain 
there. That is the politics across this issue and the politics across 
Europe.
  My colleague, Joe Lieberman, did something, and it is not a criticism 
at all. On the joint science academies' statement of a month ago, I 
noticed two very big polluters, India and China, are signatories of 
this national academy document. They are burning coal. They are going 
to burn a lot more and they don't plan to do anything about it. But 
they are concerned. Here is the lead paragraph:

       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.

  And then they go on. I took issue with that and I called and wrote to 
the chairman of our academy because they were a signatory. I said: What 
is wrong here? Why are you changing your course and direction? Bruce 
Alberts wrote back to me.
  I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, June 8, 2005.
     Bruce Alberts, Ph.D.,
     President, National Academies of Sciences,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Dr. Alberts: I received a copy of the ``Joint Science 
     Academies' Statement: Global Response to Climate Change'' 
     yesterday and read it with great interest. I was pleased that 
     the recommendations contained in that Statement mirror 
     actions that our government has taken during the last five 
     years to address the potential threat of climate change and 
     reduce greenhouse gases.
       As you know, the United States has committed billions of 
     dollars to mobilize the science and technology community to 
     enhance research and development efforts which will better 
     inform climate change decisions. Indeed, the Administration 
     has initiated a Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan 
     that the Academy reviewed and endorsed. Moreover, the United 
     States is engaged in extensive international efforts on 
     climate change, both through multilateral and bilateral 
     activities. 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.
       So, it was with dismay that I read the attached press 
     release from the Royal Society, attempting to characterize 
     the Joint Statement as a rebuke of U.S. policies on climate 
     change. Statements such as: ``The current U.S. policy on 
     climate change is misguided. The Bush Administration has 
     consistently refused to accept the advice of the U.S. 
     National Academy of Sciences (NAS)'' contained in the press 
     release are offensive and inconsistent with my understanding 
     of the facts. Moreover, the interpretation of the NAS 1992 
     report on climate change is also contrary to my understanding 
     of that document. Indeed, it appears to me that the Joint 
     Statement is being hijacked by the Royal Society for reasons 
     that have nothing to do with the advancement of scientific 
     understanding of this most complex and controversial subject.
       I would appreciate a clarification of the meaning of the 
     Joint Science Academies Statement. I am also interested in 
     the origins of this Statement and am very curious about the 
     timing of the release of this Statement.
       Thank you for your prompt attention to this request.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Larry E. Craig,
     U.S. Senator.
                                  ____



                                 National Academy of Sciences,

                                     Washington, DC, June 9, 2005.
     Hon. Larry E. Craig,
     U.S. Senator,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Craig: Thank you for your letter of June 8 
     concerning the statement by eleven science academies on 
     Global Response to Climate Change. I was very dismayed when I 
     read the press release issued by the Royal Society, 
     especially the quote by Dr. Robert May contained in your 
     letter. Their press release does not represent the views of 
     the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and it was not seen by 
     us in advance of public release. The press release is not an 
     accurate characterization of the eleven academies statement, 
     and it is not an accurate characterization of our 1992 
     report. I have enclosed a copy of the letter that I sent 
     yesterday to Dr. May, President of the Royal Society, 
     expressing my displeasure with their press release.
       The eleven academies statement was carefully prepared, and 
     in our view it is consistent with the findings and 
     recommendations of previous reports issued by our academy 
     that underwent rigorous review. These reports include the 
     Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, 
     Adaptation, and the Science Base (1992) and Climate Change 
     Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (2001).
       Our hope was that eleven academies statement would be 
     useful to policy makers as they deal with this important 
     issue. Regarding the timing of the statement, the goal of the 
     academies was to have the statement released prior to the G8 
     summit in July. The participating academies planned for a 
     release in May, but preparation of the statement and securing 
     its approval took longer than anticipated. As soon as the 
     statement was approved by all of the academies, it was 
     released a few days later.
       I would be glad to provide any additional information or to 
     answer any remaining questions you may have.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bruce Alberts,
     President.
                                  ____



                                 National Academy of Sciences,

                                     Washington, DC, June 8, 2005.
     Dr. Robert May,
     President, The Royal Society,
     London U.K.
       Dear Bob: I am writing with regard to the press release 
     issued June 7, 2005 by the Royal Society entitled ``Clear 
     science demands prompt action on climate change say G8 
     science academies''. There, I was dismayed to read the 
     following quote from you: ``The current U.S. policy on 
     climate change is misguided. The Bush Administration has 
     consistently refused to accept the advice of the U.S. 
     National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The NAS concluded in 1992 
     that, `despite the great uncertainties, greenhouse warming is 
     a potential threat sufficient to justify action now', by 
     reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.''
       Your statement is quite misleading. Here is what the report 
     that you cite actually said: ``Despite the great 
     uncertainties, greenhouse warming is a potential threat 
     sufficient to justify action now . . . This panel recommends 
     implementation of the options presented below through a 
     concerted program to start mitigating further build-up of 
     greenhouse gases and to initiate adaptation measures that are 
     judicious and practical . . . The recommendations are 
     generally based on low-cost, currently available 
     technologies''. (Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: 
     Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base, p. 72; 1992).
       By appending your own phrase, ``by reducing emissions of 
     greenhouse gases'' to an actual quote from our report, you 
     have considerably changed our report's meaning and intent. As 
     you know, a statement resembling yours was present in the 
     Royal Society's initial draft for a G8 statement. However, it 
     was removed for carefully explained reasons from subsequent 
     drafts. Thus, the relevant statement in the final G8 text is 
     as follows: ``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 emissions''.
       The actual text of the G8 statement that we signed is 
     perfectly consistent with what we have been telling our own 
     government in a variety of reports since 1992, whereas your 
     interpretation of our 1992 report is not.
       As you must appreciate, having your own misinterpretation 
     U.S. Academy work widely quoted in our press has caused 
     considerable confusion, both at my Academy and in our 
     government. By advertising our work in this way, you have in 
     fact vitiated much of the careful effort that went into 
     preparing the actual G8 statement. As an unfortunate 
     consequence, I fear that my successor, Ralph Cicerone, could 
     find it difficult to work with the Royal Society on future 
     efforts of this kind--both in this and other important areas 
     for the future of the world.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                    Bruce Alberts,
     President.
                                  ____



                                            The Royal Society,

                                       London, U.K., June 9, 2005.
     Professor Bruce Alberts,
     President, National Academy of Sciences,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Bruce, Thank you for your letter of 8 June 2005. I am 
     naturally concerned that our press release has caused so much 
     difficulty for you in the Academy and with your Government.
       I have read again the relevant part of your 1992 report, 
     Your 1992 quote says, of course, ``despite the great 
     uncertainties, greenhouse warming is a potential threat 
     sufficient to justify action now.'' It then goes on to say 
     ``This panel recommends implementation of the options 
     presented below through a concerted programme to start 
     mitigating further build up of greenhouse gases . . .'' Your 
     report then immediately below (on the same page) in the 
     section headed ``Reducing or Offsetting Emissions at 
     Greenhouse Gases'' says

[[Page S7007]]

     Energy policy recommendations include reducing emissions 
     related to both consumption and production.'' The next three 
     pages of recommendations go into detail about how to achieve 
     these reductions.
       Given the very clear recommendations that your 1992 report 
     contains for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, I fail to see 
     how you could make the accusation that our press release 
     misrepresents its contents. And clearly your 1992 report 
     remains a definitive statement because you have placed a 
     prominent link to it from the information about the joint 
     statement on the home page of your website. The joint 
     statement and your 1992 report both appear to me to be 
     perfectly consistent with the statement in the press release 
     to which you have objected.
       I can understand that the Academy may have receive 
     criticism for re-stating its position so clearly and so 
     appropriately now. It is clearly not a politically convenient 
     message for the U.S. Government, particularly at a time when 
     media reports have suggested that there have been attempts to 
     doctor official documents relating to the science of climate 
     change. But the U.S. media coverage of the Academies' joint 
     statement that I have seen appears rather favourable, as has 
     been the media coverage in the UK. Indeed, the Philadelphia 
     Inquirer published a supportive editorial today.
       Some of the coverage has suggested that the release of the 
     statement showed ``uncharacteristic political timing''. This, 
     of course, was by accident, rather than design. We had 
     originally hoped to publish the statement on 24 May, but 
     agreed to delay until 8 June at your request. We were 
     completely unaware when we agreed to the change of date that 
     this was so close to the Prime Minister's visit to 
     Washington.
       In the event, we only moved forward the release by a day 
     when it became apparent that British journalists had 
     discovered a neat-final draft of the statement on the website 
     of the Brazilian academy. And we only issued the release 
     after we had obtained explicit agreement from the Academy and 
     even delayed contacting journalists until your officials had 
     had the opportunity to brief the White House.
       I am confident that we acted perfectly properly in this 
     matter and am surprised by your comments. I am sure that our 
     two academies will continue to work closely together as we 
     have done in the past and as befits organisations with such 
     similar objectives.
           Yours,
                                                    Robert M. May,
                                                        President.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, he said they had not changed their course 
and direction and they didn't agree with the Royal Academy's statement. 
They thought it was misleading. That is not what they said, not what 
they believe. It is not what they intended.
  Then the head of the National Academy of Sciences wrote a letter to 
the Royal Academy. The Royal Academy basically said stuff it, it is our 
interpretation of what you said and we have a right for our own 
interpretation. No, the Royal Academy does not have a right to 
reinterpret the profound work of the National Academy of Sciences, the 
Hathaway study, the 1992 documentation that brought us to the 
scientific level we are today.
  The reason we are having this gamesmanship in the National Academy of 
Sciences is because this is ripe politics. It is not substantive 
science. While there are those of us who believe there are strong 
indicators that this world is getting warmer, we are not so sure about 
the science yet. But we are sure--and that is why this legislation we 
are adding this amendment to, or attempting to add the McCain-Lieberman 
amendment to, is all about ``clean'' and all about new technology that 
is less emitting, has less greenhouse gas in it, and recognizes the 
importance that our country lead in this direction.
  I spoke about that yesterday. I spoke about the intensity indicator 
as it relates to units of production instead of the false game of 
capping, because that is where you show how much carbon you are using 
to produce an element or an indices and a unit of economic growth. That 
is what this all ought to be about. The Hagel-Pryor amendment is about 
that. I am not going to slip into what some would call the false 
argument of the economy. But there is a profound argument to be made if 
you decide you are going to cap and control carbon in our country and 
distort the market and don't drive us toward new technologies of 
gasification and all of those things that reduce carbon in the 
atmosphere.
  Let me tell you where it is. A few years ago, when we were debating 
against Kyoto and we said it would cause a recession here and cost 
nearly 3 million jobs, it was laughed at by some at that time. I am 
sorry, you were wrong and a few of us were right. Here are the facts to 
prove it. The chart speaks for itself. In the industrial sector of our 
economy, during the depth of the last recession we have just come out 
of, we lost about 2.5, 2.6, or 2.7 million jobs in that sector of our 
economy. It drove them down to 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions. 
In other words, we hit the targets of the Kyoto protocol by a recession 
that took away 2.9 million jobs.
  Now, we have continued to grow some in transportation, residential, 
and commercial. But in the industrial sector, where the blue-collar 
American works, we drove them out of their jobs by the economy's 
inaction; whereas, if we had accepted the Kyoto protocol, accepted 
McCain-Lieberman in principle, we would have had to have the rules and 
regulations to accomplish 1990 levels, and that would have been the 
consequence.
  Now there is a strong, legitimate, economic argument that has to be 
made. Unless you let the economy work its will, and you incentivize the 
economy to do exactly what it is doing, to do what the Senator from 
Delaware talked about, energy being used by industry in a way that is 
cleaner, every time you create a new job in this country, that job is a 
cleaner job. Why? Because it is employment from new technologies, and 
that economic unit of production is less carbon intensive, and those 
are the realities of where we are. We expressed that very clearly 
yesterday in the Hagel-Pryor amendment.
  It is all about science, about new technologies, about creating 
partnerships with our foreign neighbors. It is not command and control 
and penalize. We want Third World nations to step up and to grow and to 
improve the economy and, therefore, the livelihood of their country for 
their own people. You don't do that by controlling them. That is why 
China would not step into this. That is why India would not step into 
it at the time of Kyoto and the protocol itself. Now they may be 
playing political games in this national academy joint statement of a 
month ago, but are they doing it substantively at home on the ground? 
China is going to burn a lot more coal in the future and, in large 
part, the way we can help them is to help ourselves by incentivizing 
the use of gasification and bringing that technology online, and doing 
so not with commanding and controlling but encouraging, incentivizing.
  De Tocqueville was right, that regulations could kill the great 
American experiment. Regulations are the antithesis of freedom and 
freedom in the marketplace, so incentivizing is doing for us exactly 
what we want done on climate change today, changing the character of 
how we do it and the character of the energies we use and the 
cleanliness of it. It is beginning to recognize if you are for climate 
change, you have to be for nuclear electric generation and a 
combination of a lot of other things.
  I hope our colleagues will oppose McCain-Lieberman. Command and 
control will not get us where we want to get without costing us jobs 
and building a big Federal bureaucracy to regulate the system.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes. I hear a lot of 
conversation in private, and sometimes even on this floor, about being 
political and the reasons for action are political. The Senator from 
Idaho just did a great disservice to the Prime Minister of England, 
Tony Blair. I happen to know him. I have discussed this issue. To 
impugn his motives as the Senator just said--trying to get back with 
his buddies because of his support--that is character assassination. It 
is patently false and a great disservice to the leader of one of our 
great allies.
  I would never question the motives of my opponents. To say the Prime 
Minister of England is motivated by political reasons for the strong 
and principled stand he has taken on climate change demanded my 
response, because I know he is an honorable man and not on this issue 
driven by political reasons.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield for a moment? Mr. President, will 
the Senator from----
  Mr. INHOFE. I yield one additional minute to the Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. The Senator from Arizona suggested I am impugning the 
motives of Tony Blair. If I am, I apologize for that. I have submitted 
for the

[[Page S7008]]

record the statements of the Royal Academy of Science and the 
statements of the National Academy of Sciences, and I will let them 
speak for themselves. I know the politics in Europe probably as well as 
my colleague from Arizona. I know it is a very green politics, 
attempting to force this President and this Government to ratify Kyoto 
and the Kyoto protocol. We have said no to that. Tony Blair has put 
unmitigated pressure on this President. He has even lobbied us 
individually on it, suggesting we ought to get this President to change 
his mind.
  The Senate spoke yesterday. The Senate has not changed its mind. We 
support our President. The timing, as the Senator from Arizona knows, 
of this was uniquely special in light of a July 8--I believe it is July 
8--conference of the economic powers. So I would imply there is a lot 
of politics in this. I will take out of that conversation the 
personality of Tony Blair, although he personally lobbied me and other 
Senators.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am not going to continue this because I 
am afraid it may evoke further comments by the Senator from Idaho that 
may further diminish the reputation of a great European leader, who is 
obviously committed to addressing the issue of climate change. I will 
just say that in the joint academies' statement, it says in the global 
response to climate change, 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.
  The question is: Are we going to do something meaningful about it, or 
are we going to have a figleaf, such as we just passed with the Hagel 
amendment?
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, in every generation, there are several 
defining moments when we have the chance to take a new course that will 
leave our children a better world. Addressing the threat of global 
climate change is one such moment.
  Climate change is not just about a particularly hot summer or cold 
winter. It is not just about a few species of plants and animals. And 
it is not some far-off threat we don't have to worry about for hundreds 
of years.
  While there are some who still argue with the overwhelming scientific 
evidence that details the full magnitude of the problem, the evidence 
is now all around us. The problem is here. And the solution needs to 
come now.
  Since 1980, the Earth has experienced 19 of its 20 hottest years on 
record, with the last three 5-year periods being the three warmest 
ever. This is the fastest rise in temperature for the whole hemisphere 
in a thousand years.
  Here in America, we have seen global warming contribute to the worst 
drought in 40 years, the worst wildfire season in the Western States 
ever, and floods that have caused millions of dollars in damage in 
Texas, Montana, and North Dakota. Sea levels are already rising, and as 
they continue to do so, they will threaten coastal communities.
  If we do nothing, these problems will already get more severe. Warmer 
winters may sound good to us, but they also mean longer freeze-free 
periods and shifts in rainfall that create more favorable conditions 
for pests and disease and less favorable conditions for crops such as 
corn and soybeans.
  As more forests and farms are affected, millions of jobs and crops we 
depend on could be jeopardized.
  There are also health consequences to climate change. Rising 
temperatures mean that insects carrying diseases like malaria are 
already spreading to more regions throughout the world. And the 
reduction in ozone layer protections means that more children are 
likely to develop skin cancer.
  Even if we stopped harmful emissions today, we are headed for a one 
degree increase in temperature by the year 2010.
  And since we won't stop emissions today, the temperature outside may 
increase up to 10 degrees by 2100.
  To Illinoisans watching this debate, that means your grandchildren--
when they become grandparents--may see Illinois summers as hot as those 
in Texas, if we don't act now. And those summers in Texas will be more 
unbearable.
  So what can we do now to protect our planet and our people from the 
effects of global warming? The first step is to adopt the McCain-
Lieberman amendment. This bipartisan approach to addressing climate 
change is not only good environmental policy, it is good economic 
policy.
  This amendment allows the market to determine the best approaches to 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions and rewards those with the most cost-
effective approach by enacting a cap-and-trade allowance system. The 
revenues generated from this program will go directly to training 
workers, helping the industries most affected by the reductions cap, 
and providing the necessary funds to ensure that the United States, not 
China or India, is the leader in energy innovations such as coal 
gasification, smaller and safer nuclear plants, and renewable 
technologies.
  Since so many people in Illinois depend on coal for jobs and for 
energy, and since America is essentially the Saudi Arabia of coal, I am 
also pleased that this amendment will specifically fund clean coal 
technology and allow extra allowances for coal companies that use 
carbon sequestration methods.
  The underlying bill will provide $200 million for clean coal 
technology, $500 million for coal pollution technologies, and $2.5 
billion for clean coal based power generation technologies.
  This two-track approach--a strong investment in clean coal, coupled 
with providing certainty to industry so they may prepare for investment 
in these technologies today--is the right approach to both strengthen 
our economy and lead us toward the 21st century energy policy.
  The United States should be leading the world in investing in 
existing technologies that harness coal's power while reducing its 
pollutants.
  We now have applications to construct 100 new coal plants. Plants all 
over the world will get built no matter what, but if we do not make 
sure each one is equipped with the right technology, future generations 
will be forced to live with the consequences--dirtier air and dangerous 
climate change.
  We know this country's scientific minds already have the ideas to 
lead the United States into the future. In this increasingly 
competitive global marketplace, government needs to do its part to make 
sure these ideas are developed, demonstrated, and implemented here in 
the United States, and the McCain-Lieberman amendment can do just that.
  Let me make two final points. This administration repeatedly says it 
will base its policies on sound science.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for an additional 
minute.
  Mr. OBAMA. I thank the Chair.
  The science is overwhelming that climate change is occurring. There 
is no doubt this is taking place. The only question is what are we 
going to do about it.
  The previous speaker, the fine Senator from Idaho, indicated that our 
economic growth might be hampered by dealing with this problem now. The 
fact is, when we look at similar strategies that were developed in 
passage of the Clean Air Act in the 1990s, it turned out that the costs 
were lower and the benefits higher than had been anticipated. Economic 
growth was not hampered; rather, innovation was encouraged and spurred 
in each of these industries.
  The last point I wish to address is the point that was made that 
other countries may be polluting a lot more than we are. I think that 
is a legitimate concern, but it is impossible for us to encourage 
countries such as China and India to do the right thing if we, with a 
much higher standard of living and having already developed ourselves 
so we are the energy glutton of the world, are unwilling to make these 
modest steps to decrease the amount of emissions that affects the 
atmosphere overall.
  If we the wealthy nations cannot do it, we cannot expect developing 
nations to do the same. That is why taking this important step with 
McCain-Feingold--is so important. That is why I

[[Page S7009]]

congratulate both Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain for taking this 
important step.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend. I don't mind him 
calling it McCain-Feingold.
  Mr. OBAMA. That passed.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. We are going to stick with this as long as Senator 
McCain and Senator Feingold have, which is to say, until it passes.
  I thank the Senator from Illinois for a very eloquent statement.
  Mr. President, I am very happy to see the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. 
Akaka, is here. He has asked for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized for up 
to 10 minutes.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank Senator Lieberman.
  Climate change is a topic that is very important to Hawaii, Pacific 
islands, and coastal States in general. I have served on the Senate 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources since I joined the Senate in 
1990. The committee has held hearings on global change almost every 
year since then, regardless of which party held the majority. It has 
become clear that an omnibus energy bill must address the production of 
carbon dioxide and methane, the two most prominent greenhouse gases, 
because 98 percent of carbon dioxide emissions are energy related.
  For more than 20 years, the National Research Council, the 
International Panel on Climate Change, and Federal agencies, including 
the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, and the Department of Energy, have been investigating 
climate change to broaden the scope of our understanding of the 
interactions of the oceans and the atmosphere, and the modeling of 
terrestrial and coastal impacts of climate change. Fifteen years ago, 
scientists were uncertain about the effects of global warming. Today, 
nearly 95 percent of scientists say that global warming is a certainty.
  Most recently, the national academies of science of 11 nations joined 
together in a joint science academies statement on the need for a 
global response to climate change. Among the prestigious scientific 
bodies signing the statement was our Nation's National Academy of 
Sciences, the Chinese and Russian Academy of Sciences, and the Science 
Council of Japan. The signatories urged all Nations to take prompt 
action to reduce the causes of climate change and ensure that the issue 
is included in all relevant national and international strategies.
  I believe that the relatively small cost of taking action now is a 
much wiser course of action than forcing States and counties to bear 
the costs of severe hurricanes and typhoons, and replacement of 
bridges, roads, seawalls and port and harbor infrastructure. In my part 
of the world climate change will result in a phenomenon that strikes 
fear in the hearts of many island communities. This phenomenon is sea 
level rise. Sea level rise, storm surge, shoreline degradation, 
saltwater intrusion into wells, and increasing flooding will impose 
very high costs on island and coastal communities, but these costs, 
which are real and are happening already, are not being addressed.
  I would like to describe some disturbing recent information that 
relates to sea level rise. Scientists at the 2004 Climate Variability 
and Predictability program, also known as CLIVAR, under the auspices of 
the World Climate Research Programme, have offered evidence that global 
warming could result in a melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet much more 
rapidly than expected.
  The World Climate Research Programme is an international group of 
renown scientists that focuses on describing and understanding 
variability and change of the physical climate system on time scales 
from months to centuries and beyond. The research has important 
implications for islands and low-lying areas and communities worldwide, 
from Native communities in Alaska along the shores of the Bering Sea, 
to the Pacific nations of low-lying atolls, to the bayous of Louisiana 
and the delta regions in Bangladesh.
  Using the latest satellite and paleoclimate data from ice cores of 
the Greenland Ice Sheet, the world's largest ice sheet, studies 
indicate that the last time the ice sheet melted entirely was when the 
temperature was only three degrees Celsius higher than it is today. At 
first this puzzled scientists because it didn't seem that such a modest 
temperature rise could melt so much ice.
  However, recent expeditions have revealed large pools of standing 
water which feed enormous cracks in the ice sheet, over a mile deep. 
Scientists believe the water falls down the cracks all the way to the 
bottom of the ice sheet and could easily enable the glacier to slide 
more rapidly into the sea. They believe the ice sheet could break up at 
a much lower temperature than previously thought. Current projections 
for warming due to greenhouse gases indicate that our temperature could 
rise three degrees Celsius in less than 100 years, almost guaranteeing 
the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet.

  Complete melting of the ice sheet would result in a 6 meter, or about 
18-foot, sea level rise, inundating many coastal cities and causing 
small islands to disappear. The effects are expected to be felt in high 
latitude regions earlier than others. In 2004, the Senate had field 
hearings in Alaska where Native villages are experiencing the effects 
of sea level rise. Continental ice sheets, or their disappearance, are 
driving sea level change. It is time to connect the dots with respect 
to global warming.
  I am particularly concerned for islands in the Pacific. There are 
changes in our islands that can only be explained by global phenomena 
such as the buildup of carbon dioxide. Globally, sea level has 
increased 6 to 14 inches in the last century and it is likely to rise 
another 17 to 25 inches by 2100. This would be a 1- to 2-foot rise. You 
can imagine what this might mean to port operators, shoreline property 
owners, tourists and residents who use Hawaii's beautiful beaches, and 
to island nations and territories in the Pacific whose highest 
elevation is between three and 100 meters above sea level. A typhoon or 
hurricane would be devastating to communities on these islands, not to 
mention the low-lying coastal wetlands of the continental United 
States.
  I am alarmed by changes in Hawaii. The sandy beaches of Oahu and Maui 
are eroding. In addition, we have lost a small atoll in the 
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands is an 
archipelago of atolls, shoals, and coral reefs that are a 2-day boat 
trip or 4-hour plane flight from Honolulu. They are known to be one of 
the most pristine atoll and coral reef ecosystems left in the world and 
are currently in protected status as a marine reserve.
  Whale-Skate Island at French Frigate Shoals was an island with 
vegetation and thousands of seabirds nesting on it. It was a nesting 
area for sea turtles, and many Hawaiian Monk seals pupped there, 
according to a wildlife biologist who wrote her thesis on French 
Frigate Shoals.
  Today, it is all water except for one-tenth of an acre. The 17 acres 
of habitat for Monk seal pups, nesting birds and turtles that has been 
there since the turn of the century, is virtually gone. Although atolls 
and shoals can lose their land area from seasonal storms and erosion, 
this one is almost entirely gone and has been ``downgraded'' from an 
island to a ``part-time sand spit.'' Similar fates face communities 
located on low-lying Pacific islands.
  The residents of the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu are considering 
relocation from their homes. Rising sea level has turned their wells 
salty and filled their crop-growing agricultural areas with sea water. 
The impacts of even a relatively small sea level rise on Pacific 
nations and atolls, some with maximum elevations which are less than 
ten feet above sea level, can be severe. In the Pacific, cultural 
activities are interwoven with the conservation of the environment. 
These traditions in the past allowed the survival of dense populations 
on small land areas. Today, the global issue of climate change extends 
beyond our borders and threatens the livelihoods of these nations. 
Climate change is an important challenge and high priority for 
immediate action in the Pacific.
  We must take a first, cautious step to stabilize greenhouse gas 
emissions

[[Page S7010]]

in the United States. If we fail to address the issue of climate change 
now, the U.S. may have to face catastrophic and expensive consequences. 
A relatively small investment today is far wiser than spending vast 
amounts in the future to replace destroyed homes and infrastructure, 
restore altered ecosystems, and reinvest in collapsed agricultural and 
fisheries industries. Scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology conducted a study that analyzed the proposed costs of the 
Lieberman-McCain amendment and estimated the cost to be less than $20 
per household per year. The Energy Information Administration, part of 
the Department of Energy, estimates the loss in consumption to be 
around $40 to $50 per household per year in 2010. The analysis also 
shows that the impact on real gross domestic product to be minimal, 
that is, not changing it from the baseline reference. The European 
Union EU has adopted a mandatory cap and trade program with a carbon 
dioxide reduction target of eight percent by the year 2012. The 
compliance costs of the EU greenhouse gas reduction program are 
expected to total less than 0.1 percent of its Gross Domestic Product. 
The EU predicts a minimal effect on their economic growth even under a 
rigorous approach.
  The United States has the technological capabilities and intellectual 
resources to lead the world in an effort to reduce future greenhouse 
gas emissions. I thank Senators Lieberman and McCain for recognizing 
the importance of climate change and taking the lead on legislation to 
stabilize greenhouse gas emissions in the 108th Congress and this 
Congress. I also greatly respect the amendment developed by the ranking 
member of the Energy Committee, Senator Bingaman, in cooperation with 
the National Commission on Energy Policy. Both of these amendments 
demonstrate to the Nation and the international community our serious 
commitment to move on carbon emissions.
  It is clear that piecemeal, voluntary approaches have failed to 
reduce the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions in the United 
States. Now is the time to send a strong message that the U.S. is 
serious about the impacts of climate change. A policy of inaction on 
climate change is not acceptable and will cost the United States more 
than preventive policies. I firmly believe that we can have economic 
growth while protecting coastal communities in the Pacific, Gulf of 
Mexico, Alaska, Louisiana, and other low-lying, vulnerable, coastal 
areas.
  It is time to reduce carbon emissions. For the last 5 years, we have 
debated how to do it using market mechanisms, through trading systems 
that capture the value of allowances, credits, or permits, and generate 
revenue through auctions. Many industries have already accepted this 
challenge and most, including utility giant American Electric Power 
Company, according to a 2004 Business Week article, have seen cost 
savings and business benefits. The Pew Foundation for Global Climate 
Change reports that most industries have been able to meet their self-
imposed goals through efficiencies alone, without requiring heavy 
capital investment. This is an opportunity to unleash the talent of 
businesses, engineers, and the Nation's entrepreneurial spirit to 
create efficiencies in fuel processing and to develop carbon-limited 
fuels.
  The time to act on carbon dioxide is now. The McCain-Lieberman 
amendment is a step forward and a symbol of the Nation's commitment to 
the world to reduce our carbon emissions. The amendment uses markets to 
determine how to manage specific emission reductions, a positive 
combination of bipartisan policy principles to establish a mechanism 
that will benefit the nations around the world. I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, 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. INHOFE. 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. INHOFE. Mr. President, in regard to the three times, first of all 
on McCain-Lieberman, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has approximately--
--
  Mr. INHOFE. No, McCain-Lieberman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators McCain and Lieberman have 
approximately 21 minutes remaining. The Senator from Oklahoma has 
approximately 27\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the Senator from New 
Mexico has 18 minutes remaining.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from New Mexico, 
I yield whatever time he may consume to the Senator from Kansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for 
yielding time off of Senator Domenici's allotted time.
  I rise today to address the important topic of global climate change, 
the McCain-Lieberman amendment. I am a strong fan of both the sponsors 
of this bill. I believe them to be excellent legislators, wonderful 
individuals, outstanding Senators from both sides of the aisle. They 
represent this country in the greatest traditions of the democracy and 
this body. These are outstanding individuals.
  I have wrestled a long time with the issue of global climate change. 
I call it a problem because I believe it to be so. I believe global 
climate change is occurring. Furthermore, I believe this occurrence can 
be traced, in some part at least, to man's increased emissions of 
carbon into our atmosphere.
  Some believe carbon to be a pollutant. However, I do not believe this 
to be the case. Carbon is a naturally occurring element in our 
atmosphere. It is essential to our survival as human beings. Carbon is 
a greenhouse gas. Yet, the greenhouse effect is also critical in 
certain aspects for our survival as well. Without the warming effect 
provided by carbon and other greenhouse gases, the primary being water 
vapor, we would freeze. So it is important. We clearly need greenhouse 
gases in our atmosphere. Yet, on the question of carbon loading in our 
atmosphere, we must ask how much is too much.
  With respect to global climate change, I think we must be persistent, 
temperate, and wise. We must pay close attention to what the science is 
telling us. Our actions, which will have real consequences with both 
the climate and our economy, must be based on data and not on rhetoric.
  As I stated at the outset, I admire Senators McCain and Lieberman for 
their persistence in the pursuit of their legislative action on climate 
change, addressing a real issue in a serious manner. They both have 
done an outstanding job in shaping the climate change debate thus far. 
However, I do respectfully disagree with my colleagues that we are at 
the point in this debate at which we ought to be enacting cap-and-trade 
regulatory regimes offered in their amendment.
  In fact, in taking a look at some of our friends around the world who 
have implemented a mandatory cap-and-trade system, I believe that the 
facts show that this approach has not worked in those countries. This 
regulatory restrictive approach has not worked. There is another 
method, another way, for us to approach this.
  Canada, for instance, which has enacted the Kyoto treaty cap and 
trade, projects it will exceed its Kyoto commitments by well over 50 
percent. Japan, the ``home of Kyoto,'' has projected it will exceed its 
Kyoto commitments by 34 percent. Our friends in the EU are projecting 
they will miss its collective Kyoto commitment by 7.4 percent. Many 
other projections coming from places other than Brussels have the EU 
doing even worse. In fact, only two European Union countries, the 
United Kingdom and Sweden, are on track to meet their 2010 targets.
  Germany, despite its head start on shutting down some of the 
industrial base actually of East Germany after reunification, is not 
projected to meet its burden-sharing target. In Sweden, they have 
switched to nuclear production and away from traditional sources of 
power like coal. I believe nuclear power needs to play a greater role 
in our own power generation, and I think it will lead clearly to 
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
  I respect Sweden for their adoption of nuclear power, and it is my 
hope the

[[Page S7011]]

United States will see fit to follow suit, as it fits, in this country.
  The United Kingdom is meeting its target by three fundamental shifts 
in their economy, two of which I do not believe to be helpful. First, 
they are burning less coal and more natural gas due to large stockpiles 
of natural gas. This is actually as a result of Prime Minister 
Thatcher's desire to break some of the unions organized around coal 
in the 1980s. This accounts for about one-third of their reduction. I 
wish we had the natural gas base that they do. We have some. We have 
some in my State. It looks as if we will be able to bring in more 
liquefied natural gas. That will help. But that model does not 
particularly fit within the United States.

  The second place in which the United Kingdom has reduced its carbon 
emissions is by losing manufacturing and industry jobs to developing 
countries such as China and India. That is not a model that we want to 
follow. The United Kingdom may get credit for reducing emissions, but 
it goes to developing countries like China and India that in many cases 
are using outdated technology, and therefore producing more total 
emissions than if these jobs had stayed in the United Kingdom. We want 
these jobs to stay in the United States, not move out of country. Plus, 
the countries of China and India are emitting more pollutants, such as 
sulfur and nitrogen, into the atmosphere as well.
  It is clear that while the United Kingdom can claim reductions due to 
this shift, the atmosphere is in fact worse off with this kind of 
shift. This is obviously not a way the United States should seek to 
reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
  Finally, the United Kingdom has reduced their emissions through 
advanced technologies and is producing energy more efficiently. That is 
clearly a preferable way for us to move forward in reducing greenhouse 
gas emissions. That is why I supported the Hagel amendment. I believe 
it is a positive step in that direction. I want to commend my colleague 
from Nebraska for offering a voluntary approach, providing incentives 
for new greenhouse gas-reducing technologies and technology transfer 
that would help our friends in developing regions of the world such as 
China and India. This technology transfer would happen through 
demonstration projects in developing countries, export initiatives, 
also establishing a climate credit board. I think these sort of 
voluntary approaches of us working here and technology transfer around 
the world are a key way to actually get these greenhouse gas emissions 
down, not a heavy regulatory regime.
  There are also things I think we should do that would have a positive 
effect on our net national carbon emissions, that I do believe are 
having an impact on the overall global climate change. I think we can 
do these net national carbon emission reductions that will have a 
positive environmental benefit and which can have also a positive 
effect on our economy, not a negative effect, as a regulatory regime. I 
am referring to projects like carbon sequestration and soil 
conservation practices. These are projects that not only extract carbon 
out of the atmosphere but have the more immediate and tangible benefits 
of improving water quality and preserving wildlife habitat. We have 
seen this taking place in my home State.
  Carbon sequestration--or the process of transforming carbon dioxide 
in the atmosphere to carbon stored in trees and soils--is a largely 
untapped resource that can buy us one of the things we need most in the 
debate over global warming, and that is time and accomplishment at the 
same time.
  The Department of Energy estimates that over the next 50 to 100 
years, agricultural lands alone could have the potential to remove 
anywhere from 40 to 80 billion metric tons of carbon from the 
atmosphere. If we expand this to include forests, the number will be 
far greater, indicating there is a real difference that could be made 
by encouraging a carbon sink, a carbon sequestration, type of approach.
  This alone cannot solve our climate change dilemma, but as we search 
for technological advancements that will allow us to create energy with 
less pollution, as we continue to research the cause and potential 
effects in climate change, it only makes sense that we enhance a 
natural process we already know has the benefit of reducing existing 
concentrations of greenhouse gases, particularly when this process also 
improves water quality, soil fertility, and wildlife habitat.
  As I say, this is a ``no regrets'' policy, similar to taking out 
insurance on one's house or car. We should do no less to protect the 
planet.
  Another way in which we can help reduce the amount of carbon emitted 
into our atmosphere, while helping our environment, is through the 
increased uses of renewable energy, namely biomass converted into 
electricity. I believe this could revolutionize the energy sector and 
greatly help a number of places around our country.
  Energy can be created from biomass by using many agricultural waste 
products such as wheatstalk, wood chips or even livestock manure. It 
also harvests grassland that is currently in the Conservation Reserve 
Program or other conservation reserve programs for biomass production. 
Not only does this provide a clean source of energy, it also creates a 
new market for many of our agricultural producers.
  Another renewable source of energy comes from wind development. I am 
a fan of wind development. I believe it to have great potential in 
producing clean energy that will help the United States with our energy 
independence. However, I also believe our environmentally sensitive 
areas and environmental treasures should be protected from wind 
development. That is why I am also pleased to support my colleagues, 
Senator Alexander and Senator Warner, on their environmentally 
responsible Wind Power Act of 2005. In my home State of Kansas, we are 
blessed to have a large portion of the last remaining tall grass 
prairie in the Nation. The Flint Hills of Kansas have virtually been 
untouched and unplowed by man. It would be a shame to wreck these 
treasures for future generations simply as a way of putting wind 
turbines on them.

  I am in favor of wind development. However, we must be wise not to 
harm our environmentally sensitive areas or unique environmental 
treasures.
  Because of my belief in the future potential of energy production 
from biomass and wind development, I supported Senator Bingaman's 
renewable portfolio standard amendment that passed the Senate last 
week. Not only will our Nation benefit from cleaner energy that is 
produced at home, but my home State will as well and will lead the way.
  Finally, I believe we, as a Nation, need to invest more in nuclear 
energy. I commend both Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Bingaman 
for their hard work on this bipartisan Energy bill that includes many 
strong provisions for expanding our Nation's nuclear power industry. I 
heard my distinguished colleague from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, 
mention that nuclear power represents 20 percent of our total power, 
yet accounts for 70 percent of our carbon-free power.
  Clearly, more needs to be done in diversifying our energy sources, 
and I believe this Energy bill is a step in the right direction. I do 
commend my colleagues, Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman, for adding 
a robust nuclear section in their climate change bill. This obviously 
may have upset some, but it is the right step. I believe we could go 
even so far as to say that this move may have had dangerous political 
consequences for their bill, but I believe it is the right step for us 
to move forward.
  As I stated at the outset when I entered into this debate, I believe 
we are seeing global climate change. I do believe that consequences of 
man's actions are here. I believe, though, we have a series of options 
that are more likely to produce the results we need than a heavy 
regulatory approach. While I appreciate the McCain-Lieberman approach, 
I think this other route is a better way to go.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. First, I thank the Senator from Kansas for his excellent 
remarks. I think the Senator from Tennessee had a response or a couple 
of minutes, that he wanted to respond to something that was said; is 
that correct?

[[Page S7012]]

  Mr. ALEXANDER. That is correct. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Oklahoma yield time?
  Mr. INHOFE. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I applaud the remarks of the Senator 
from Kansas and his focus on the clean energy aspects of the Domenici-
Bingaman bill, which is making significant progress in producing low-
carbon and carbon-free energy, transforming the way we produce 
electricity.
  I also appreciate his cosponsorship of the environmentally 
responsible wind power amendment. Kansas, of course, has a lot of wind. 
There may be many places where people want it to be, but there are some 
places in the United States where we do not need to put gigantic towers 
between us and our children and our grandchildren; for example, the 
Statue of Liberty, and the Great Smoky Mountain Park, and Yosemite 
Park.
  This legislation is a very limited amendment that would deny Federal 
subsidies for that area, give communities 6 months' notice before they 
are to be built there but otherwise would not interfere with private 
property rights, prohibit the building of any wind project, affect any 
project now underway, and would not give the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission any new power.
  I hope it is the kind of amendment all Senators can easily support. 
Whether they are strong supporters of wind power or have reservations 
about wind power, at least we do not want to see gigantic towers in the 
buffer zones between our national treasures, the highly scenic areas, 
and ourselves and our children and grandchildren.
  I thank the Senator from Kansas for his support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator 
from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, is on his way to use his remaining time. 
While he is doing that, I will comment that the statements that have 
been made are excellent. We have agreed we will use the remainder of 
our time. I will use about 10 minutes, whatever time I have, and they 
will have the last 10 minutes. However, they are not in the Senate 
right now. We should serve notice we want the concluding remarks as 
soon as the Senator from New Mexico completes his remarks.

  There are a couple of things of interest. For one thing, it is 
interesting when we hear about the science. I will have a chance in a 
minute to talk about the science and how flawed the science is. Look at 
the Oregon petition. Over 17,000 scientists signed a petition. I will 
read one paragraph from that petition:

       There is no convincing scientific evidence that human 
     release of carbon dioxide or methane or other greenhouse 
     gasses 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 considerable 
     scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon 
     dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural 
     plant and animal environments of the Earth.

  It is important that we realize CO2 is not a pollutant. 
CO2 is, in fact, a fertilizer. CO2 is needed. 
CO2-enhanced earth grows crops better than it does in the 
absence of that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The Senator from New Mexico 
controls 6 minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. The Senator can have more.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I hope I can say what I want to say in 6 
minutes. If not, I will ask the Senator for a couple more minutes.
  I note Senator Bingaman is in the Senate. About a week ago, 6 days 
ago, there was a comment that Senator Bingaman had a proposal that 
would move in the direction of mandatory cleanup for carbon. I was 
intrigued by the group that made the study and suggested a way to do 
it. They had testified before a committee hearing in the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee. We were intrigued when they talked about 
their idea. Senator Bingaman had taken it upon himself to put those 
preliminaries into the format of a bill.
  It was said, and I was quite surprised at how much notoriety ensued, 
that I might be joining my New Mexico partner in this proposal. And 
that was true, I was considering. And, in fact, we did consider it.
  The Senate should know, at least from this Senator's standpoint, what 
I found out. I found out it is very easy to say we ought to have some 
mandatory reductions. It is very easy to say what percent reduction 
there should be. As a matter of fact, the proposal we were looking at 
sounded rather achievable. Certainly, when compared with the Kyoto 
accords and when compared with the McCain-Lieberman proposals, 
quantitatively in many areas--effect on growth, what it will do to the 
use of coal, how many jobs might it cause, what will it do from the 
standpoint of real reduction in carbon--compare the NCEP, which was the 
group that put this study together that Senator Bingaman brought to the 
surface that I just said I was considering, when compared with McCain 
and Kyoto, the effect on GDP loss used in the same consistent way, and 
using the same way the President has been talking about it, impact on 
units of growth, the effect was--get this--0.02. The effect of Kyoto 
was 0.36. That is a huge difference because one is two-tenths of a 
percent and the other is 3.6 percent. That was the impact.
  That attracted my attention because it seemed to me if we were going 
to start this process, we ought to start at something achievable. We 
had pretty good evidence it would not have any great big effect on the 
economy.
  All the others are similar, emphasizing that the very notorious Kyoto 
agreement was, on every single one, at the very extreme other end 
compared to the high end, compared to the NCEP. I regret to say, other 
than to report the facts I know, McCain-Lieberman was not in the middle 
of the two but very much toward the very high end Kyoto reductions.
  I had come to the conclusion we ought to look at the NCEP. This is my 
first time to say in the Senate why I cannot do it. I hope those who 
are so excited about mandatory impositions will look carefully at what 
I found and what--although I do not want to speak for him--I think 
Senator Bingaman found.
  To go from the generation that we will reduce in a mandatory manner 
the carbon emissions, the 2.4 percent--the McCain-Lieberman is much 
bigger--this was going to start 8 years from now. I said maybe we 
should start it 10 years from now. But the next thing was how to 
implement it. How do you allocate the winners and the losers? Under 
that approach someone has to ratchet down more, somebody has to ratchet 
down less, somebody has to ratchet down none, and somebody has to get 
credit because they are so good. And some have to pay penalties because 
they are not so good.
  I don't think you can change that mix no matter what you call the 
bill. I think McCain-Lieberman finds an American environment with 
utility companies--some of which have to reduce a lot, some of which do 
not have to reduce any, some of which are so good they have to get 
compensated for being so good--so that when we add it up, you get 
reduction across the Nation.

  There is another way, and that is to say you cut down an even amount 
across the board. I guarantee if we have an even cut across the board, 
everybody gets cut 2.4, or maybe under McCain-Lieberman you get cut 5 
or 6, nobody can live with that because then there is no benefit from 
having very clean utility companies. What if you had all nuclear 
powerplants and there was no carbon; would you still have to reduce 
whatever the amount is?
  The reason, I said to my friend, Senator Bingaman, there is not 
enough time to implement a plan under the NCEP proposal is because we 
do not know how to draft a set of rules that will carry out our process 
that would be fair and that would achieve the goal. When we looked at 
possibilities, it was in my way of thinking impossible in 3, 4, or 5 
days to write such a proposal.
  Senator Bingaman might have suggested--and he still may sometime if 
we cannot finish it out--that we do it differently. We assign somebody 
the job of doing that detail. That could have been an approach. But it 
was not what we were talking about. We were trying to write it in.
  I submit to the Senate I do not see how there can be a mandatory 
reduction program that does not have a very

[[Page S7013]]

detailed approach to who gets allocated what--who wins, who loses, who 
reduces, and who gets compensated because they already reduced. And all 
of that across an American universe of production facilities that goes 
from all of the nuclear powerplants. Maybe all the nuclear powerplants 
are old, but they are very clean. Then we have very old powerplants, 
still in production, but they are very dirty in terms of carbon.
  How we go about doing that in statute without causing extreme, hard 
unfairness, inequities, is beyond me.
  Having said that, the Kyoto agreement still is being bantered around 
as if it is viable.
  I will ask unanimous consent to have printed a chart showing how big 
the reductions would be compared with the Lieberman-McCain and how big 
they would be compared to the NCEP. People ought to look at that. Kyoto 
is unachievable. We still keep talking about it. It is a pipe dream.
  When you look at the numbers and what has to be done, we can 
understand why the Senate voted 95 to 0 that we would never approve a 
treaty under Kyoto. They blamed the President, but we said that in this 
Senate. Nobody here voted to implement Kyoto. I will tell you why. When 
you look at what you have to do compared to any other program, 
including the McCain program, but including the one that Senator 
Bingaman and I were going to do which we could not find a way to 
allocate the winners and losers, you will understand this is a tough 
job. I don't think we should do that, whether we call it Kyoto, whether 
we call it McCain. We should not do anything that risky and that 
uncertain unless there is somebody magical that has a way of putting 
this formula together--who wins, who loses, who gets money, who cuts, 
et cetera.
  I ask unanimous consent the chart be printed in the Record at the end 
of my remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Compared to the Kyoto Protocol, the NCEP emissions trading 
     program has a fraction of the impact on the energy sector and 
     economy based on EIA analyses of each policy.

                             Results in 2020
               (NCEP values are averages of 2015 and 2025)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     McCain-     Kyoto
                                            NCEP        L.       (+9%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GHG emissions (% domestic reduction)...        5.4       17.8       23.9
GHG emissions (tons CO2 reduced).......        452       1346       1690
Allowance price ($/ton CO2)............        7.5       35.0       43.3
Coal use (% change from forecast)......       -5.7      -37.4      -72.1
Coal use (% change from 2003)..........       16.3      -23.2      -68.9
Natural gas use (% change from                 0.8        4.6       10.3
 forecast).............................
Electricity price (% change from               3.5       19.4       44.6
 forecast).............................
Potential GDP (% loss).................       0.02       0.13       0.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I wonder if the Senator would allow me a moment to 
respond to something Senator Domenici said?
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Senator Domenici raised a very important point and I 
want to engage on it. That is the question of how the allocations are 
set under the McCain-Lieberman proposal.
  Let's say, first, we feel strongly unless you have a cap, unless you 
have some limit, goal, for how you will reduce your greenhouse gas 
emissions, it is a phony. It does not work. We tried that in the 1990s 
and it did not work. That is why we need a cap and we have a market-
based system.
  In our proposal it says you allocate emissions credits based on the 
amount of emissions in 2000 because that is the goal we want to get 
back to, and then you give the EPA Administrator the opportunity to 
make adjustments based on economic impact--maybe it is too hard for a 
particular industry or sector to do that.
  I hope we can engage the Senator from New Mexico--he is a leader 
here--as we go forward. When it came to the acid rain provisions on 
which this is based, when it finally came to a bill, Members of the 
Senate and the Congress pretty much stated what the allocations were 
going to be. They did not leave much room for administrative judgment 
by the EPA Administrator.
  To my friend from New Mexico, if this really matters to you, as I 
know it does, in the months ahead I will try to do exactly the same 
thing.
  I thank my friend from Arizona and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I have the time situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 19\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. And the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has 20 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will be very brief because we worked it 
out that we would end up, which is appropriate because I am with the 
sponsor of the amendment.
  I say to the Senator from New Mexico, who has talked about winners 
and losers, I will tell you who will lose, and that is the next 
generation of Americans because every reliable scientific body in the 
world knows climate change is real.
  It is happening. And it may not bother the Senator from New Mexico 
and me at our age, but I will tell you, it bothers the heck out of 
young Americans, and it bothers the heck out of people who are experts 
on this issue.
  If the Senator from New Mexico is worried about winners and losers, 
and he and I are winners, the next generation of people all over the 
world are losers because the National Academy of Sciences' statement is 
very clear:

       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.

  I will tell you another loser, and that is the truth--that is the 
truth. The truth is, I say to the Senator from New Mexico, the European 
countries are meeting Kyoto emissions targets. They are meeting them. 
The truth is, Tony Blair has no political agenda. Tony Blair, the Prime 
Minister of England, recognizes that global climate change is real. It 
is taking place, and we have to do something about it.
  To say that by us not allocating winners and losers is a reason not 
to act on this compelling issue of the future of our globe, when the 
evidence is now compelling and overwhelming, with the exception of a 
group I will cite before I finish who are now funded by industry, then 
the Senator and those who have debunked this and continue to debunk it 
are going to have somebody to answer to in not too many years from now.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 2 
minutes to answer the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Only if it is out of the Senator's time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Well, I had 30 minutes a while ago. Did we use it all 
up?
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes, it is my understanding the Senator did use up all of 
his time.
  Mr. President, I ask the Senator if he could use 1 minute.
  Mr. McCAIN. I do not object to the Senator having an additional 2 
minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. All right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I do not mind the Senator from Arizona 
saying whatever he likes on the floor. I do not mind him getting red in 
the face and pointing at me and talking to me like I don't know what I 
am talking about. But he did not listen. I did not say global warming 
is not a problem. He might be talking about somebody else. I did say it 
was. Instead of saying what he said, he should have said: I am glad 
Senator Domenici is finally recognizing there is a problem.
  To recognize there is a problem does not mean that his way of solving 
it is the only solution. In fact, I am telling the Senate what he is 
suggesting will not work. That is all I am saying. I have the right to 
do that, and it does not have to be said that I am going to hurt the 
young generation. I am not hurting the younger generation.
  The reason this amendment cannot pass is because it cannot be 
implemented. It is that simple. Nobody knows how to do that because 
nobody knows the results. You could just as well introduce a bill and 
say: I want to do twice as much as Senator McCain. And that would be 
wonderful. You could then say: I am really for the young people. I am 
doing twice as much.
  The problem is, you do not know how to do it. You cannot do it. And 
everybody who has looked at it, except those

[[Page S7014]]

who want to set a goal, know that is not so. That is why it will lose.
  I thank the Senator for yielding me 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, saying that it cannot be done, the 
Europeans are doing it with far less stringent measures to be taken 
than what we have.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I have 20 
minutes and that the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from 
Connecticut will close the debate.
  Let me, first of all, say--well, this is a good chart. I was not 
going to use this one, but this shows what the Senator just observed. I 
do not believe it is totally accurate because the only reduction that 
has come in CO2 from all of the member nations of the EU has 
come from Germany and the United Kingdom. If you look at all the rest 
of them, they all have exceeded the amount of their goals.
  Then, more recently--this just came out 2 days ago--this is a release 
from the EU, greenhouse gas emissions up to 2003. It was just released. 
It says: Between 2002 and 2003, EU-25 emissions increased by 1.5 
percent. That means that has taken up all the reductions from the 
previous year, 2002.
  In the time I have, I am going to try to cover a lot of things. When 
debate is closed, they will get the last word. But I only ask the 
indulgence of my fellow Members to realize that there is a lot of 
hysteria out here. The hysteria out here is not well founded.
  I am old enough to remember the hysteria back 20 years ago or so. 
This was on the cover of Time magazine, talking about another ice age 
coming. It said: However widely the weather varies from place to place 
and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures 
around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing 
gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no 
indication of reversing.
  So everyone was hysterical. The same people who are now talking about 
global warming were talking about another ice age coming.
  Now, just one by one, let's, first of all, take the study that 
started this whole thing in 1998 that was by Michael Mann. It is very 
important that we look at this. This was the famous ``hockey stick.'' 
If you look at the blue line, that supposedly goes from the years 1000 
to the 20th century. It is just a horizontal line. And then, all of a 
sudden, it starts shooting up; and that is the blade of the hockey 
stick.
  Now, what he has failed to put on this chart is that if you will take 
the actual temperatures from 1400 to 2000--that is shown with the black 
line--they are relatively even.
  But then, as shown by the next chart, which was in yesterday's Wall 
Street Journal, when you throw in the fact that we had the medieval 
warming period, it shows it was actually warmer in that period of time. 
The medieval warming period was about from 1000 A.D. to 1350 A.D.
  Temperatures were warmer then than they have been in the 20th 
century. It just shows that theory has been refuted by many people in 
that it really is not accurate and should not be used.
  Next, on climate models: Climate models are very difficult. People 
use them freely around here. Those who are listening and, hopefully, 
those who might be looking at the logic of this will not buy this idea.
  The National Academy of Sciences said:

       Climate models are imperfect.

  Peter Stone, the climate modeler from MIT, said:

       The major [climate prediction] uncertainties have not been 
     reduced at all.

  The uncertainties are large.
  The George C. Marshall Institute:

       The inputs needed to project climate for the next 100 
     years, as is typically attempted, are unknowable.

  Further, a professer from MIT: The way current models handle factors 
such as clouds and water vapor is disturbingly arbitrary. In many 
instances the underlying physics is simply not known.
  I think we have to understand if all of this is predicated on climate 
charts, climate charts are not perfect.
  The Oregon petition--I covered this many times. People say: Inhofe is 
going to come up with some scientists who might refute this. For 
someone to say that the science is settled, for someone to say there is 
a consensus in terms of the science, when you look at the Oregon 
petition, which had 17,800 scientists, they stated, as is on the chart 
behind me:

       There is no convincing scientific evidence that human 
     release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse 
     gasses is causing, or will cause in the foreseeable future, 
     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 
     planet and animal environments of the Earth.

  Recognizing, as we said before, that CO2 is not a 
pollutant; CO2 is a fertilizer.
  I would, lastly, quote James Schlesinger, who was the Energy 
Secretary under President Carter. He said: There is an idea among the 
public that the science is settled. That remains far from the truth.

  So it is not a matter of Republicans or Democrats. These are the 
experts saying that the science is not there. Now, we could go--and I 
will come back to this subject with the time we have--but I would like 
to start off with the assertion that Kilimanjaro--I happen to have 
flown over Kilimanjaro twice in the last week. I looked down and saw 
that there is a change that has taken place.
  If you look at this picture from 1976, there was very little ice on 
there. In 1983 there was a lot more. In 1997, there was considerably 
less. But the Center for Science and Public Policy summarized the 
Kaiser study and said: The ice fields on Mount Kilimanjaro started 
melting in response to a climate shift that occurred near the end of 
the 19th century, well before any alteration in the Earth's greenhouse 
effect. That reduced the amount of moisture in the air in the vicinity 
of the mountain. Manmade global warming has nothing to do with it. I 
repeat, nothing to do with it. Yet we hear it over and over again. And 
I am sure we will hear it in the closing remarks.
  In terms of glaciers and icecaps and research that has been done--
this was in the Journal of Climate--research done by Holloway and Sou 
in 2002 revealed that claims of thinning arctic ice came from submarine 
measurements of only one part of the Arctic Ocean. Additionally, 
decadal changes and scaled wind patterns rearranged the ice, giving 
some regions thinner and others thicker amounts of ice.
  Well, it is easy to find one area where the ice is thinner than it 
was, but, on the other hand, it is actually thicker.
  It goes on to say in the Journal of Glaciology: For the mass balance 
of glacier measures, the gain and loss of ice, there are only 200 
glaciers of the total 160,000 glaciers for which mass balance data 
exists over a single year.
  So the data is not there on that argument.
  They talk about hurricanes, the fact that hurricanes are coming, and 
somehow this has something to do with global warming.
  Well, if you look at this chart, it talks about the hurricanes dating 
back to 1900, and each decade since then up to 2000. You can see, yes, 
it did peak out around 1940. And then it has been going down ever 
since, and considerably lower than that peak was.
  According to Dr. Christopher Landsea, who is considered to be the 
foremost expert on hurricanes, he says: Hurricanes are going to 
continue to hit the United States in the Atlantic and gulf coast areas. 
And the damage will probably be more expansive than in the past. But 
this is due to natural climate cycles which cause hurricanes to be 
stronger and more frequent and the rising property prices of the coast, 
not because any effect CO2 emissions have on weather 
patterns.
  He says: Contrary to the beliefs of environmentalists, reducing 
CO2 emissions will not lessen the impact of hurricanes.
  So, in fact, it is just not true. You hear it over and over again, 
but it is just not true. You hear about the sea rising: The sea is 
rising. Things are disappearing. In fact, the famous island, Tuvalu 
Island, was supposedly going to be falling into the ocean and be 
covered up. According to John Daly--he is

[[Page S7015]]

considered to be an expert--well, let's use the 2004 Global Planetary 
Change: There is a total absence of any recent acceleration in sea 
level rises as often claimed by IPCC and related groups.
  It is not rising, folks. It is just not happening. The other says: 
The historic record from 1978 to 1999 indicates a sea level rise of 
0.07 millimeters per year, where the IPCC claim of 1 to 2.5 millimeters 
a year sea level rise as a whole indicated the IPCC claims it based on 
faulty modeling.
  The National Title Facility, based in Adelaide, Australia, has 
dismissed the Tuvalu claims as unfounded. In other words, the sea level 
is not rising. You can say it is rising and stand down here and yell 
and scream about it, but it is not. The science shows clearly it is not 
rising. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report has been referred 
to several times. If you look at the temperatures between 1934 and the 
currently--this chart goes to 2003--you see they were considerably 
warmer back during 1934.
  Let's now go to the economic impacts. This is probably one of the 
things that really should be considered more than anything else at this 
point because people think if there isn't going to be any great 
economic impact, why shouldn't we go ahead and do it. I am using here 
not S. 139, the bill we discussed in October of 2003, because this one 
is a little bit less than that. It is a little more modest. Enacting 
the McCain-Lieberman bill would cost, according to Charles River 
Associates, the U.S. economy $507 billion in 2020, $545 billion in 
2025. Implementing Kyoto would cost the U.S. economy $305 billion in 
2010, $243 billion in 2020. Under Kyoto, for the average family of four 
in America, it would cost them $2,700 a year. This bill will only cost 
them $2,000 a year. So maybe that isn't quite as bad as it would have 
been otherwise.
  The bottom line: It is very expensive. And that is not just Senator 
Inhofe talking. We are quoting CRA, which is the recognized authority, 
like the Horton Econometric Survey that talked about how it will affect 
the rising cost of energy, electricity, gasoline, how much it costs a 
family of four. It would be very detrimental to our country.
  In terms of jobs, enacting the McCain-Lieberman amendment would mean 
a loss of 800,040 jobs in 2010 and 1.306 million jobs in 2020. This is 
down a little bit from the full-blown Kyoto, but 1.3 million jobs is 
significant.
  In terms of energy prices, McCain-Lieberman would increase energy 
prices in 2020 by 28 percent for gasoline, 20 percent for electricity, 
47 percent for natural gas, and much more for coal.
  Just a few minutes ago, the Senator from Arizona talked about the 
National Academy of Sciences. What he was referring to is a press 
statement. It was not a report. Their last report states as follows:

       There is considerable uncertainty in current understanding 
     of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to 
     emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols. A casual linkage 
     between the buildup of greenhouse gases and the observed 
     climate change in the 20th century cannot be unequivocally 
     established. The IPC Summary for Policymakers could give an 
     impression that the science of global warming is settled, 
     even though many uncertainties still remain.

  So much for the National Academy of Sciences.
  I think there are two charts that are very significant. First of all, 
let's just assume for a minute that everything they say about the 
necessity for carbon caps, everything they say about signing on to the 
Kyoto treaty, that all of that is true. If all that is true, this chart 
is probably the most significant chart we have. This chart shows that 
if it is true, if you look at the black line, that is what would happen 
with Kyoto. Without Kyoto, look at the blue line. It is so little 
difference that it is not measurable. In other words, by the year 2050, 
the change would be something like 0.06 degrees centigrade, which is a 
change in surface temperature too small to even be detected in global 
averaging.
  This is back when the Bingaman amendment would have been here, so you 
can ignore that since apparently that is not coming up.
  If nothing is done right now, if you project a temperature rise, it 
would be 1.71 degrees Fahrenheit, if there is no action taken at all. 
If you go McCain-Lieberman, it would be 1.61 Fahrenheit. Between those 
two, it is not even a noticeable difference.
  I am hoping we will have an opportunity for people to see the truth 
and people to see what the real science is, see the real economic 
impact.
  There are a couple things that are incontrovertible. First, we know 
the economic impact is great. They might argue a little bit that we 
have taken the economic impact in terms of the Horton Econometric 
Survey, according to CRA, and they are astronomic. I mentioned what 
they would be under the McCain-Lieberman bill. But if you say that 
there is certainly questionable science behind it, and yet there is a 
huge economic impact, then what would be the motivation?
  Why is Europe so excited and so anxious for us to join their dilemma, 
in spite of the fact that they have increased their CO2 emissions since 
the time they signed on to the treaty? The answer is found in two 
individuals. One is Margot Wallstrom. Margot Wallstrom is the European 
Union Environmental Commissioner. I don't think they knew that these 
were being reported at the time. Now it is documented that these 
statements were made. Kyoto really isn't about climate change. Kyoto is 
about ``the economy, about leveling the playing field for big 
businesses worldwide.'' That is Margot Wallstrom, EU Environmental 
Commissioner.
  Some Senators favor Frenchmen. Jacques Chirac said Kyoto represents 
``the first component of an authentic global governance.'' Certainly 
there is a motivation overseas for us to be involved in this thing.
  I would like to also mention that there is a lot of polling data. But 
the most recent polling data was 3 days ago. It was an ABC poll. In 
that, most people do believe that global warming is underway. They have 
been convinced of that because we have a very liberal media that wants 
people to believe that. We have people who want to think the world is 
falling apart.
  However, in asking the question, Do you favor Government action, 38 
percent said yes; 58 percent of the people said no. It seems to me that 
in spite of all the misinformation that is floating around, the truth 
is getting out.
  Let me wind up by reminding everyone that we do have pollution 
problems. They are not with global warming. They are not with 
CO2, methane gases, anthropogenic gases, but with SOx, NOx, 
and mercury. President Bush has caused us to introduce the greatest 
reduction in SOx, NOx, and mercury in the history of this country, more 
so than any of the preceding Presidents. It is a 70-percent mandated 
reduction, a reduction that would really do something about pollution. 
I believe we should be talking about really reducing pollution, not 
about trying to create science, to somehow fabricate science to make 
people believe that, No. 1, temperatures are rising; and, No. 2, it is 
due to manmade gases. The science does not support that.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise to voice my opposition to amendment 
No. 826, the McCain-Lieberman climate change amendment.
  As we debate whether to adopt some form of carbon cap, I am reminded 
of the dire warnings regarding energy we see every day in the news:
  Oil prices soared past $59 a barrel on Monday even as the president 
of OPEC said the group will consider raising its production target by 
half a million barrels as early as this week.
  The Wall Street Journal reported on June 8 that high energy prices 
are the leading cause of a world-wide slowing in manufacturing growth. 
A survey of chief financial officers, conducted by Duke University and 
CFO Magazine, found that 87 percent of U.S. manufacturers said they 
were facing pricing pressures as a result of high energy and raw 
material costs.
  Farmers have decried the high cost of oil and natural gas, fearing it 
may drive them out of business. Farmers use diesel to run their 
tractors and other equipment, natural gas to produce fertilizer, and 
gasoline to get their crops to market. And yet, the price of gasoline 
has doubled in the last 3 years, and natural gas by 66 percent over the 
same time period. An AP story of May 13 states that this means farmers 
will spend an additional $3 billion in energy costs, a 10-percent 
increase in overall costs.
  Nationwide, farmers paid $6 billion more for energy in 2003 and 2004, 
in part

[[Page S7016]]

because higher natural gas costs have pushed the average retail cost of 
nitrogen fertilizer from $100 per ton to more than $350 per ton.
  Consumption of natural gas is exceeding production at an increasing 
rate. Residential, commercial and industrial consumers have paid over 
$130 billion more for natural gas than they did 2 years ago, an 86 
percent increase.
  Despite oil prices of nearly $60 per barrel, continued growth in oil 
consumption could spur still-higher prices and further damp economic 
growth. Gasoline and diesel use continues to rise strongly in the U.S., 
the largest oil consumer by far, despite high prices and a slowing 
economy. China is now the world's No. 2 oil user, and it continues to 
burn more fossil fuel to power its domestic economy and meet rising 
demand for its goods. Economists say energy prices are reemerging as a 
prime constraint on the world's growth potential, and they have trimmed 
their projections of economic growth by a quarter point as a result.
  China faces a coal shortage by 2010, according to a May 25 AP story. 
China will consume 2.2 billion tons of coal by 2010, 330 millions of 
tons per year less than they produce today. By 2020, China will consume 
3.1 billion barrels of crude oil and 7 trillion cubic feet of natural 
gas a year, with half of the oil imported.
  What does this mean? Greater demand for energy means higher prices, 
higher even than those we are facing and trying to reduce today. As I 
have already stated, high energy prices have a direct and negative 
impact on economic growth. As world demand for energy grows and prices 
rise, manufacturers face higher costs. They have a harder time meeting 
payroll, and people lose their jobs.
  Senator McCain states that his plan to eliminate greenhouse gas 
emissions is ``affordable and doable.'' However, McCain-Lieberman will 
undoubtedly drive up the cost of energy at a time when we are seeking 
for ways to increase energy supply and reduce energy costs. Direct 
costs of the program are estimated to be upwards of $27 billion 
annually. Studies by the Competitive Enterprise Institute show that 
McCain-Lieberman will lead to a cumulative loss to gross domestic 
product of $776 billion through 2025. In addition, studies by United 
for Jobs, a group sponsored by the National Black Chamber of Commerce 
and the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, cite studies that 
show the climate bill would cost the U.S. economy over 600,000 jobs. We 
can't afford this kind of hit to our GDP or the loss of jobs that could 
result from this proposal.
  Jobs lost as a result of adopting an onerous climate change proposal 
will be exported oversees to countries that do not cap their emissions. 
So not only will the jobs be exported, but the emissions will be, too. 
This bill purports to address ``global'' warming. The bill's proponents 
are correct that the problem, to the extent there is one, is not 
regional or national but global. However, the fix we are debating would 
hamstring our economy by driving up energy costs while doing nothing to 
limit emissions in developing countries.
  Already, high natural gas prices have cost America's chemical sector 
nearly 90,000 jobs and $50 billion in business to overseas operations. 
Of 120 chemical plants being built around the world with price tags of 
$1 billion or more, just 1 is in the U.S. while 50 are in China.
  Interestingly, the May 5 AP article I referenced earlier notes that 
China's massive demand for coal is leading managers to ignore safety, 
causing 5,000 mining deaths per year. If China is not worried about 
mining safety, we can be pretty certain that they are not going to 
worry about greenhouse gas emissions.
  Advocates for this amendment continue to point to the Kyoto Protocol. 
What did the Senate say to Kyoto? As you know, in 1997, the Senate 
voted 95 to 0 for a Byrd-Hagel resolution assailing Kyoto's provisions, 
leaving President Clinton unable to even bring the Kyoto Protocol up 
for a vote. By their own admission, McCain-Lieberman is Kyoto-lite. It 
will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and to what end? It may not 
even solve the problem it purports to solve. Yes, there will be lower 
emissions under this amendment; however, those in favor of Kyoto say 
Kyoto only scratches the surface.
  Environmental groups concede that it will have no impact on what they 
believe to be impending catastrophic global warming.
  Greenpeace International agreed that the Kyoto Protocol should only 
be an entry point for controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Jessica 
Coven, a spokesperson for the environmental group, told CNSNews.com 
that ``Kyoto is our first start and we need increasing emissions 
cuts.''
  ``The Kyoto Protocol . . . doesn't even go near to what has to get 
done. It is not anywhere near to what we need in the Arctic,'' said 
Sheila Watt-Cloutier, chairwoman of Inuit Circumpolar Conference. 
``Kyoto will not stop the dangerous sea level rise from creating these 
kinds of enormous challenges that we are about to face in the future. I 
know many of you here believe that we must go beyond [Kyoto],'' she 
said during a panel discussion.
  Despite the fact that green groups at the U.N. climate summit in 
Buenos Aires called President George Bush ``immoral'' and 
``illegitimate'' for not supporting the Kyoto Protocol, the groups 
themselves concede the Protocol will only have ``symbolic'' effect on 
climate because they believe it is too weak. Kyoto is an international 
treaty that seeks to limit greenhouse gases of the developed countries 
by 2012.
  ``I think that everybody agrees that Kyoto is really, really hopeless 
in terms of delivering what the planet needs,'' Peter Roderick of 
Friends of the Earth International told CNSNews.com. ``It's tiny, it's 
tiny, tiny, it's tiny,'' Roderick said. ``It is woefully inadequate, 
woefully. We need huge cuts to protect the planet from climate 
change.'' Roderick believes a global climate emergency can only be 
averted by a greenhouse gas limiting treaty of massive proportions. 
``We are talking basically of huge, huge cuts,'' said Roderick.
  I ask you, if Kyoto isn't enough to solve the purported problem, and 
McCain-Lieberman would reduce emissions by even less, why are we even 
thinking of doing it?
  What we need is a comprehensive energy policy that recognizes our 
need for a secure and affordable supply of energy that drives economic 
growth and creates jobs in America. Our energy policy cannot be formed 
in a vacuum; it must recognize the global competition for energy that 
we face and why such competition exists.
  The United States is a model for much of the world. Developing 
nations have seen the value of low cost energy as a means of lifting 
their citizens out of poverty and misery. We are seeing it today in 
China and India, and they are not doing it relying on government 
mandates and bureaucracy. They are improving the standard of living of 
their people through economic growth that provides good paying jobs for 
hard working citizens.
  Does this mean we have to choose between a strong, growing economy 
and a clean environment? No, of course not. These two important goals 
work together. Economic growth is the means of environmental 
responsibility. Earlier on the Senate floor, Senator Domenici declared 
that the Energy bill ought to be called the ``Clean Energy Act'' due to 
the many incentives and requirements it contains for clean sources of 
energy--wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, clean coal technologies, 
hydrogen, ethanol, and biodiesel--and the many requirements for 
improved energy efficiency which will reduce energy use and, therefore, 
emissions.
  Numerous of my colleagues have delineated the efficiency measures, 
energy savings and incentives in the bill before us and how this 
package will slash emissions through reducing the need to burn fossil 
fuels and thus reducing emissions. Nuclear power, IGCC, renewables, and 
the encouragement of transmission investment to increase customer 
access to cheaper, more efficient sources of electricity, will reduce 
emissions by using less fuel to make electricity.
  In addition, increased production of ethanol and biodiesel fuels and 
the incentives for hybrid cars will substantially reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions. Senator Domenici included in the Record a detailed statement 
of all of the provisions in the Energy bill that are aimed at new 
technologies that will

[[Page S7017]]

have no global warming emissions, and I won't repeat that list here.
  Neverthless, let me offer a few important statistics on the impact of 
the current energy bill:
  Passage of the bipartisan energy bill will save nearly 2 million jobs 
over the next decade, according to a study released today by the 
national association of manufacturers, the manufacturing institute and 
the american council for capitol formation.
  The bill will reduce U.S. energy use by about 2.4 percent in 2020 
compared to baseline forecasts by the U.S. energy information 
administration. The bill will also reduce natural gas use in 2020 by 
about 1.1 trillion cubic feet, equivalent to current annual consumption 
by New York State. And the bill will reduce peak electric demand in 
2020 by about 50,000 MW, equivalent to the capacity of 170 powerplants, 
300 MW each.
  The energy efficiency standards in the bill will save so much energy 
in the coming years that by 2010, the electricity savings will total 12 
GWh and will reduce peak electric demand by the output of 12 new 300-MW 
powerplants. By 2020, the savings will total 66 GWh and reduce peak 
demand by the output of 75 new 300-MW plants. By 2030, the savings will 
equal 96 GWh and reduce peak demand by the output of 108 new 300-MW 
plants.
  The ethanol mandate in the Senate Energy bill will displace as much 
as 2 billion barrels of imported crude oil, lower the U.S. trade 
deficit by $67 billion, create $51 billion in new farm income and cut 
Government farm payments by an estimated $5.9 billion--all by 2012.
  Using 100 percent biodiesel reduces carbon dioxide emissions by more 
than 75 percent over petroleum diesel, while using a 20 percent 
biodiesel blend reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 15 percent.
  In 2003, U.S. nuclear powerplants avoided the emission of 679 million 
metric tons of carbon dioxide, from the fossil fuels that would have 
been burned to generate power in the absence of nuclear energy. Annual 
carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. electric sector are 
approximately 2,215 million metric tons. Without nuclear energy, U.S. 
electric sector carbon emissions would have been approximately 30 
percent higher.
  As we conserve energy and promote new clean sources of energy 
production, we burn less fossil fuel, thereby reducing emissions in the 
most economically sound manner.
  Even Senator McCain recognizes the need to promote clean sources of 
energy, namely nuclear energy and clean coal. He said:

       The fact is, nuclear is clean, producing zero emissions, 
     while the burning of fossil fuels to generate electricity 
     produces approximately 33 percent of the greenhouse gases 
     accumulating in the atmosphere, and is a major contributor to 
     air pollution affecting our communities.

  His proposal includes money and loan guarantees for new nuclear 
reactors, new ultra-clean coal power plants, plants to create ethanol 
from sources other than corn, and large-scale solar power sites. These 
projects are consistent with many of the incentives that are already 
included in the Energy bills.
  This is important since, if nuclear energy is to continue providing 
20 percent of the U.S.'s electrical supply, 50 new 1,000 megawatt power 
plants will have to be constructed by 2030.
  The Hagel-Pryor amendment that we accepted on Tuesday provides 
additional incentives to develop workable technology to control 
emissions without exporting jobs and stifling our economy. I voted for 
this because it allows us to find the right technology and to further 
explore whether we really have a problem to solve. We are not even sure 
that a warmer earth is a bad thing.
  I have spent significant time studying this issue. When I was 
chairman of the small business committee in the House of 
Representatives, I held extensive hearings on the Kyoto Protocol, which 
the current amendment is modeled after. I wanted to question both sides 
in depth on the scientific and economic sides of the issue. I reached 
the conclusion that the science of global warming is much less precise 
than either side would like to suggest. There is some evidence of ozone 
depletion but the evidence of resulting global warming is much more 
dubious. We are just not sure whether and to what extent the Earth is 
warming; it is not easy to take the Earth's temperature at any given 
time, and of course it is even more difficult to determine whether the 
Earth is warmer relative to past ages. Nothing that has been presented 
in the current debate has changed my mind.
  Even the National Academy of Sciences and their brethren 
organizations can say no more than it is ``likely'' that most of the 
warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. 
``Likely'' is not good enough to risk our jobs and our economy, 
especially since many other notable scientists aren't even that sure. 
Remember, it wasn't all that long ago when the scientists were telling 
us that an ice age was coming.
  My colleagues have already discussed how the Kyoto Protocol is not 
really helping the environment since countries participating in Kyoto 
have been unable to meet their targets and some, in fact, are seeking 
to find a way out of it due to its devastating economic impact and 
minimal environmental benefit.
  As you all know, the Kyoto Protocol would require industrialized 
nations to limit their greenhouse gas emissions to varying percentages 
below 1990 levels. However, all but 40 of the 192 countries in the 
world are exempted from Kyoto. This creates a two-tiered environmental 
obligation, forcing the entire burden of reducing greenhouse emissions 
on industrialized nations and turning the developing world into a 
pollution ``enterprise zone.'' This will not succeed in reversing 
``global warming'' or eliminating greenhouse gases; it would simply 
change their point of production and push millions of jobs overseas.
  America has been down this path before. In the 1987 Montreal Protocol 
on the production of ozone depleting chlorofluorocarbons, CFCs, the 
U.S. agreed to a framework eliminating the production of CFCs for 
industrialized nations only. Following the 1987 Protocol, the U.S. 
virtually eliminated production of CFCs in 10 years, but the developing 
world nearly doubled its production. The environmental consequences of 
the Kyoto treaty would be even worse. It is estimated that if the U.S. 
not only stabilizes emissions but also reduces greenhouse gas emissions 
by 50 percent and every other industrial country also reduces 
greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent, yet developing nations continue 
on their current path, then worldwide greenhouse gas emissions will 
increase by 250 percent before 2030. The factories other countries 
would build would not be subject to any of our environmental laws and 
would be much less healthy.
  I want to repeat that I have spent scores of hours studying this 
issue, and the conclusion is inescapable that, even if global warming 
is a problem, the Kyoto Protocol would have been a disaster for 
America, causing millions of people to lose their jobs. I cannot 
understand, therefore, why so many environmental groups keep pushing 
measures like it. We should all be able to agree that economic growth, 
while it poses real challenges for the environment, is necessary for 
the environment's health as well. Poor countries don't have strong 
environmental policies. So it is in everyone's interests to focus on 
real environmental concerns--and there are certainly enough of those--
without dividing the political community and wasting time and effort on 
proposals that make no sense from any point of view.
  A new bureaucratic program that creates economic incentives to solve 
a problem that may not exist is not a good addition to our pro-growth, 
pro-jobs, pro-environment Energy bill.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, our Nation is faced with the threat of 
global climate change that could fundamentally alter all of our lives 
and the lives of our children. California has a great deal to lose if 
we do not take steps to halt and reverse climate change. My State 
enjoys tremendous ecological diversity ranging from our cool and wet 
redwood forests of the north coast, to the hot Mojave and Colorado 
deserts in the southeast, to the vast and fertile agricultural 
stretches in the central valley. Climate change is a very real threat 
to those natural ecosystems.
  Scientific predictions indicate that human-induced global warming may

[[Page S7018]]

produce a 3- to 10-degree rise in temperature over the next 97 years. 
That may not initially sound dramatic. But it would be enough to change 
the timing and amount of precipitation in my State. This could, for 
instance, lead to decreased summer stream flows, which would intensify 
the already significant controversy over the allocation of water for 
urban, agricultural and environmental needs.
  Scientists also predict that by the year 2050, California will face 
higher average temperatures every month of the year in every part of 
the State. The average temperature in June in the Sierra Nevada 
Mountains could increase by 11 degrees Fahrenheit. The snow pack in the 
Sierra, which is a vital source of water in the State, is expected to 
drop by 13 feet and to have melted entirely nearly 2 months earlier 
than it does now. This could reduce the amount of precious water on 
which we now rely for agriculture, drinking water and other purposes.
  The solution to the climate change problem is to first reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions. In this regard, the McCain-Lieberman 
amendment would be a meaningful step in the right direction. It would 
create an innovative cap and trade system to reduce emissions. In 2010, 
the system would cap greenhouse gas emissions at the level that was 
released in the year 2000. It would then allow facilities to buy or 
sell credits that would allow for greenhouse gas emissions but within 
the overall cap. This could efficiently reduce overall levels of 
emissions while allowing flexibility for certain industries.
  The second step in solving the climate change problem is to increase 
the use of renewable resources, such as wind and solar. Unfortunately, 
this is where the McCain-Lieberman amendment doesn't just fall short, 
but would be a step backwards. The amendment includes provisions to 
provide financial assistance to so-called ``clean'' technologies. On 
its face, it sounds good. But, the amendment makes nuclear power 
eligible for these subsidies.
  Here we go again. The nuclear industry is once again knocking on 
Uncle Sam's door asking for Federal subsidies to pad their bottom line. 
We should oppose the nuclear industry's latest effort to raid the 
public purse. Nuclear power is not the solution to climate change, and 
it is not ``clean.'' The nuclear industry has not solved its waste and 
safety problems. By subsidizing the creation of new nuclear plants, we 
are condoning the creation of more waste and turning a blind eye to the 
hazards associated with nuclear power.
  Proponents of these subsidies say that they are not limited to 
nuclear power, and that many types of zero or low-emission technologies 
could benefit. However, the amendment creates an unfair playing field 
for this assistance by side-stepping the costs of nuclear power's waste 
and safety problems. A candid analysis of energy choices must consider 
the full life-cycle costs associated with each technology. This 
amendment fails to contain such an analysis. Thus, the amendment 
unfairly and irresponsibly ignores nuclear power's biggest problem--the 
waste. This could easily tip the scales in favor of more subsidies for 
nuclear plants, and less for other truly renewable technologies.
  The nuclear industry has already benefited from $145 billion in 
Federal subsidies over the last 50 years. Truly clean and renewable 
sources of energy, such as wind and solar, have received just $5 
billion.
  Moreover, these new subsidies could go to some of the world's biggest 
companies. The Top-10 nuclear energy producing corporations in the 
Nation are among the largest companies in the world. These companies 
include Duke Energy, Exelon and Dominion Resources, which are among the 
200 largest companies in the world.
  Do these large companies need Federal subsidies? No. These ten 
corporations earned more than $10 billion in profits in 2004 selling 
energy from a variety of sources.
  Subsidies for new nuclear plants are not a sound investment. The 
Federal Energy Information Administration and a representative of the 
nuclear industry both acknowledge that nuclear plants are not a viable 
technology without new subsidies. The EIA has stated that between 2003 
and 2025, ``new nuclear power plants are not expected to be 
economical.'' Thomas Capps, the Chief Executive Officer of Dominion 
Resources--which has more than $55 billion in assets--was asked about 
the economics of constructing new nuclear plants. He said, ``I am all 
for nuclear power--as long as Dominion doesn't have to take the risk . 
. .'' Instead of the nuclear industry taking the risk, the nuclear 
industry wants the public to shoulder the burden.
  New subsidies for new nuclear plants are unnecessary. The Department 
of Energy has shown that we can drastically reduce our Nation's climate 
change pollution without increasing the number of nuclear plants. We 
can and should solve the problem of climate change without increasing 
the problems of nuclear waste and safety.
  I wish that I could support the McCain-Lieberman amendment, as I did 
2 years ago. But by making the nuclear industry eligible for yet more 
subsidies, as a matter of principle, I cannot vote for this year's 
version.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have decided to support the McCain-
Lieberman amendment to H.R. 6 as an important step forward on combating 
global warming. However, I do so with significant reservations about 
the new language in this amendment providing additional Federal 
subsidies to the nuclear power industry.
  I am especially concerned about the potential amount of the loan 
guarantees provided, backed by the full faith and credit of the United 
States, and the possibility that any new nuclear facilities constructed 
could default on those loans. If, for any reason, the stream of revenue 
from auctioned credits is insufficient to cover the maintenance or 
clean-up costs of any facilities that default on such loans, then those 
costs and liabilities might end up in the Federal taxpayers lap. And we 
all know about the hundreds of billions of dollars in costs that 
taxpayers face because of the problems in the Departments of Energy and 
Defense nuclear weapons complex. That type of exposure seems unwise at 
best.
  This language was not in S.342, the Climate Stewardship Act, which I 
cosponsored and support, and I advised the sponsors of the amendment 
not to include it in this amendment. But, unfortunately, it is here in 
front of the Senate and the only options are yes or no. Senators know 
that there is already very substantial Federal involvement in support 
of nuclear power, from the Price-Anderson insurance program to the 
civilian waste repository program. It makes very little sense to me to 
pile further Federal dollars on top of an already rich web of support. 
This is particularly true since the Finance title of this legislation 
provides additional subsidies for new nuclear power generation.
  There is at least one other reason that nuclear power does not need 
additional support. There is no other source of electricity that will 
obtain a greater advantage in a carbon constrained world than nuclear 
power. This kind of legislation immediately levels the competitive 
playing field for nuclear power and investments as compared to 
conventional electricity generation that is more carbon intensive.
  The fastest, quickest and most economically efficient way to 
encourage development of and investment in new zero-emission generation 
is to tax or cap greenhouse gas emissions. The Federal Government 
should be a strong partner in supporting such research and investment 
and directing it toward the goal in the United Nations Framework 
Convention on Climate Change. That goal is stablization of atmospheric 
concentrations of manmade greenhouse gases at levels that will prevent 
dangerous interference with the global climate system.
  Without such an organizing goal, our Nation's climate research plan 
and energy subsidies and programs are simply a loose affiliation of 
ineffective and misdirected efforts. Unfortunately, that is the 
administration's preference. They prefer not to tackle this gravely 
important issue with a constructive and assertive international role or 
with a responsible domestic focus that will reduce greenhouse gases now 
or anytime within the time window necessary.
  I applaud the Senators from Arizona and Connecticut for continuing 
their efforts to set and reach this goal. I encourage them to remember 
my comments about nuclear subsidies if and

[[Page S7019]]

when this issue comes before the Senate again. I would also like to 
commend Senator Bingaman for his efforts to work on an additional 
bipartisan proposal inspired by the National Commission on Energy 
Policy.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to make comments regarding 
the McCain-Lieberman amendment addressing global climate change. I will 
vote in support of this amendment today, because I believe this country 
must get serious about putting in place a mandatory program to address 
the very real problem of greenhouse gas emissions. My vote today is 
based on the fact I believe the United States must make a strong, 
economy-wide commitment to addressing the threat of climate change. But 
at the same time, I would also like to note that I retain serious 
reservations about a number of specific provisions added to this 
legislation since the Senate last considered it, during the 108th 
Congress.
  Specifically, I have strong concerns about the nuclear provisions 
that were added to the McCain-Lieberman amendment. Nuclear technology 
may be emissions free, but it is not without substantial environmental 
costs measured on a completely different scale. This is a fact we in 
Washington know all too well, since our State is home to the Hanford 
Nuclear Reservation--one of the biggest nuclear remediation projects in 
the world, including 53 million gallons of high-level nuclear waste 
stored in underground tanks located far too close to the Columbia 
River. Hanford's nuclear legacy is the result of production activities 
undertaken in the service of our national defense, from World War II 
through the Cold War. While there are obviously different challenges 
associated with defense and commercial wastes, Hanford nevertheless 
highlights for me the very significant distance we have yet to travel 
when it comes to grappling with the environmental costs of nuclear 
technology.
  So while I wish my colleagues had not added certain provisions to 
their climate change proposal, I also understand--from the statements 
they have made on the floor today--that this amendment remains a work 
in progress. I believe the most important thing is to make sure we do 
not obscure what this amendment is really about. It is about the need 
for this country to step up, and to develop a real national strategy to 
address the issue of climate change.
  I have spoken on this floor before about the scientific consensus 
that has emerged regarding the threat of global warming. I have 
addressed the issues of potential economic costs associated with 
climate change, particularly in the Pacific Northwest where nearly 
every sector of our economy relies in some way on the Columbia River. 
That river, in turn, is fed by mountain snowpack that many have 
projected may well be diminishing due to global warming. I have also 
spoken about this Nation's opportunity to take the lead in the global 
race for energy independence, to develop the next generation of energy 
technologies and create the jobs that will go along with them.
  We are a problem-solving nation. When we are faced with a grave 
threat, we roll up our sleeves, put our heads together, and fix our 
problems; we don't push them off on our children and future 
generations. Climate change is too alarming a trend for us to ignore. 
For that reason, I will vote to support the McCain-Lieberman amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I believe climate change is occurring; I 
believe we are causing it; I believe it is a threat to the planet; and 
I believe it is long past time for action. Nevertheless, I can't 
support the McCain-Lieberman amendment since its effect would be the 
loss of more American manufacturing jobs to countries that have few, if 
any, environmental standards. That won't help the environment and it 
will hurt our economy. Climate change is not something we can tackle by 
shifting industries and their emissions to other countries, or by 
shifting manufacturing jobs to China or other countries that have no 
limits on emissions of greenhouse gases. The bill before us reflects a 
unilateral approach to a problem that can only be solved globally.
  Climate change cannot be addressed unilaterally. It must be addressed 
multilaterally. It doesn't help the global environment to push down 
greenhouse gas emissions in one country only to have them pop up in 
others. We need an international agreement that binds all countries. 
Otherwise, there is an incentive to move more and more jobs to 
countries with lower environmental standards. That does nothing to 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and does damage to U.S. jobs.
  We need to return to the negotiating table and become a party to an 
effective international treaty on climate change that binds all 
countries. In my view, the Kyoto Treaty is insufficient because it does 
not impose requirements on the developing economies of India and China 
as it does on the United States and others. Those requirements need not 
be the same size or implemented in the same time frame, but they need 
to be a part of a global treaty's obligations. China and India are 
growing so fast that leaving them out of binding commitments and 
financial contributions would be a travesty for the environment and an 
economic competitive windfall for those countries. And it would be 
further insult and injury to our workers, many of whose jobs have 
already gone overseas.
  Another problem with Kyoto is that the specified caps are based on 
1990 levels, and because of the subsequent economic downturn in Russia 
and other former Soviet countries, they can easily meet their targeted 
reductions and profit from the resulting emissions credits.
  Instead, we need an international agreement in which all countries 
take steps to reduce global warming so that there is no incentive to 
move jobs and emissions from a country with high environmental 
standards to one with low environmental standards. The basis of that 
agreement must be for competing countries to adopt tough environmental 
standards and for all participants to refuse to purchase products from 
countries that won't adopt those standards.
  I am confident that it is possible to craft an international treaty 
that controls global emissions in a way that is fair to developed and 
developing countries. One example of that was the Montreal Protocol 
that bans the use and manufacture of ozone depleting compounds. This 
treaty also had the side benefits of eliminating a whole class of 
greenhouse gases and created new market opportunities for U.S. 
technology developers.
  Engaging with other countries and coming to the table as a partner in 
an effective international treaty is essential to a global solution. To 
achieve a global agreement will require our putting maximum pressure on 
all countries to join it, so that emissions of greenhouse gases can be 
reduced, not just shifted. Shifting manufacturing jobs and the 
production of greenhouse gases from here to other countries is not a 
solution to climate change--it would just be another economic blow to 
jobs in America.
  Some firms who have deployed energy saving technologies and processes 
well in advance of the reference date may be discriminated against by 
this cap and trade proposal. For example, while this bill does have a 
provision for early banking of allowances, firms that implemented 
energy savings in the past 15 years may not have records of greenhouse 
gas emissions to allow credit for the action. Firms that installed 
energy saving measures prior to 1990 could also be unfairly 
disadvantaged because they would not be able to claim the savings in 
greenhouse gas emissions and further measures are likely to be more 
difficult than for firms that had delayed action. Legislation and 
treaties limiting greenhouse gas emissions should reward, rather than 
punish, this foresight.
  We have already lost enough American jobs to countries with cheap 
labor, no safety standards, and no environmental standards. To add more 
incentives for companies to move overseas to countries with no limits 
on greenhouse gases, as this bill would promote, is not sound policy. 
Global climate change is just that: global and it needs to be dealt 
with globally, not unilaterally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 17 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. And the other side?

[[Page S7020]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the other side has expired.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Inhofe for working 
together as we try to give both sides equal time. I yield myself 9 
minutes. Senator Lieberman will take the remaining time.
  Mr. President, the amendment incorporates the provisions of S. 342, 
the Climate Stewardship Act of 2005, in its entirety, along with a new 
comprehensive title regarding the development and deployment of climate 
change reduction technologies. This new title, when combined with the 
``cap and trade'' provisions of the previously introduced Climate 
Stewardship Act, will promote the commercialization of technologies 
that can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, mitigate the 
impacts of climate change, and increase the Nation's energy 
independence. And, it will help to keep America at the cutting edge of 
innovation where the jobs and trade opportunities of the new economy 
are to be found.
  In fact, the ``cap and trade'' provisions and the new technology 
title are complementary parts of a comprehensive program that will 
allow us to usher in a new energy era, an era of responsible and 
innovative energy production and use that will yield enormous 
environmental, economic, and diplomatic benefits. The cap and trade 
portion provides the economic driver for existing and new technologies 
capable of supplying reliable and clean energy and making the best use 
of America's available energy resources. Our comprehensive proposal 
offers multiple benefits for our environment and our economy. We simply 
need the political will to match the public's concern about climate 
change, the economic interests of business and consumers, and American 
technological ingenuity and expertise.
  Our comprehensive amendment sets forth a sound course toward a 
productive, secure, and clean energy future. Its provisions are based 
on the important efforts undertaken by academia, government, and 
business over the past decade to determine the best ways and means 
towards this energy future. Most of these studies have shared two 
common findings. First, significant reductions in greenhouse gases--
well beyond the modest goals of our amendment--are feasible over the 
next 10-20 years using technologies available today. Second, the most 
important technological deployment opportunities to reduce emissions 
over the next two decades lie with energy efficient technologies and 
renewable energy sources, including solar, wind, and biofuels. For 
example, in the electric power sector, which accounts for one-third of 
U.S. emissions, major pollution reductions can be achieved by improving 
the efficiency of existing fossil fuel plants, adding new reactors 
designs for nuclear power, expanding use of renewable power sources, 
and significantly reducing electricity demand with the use of energy-
saving technologies currently available to residential and commercial 
consumers. These clean technologies need to be promoted and that is 
what our legislation is about.
  Before describing the details of this amendment, I think it is 
important to talk about what has occurred since the Senate vote on this 
issue in October 2003.
  I could go on and on about the impacts of climate change and the 
associated science, yet there is still an ongoing debate in this town 
about whether or not climate change is real. If you still have doubts, 
I'd refer you to the powerful joint statement issued just two weeks ago 
by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and national academies from 
other G8 countries, along with those of Brazil, China, and India. Here 
are just a few quotes from the joint statement:

       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.
       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.
       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.

  These statements are powerful and compelling, and I would hope they 
would help to spur meaningful action in our country to address this 
grave problem.
  The academies' statements are despite attempts by some public 
officials to ``muddy'' the science of global warming. In the June 8 New 
York Times, there was a very disturbing article on how many of the 
scientific reports on climate change have been ``edited'' by an 
official in the White House's Council on Environmental Quality. The 
article makes major implications for the future of not only climate 
change science, but also the future of science in general. The U.S. has 
always touted its superiority in science and technology. Reports such 
as these attack the credibility of the Nation's science and technology 
infrastructure at a time when many within government and industry say 
we are losing our competitive edge.
  The article mentions that the changes to the documents can cause a 
clear shift in the meaning of the documents--a shift in science. This 
is outrageous and inexcusable behavior and the consequences of such 
actions could be severe. Historically, we have been able to exempt 
science as a political tool. But it now sounds like some have taken it 
upon themselves to turn climate change science into political science. 
That is unacceptable.
  Perhaps this is why Prime Minister Blair has conceded that he has no 
chance persuading the President to change his position on climate 
change. I guess this is understandable now that we have learned that 
the two are operating under a different set of facts.
  I also note a recent article in the Washington Post concerning the 
administration's efforts to weaken key aspects of a proposal for joint 
action on climate change by the G8 nations. We should all be able to 
agree that climate change policy should be based upon sound science. I 
hope that whatever policy comes from the G8 leaders it would reflect 
the urgency and the magnitude of the problem as indicated in the joint 
statement of the academies of science from the G8 countries, China, 
India and Brazil.
  The fact is, the unaltered scientific evidence of human-induced 
climate change has grown even more abundant. Since February of this 
year, when I highlighted the results of the Arctic Climate Impact 
Assessment, even more startling evidence about the Arctic region has 
been revealed. In a recent Congressional briefing, Dr. Robert Corell, 
Chair of Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, presented data indicating 
that climate change in the Arctic is occurring more rapidly than 
previously thought. Annual average arctic temperatures have increased 
at twice the rate of global temperatures over the past several decades, 
with some regions increasing by five to ten times the global average.
  The latest observations show Alaska's 2004 June-July-August mean 
temperature to be nearly 5 degrees Fahrenheit above the 1971-2000 
historic mean, and permafrost temperature increasing enough to cause it 
to start melting. Dr. Corell said the Greenland ice sheet is melting 
more rapidly than thought even 5 years ago, and that the climate models 
indicate that warming over Greenland is likely to be up to three times 
the global average, with warming projected to be in the range of 5 to 
11 degrees Fahrenheit, which will most certainly lead to sea-level 
rise. These are remarkable new scientific findings.
  It isn't surprising that just last month, indigenous leaders from 
Arctic regions called on the European Union to do more to fight global 
warming and to consider giving aid to their peoples, saying their way 
of life is at risk. Global warming is said to be causing the arrival in 
the far north of mosquitoes bearing infectious diseases. And in 
Scandinavia, more frequent rains in the winter are causing sheets of 
ice to develop on top of snow, causing animals to die of hunger because 
they cannot reach the grass underneath.

       ``We are not asking for sympathy,'' said Larisa Abrutina of 
     the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North. 
     ``We are asking each country in the world to examine if it is 
     truly doing its part to slow climate change.''

  The efforts taking place globally to address climate change have 
gained even greater prominence. For example,

[[Page S7021]]

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has made climate change one of his 
top two issues during his Presidency of the G8. Mr. Blair's commitment 
to addressing climate change should be commended. He has chosen to take 
action and not to hide behind the uncertainties that the science 
community will soon resolve. The Prime Minister made it clear in a 
January speech at World Economic Forum in Davos as to his intentions 
when he said, ``. . . if America wants the rest of the world to be a 
part of the agenda it has set, it must be a part of their agenda too.''
  The top two issues that Prime Minister Blair has chosen to deal with 
are climate change and poverty in Africa. It is interesting to note 
that another article in the New York Times highlighted recently the 
connection between the two issues. The article describes how a 50 year 
long drying trend is likely to continue and appears to be tightly 
linked to substantial warming of the Indian Ocean. According to Dr. 
James Hurrell, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric 
Research, ``. . . the Indian Ocean shows very clear and dramatic 
warming into the future, which means more and more drought for southern 
Africa. It is consistent with what we would expect from an increase in 
greenhouse gases.'' It appears that Mr. Blair's two priorities are 
quickly becoming one enormous challenge.
  Mr. Blair enjoys strong support for efforts from industry. Recently, 
business leaders from 13 UK and international companies sent a letter 
to the Prime Minister stating there is a need for urgent action to be 
taken now to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, and to offer to 
work in partnership with the government toward strengthening domestic 
and international progress on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
  Furthermore, the heads of 23 global companies released a statement on 
June 9th, expressing strong support for action to mitigate climate 
change and the importance of market-based solutions. The statement was 
prepared by the G8 Climate Change Roundtable, which is comprised of 
companies headquartered in 10 nations throughout the world, including 
companies from a broad cross-section of industry sectors. The statement 
was in response to an invitation from the Prime Minister to provide 
business perspectives on climate change in advance of the G8 Summit 
that will take place in Gleneagles, Scotland, in early July.
  The Roundtable's statement says ``We recognize that we have a 
responsibility to act on climate change.'' It further acknowledges 
there ``is a need for further, significant efforts to reduce greenhouse 
gas emissions'' . . . ``because of the cumulative nature and long 
residence time of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, action must be 
taken now.'' It also calls upon governments to establish ``clear, 
transparent, and consistent price signals'' through the creation of a 
long-term policy framework that includes all major emitters of 
greenhouse gases. The statement highlights the need for technology 
incentive programs to accelerate commercialization of low carbon 
technologies. Finally, the statement calls for a ``new partnership'' 
between the G8 countries and China, India, Brazil, South Africa, and 
Mexico to facilitate private investment in low carbon infrastructure.
  In addition to the international industries support, I think it is 
very important to mention that there are now a number of U.S. industry 
leaders that have begun voicing their concerns for the need to take 
action, including GE, Duke, Excelon, Shell, and JP Morgan Chase. We 
welcome these and other leaders' participation and insight in this 
debate of worldwide consequence.
  In the September 2004 issue, The National Geographic devotes 74 pages 
laying out in great detail the necessity of tackling our planet's 
problem of global warming. In an introductory piece, Editor-in-Chief 
Bill Allen described just how important he thinks this particular 
series of articles is:

       Why would I publish articles that make people angry enough 
     to stop subscribing? That's easy. These three stories cover 
     subjects that are too important to ignore. From Antarctica to 
     Alaska to Bangladesh, a global warming trend is altering 
     habitats, with devastating ecological and economic effects. . 
     . . This isn't science fiction or a Hollywood movie. We're 
     not going to show you waves swamping the Statue of Liberty. 
     But we are going to take you all over the world to show you 
     the hard truth as scientists see it. I can live with some 
     canceled memberships. I'd have a harder time looking at 
     myself in the mirror if I didn't bring you the biggest story 
     in geography today.

  The articles highlight many interesting facts. Dr. Lonnie Thompson of 
Ohio State University collects ice cores from glaciers around the 
world, including the famed snows of Kilimanjaro, which could vanish in 
15 years. According to Dr. Thompson, ``What glaciers are telling us, is 
that it's now warmer than it has been in the past 2,000 years over vast 
areas of the planet.'' Many of the ice cores he has in his freezer may 
soon contain the only remains of the glaciers from which they came 
from.
  Highlighted quotes from the articles include:

       Things that normally happen in geologic time are happening 
     during the span of a human lifetime; the future breakdown of 
     the thermohaline circulation remains a disturbing 
     possibility; more than a hundred million people worldwide 
     live within three feet of mean sea level; at some point, as 
     temperatures continue to rise, species will have no room to 
     run; the natural cycles of interdependent creatures may fall 
     out of sync; and we'll have a better idea of the actual 
     changes in 30 years. But it's going to be a very different 
     world.

  Global warming demands urgent action on all fronts, and we have an 
obligation to promote the technologies that can help us meet the 
challenge. Our aim has never been simply to introduce climate 
stewardship legislation. Rather our purpose is to have legislation 
enacted to begin to address the urgent global warming crisis that is 
upon us. This effort cannot be about political expediency. It must be 
about practical realities and addressing the most pressing issue facing 
not only our Nation, but the world. We believe that our legislation 
offers practical and effective solutions and we urge each member's 
careful consideration and support.
  I want to describe some of the amendment's major provisions designed 
to enhance innovation and commercialization in key areas. These include 
zero and low greenhouse gas emitting power generation, such as nuclear, 
coal gasification, solar and other renewables, geological carbon 
sequestration, and biofuels:
  The amendment directs the Secretary of Commerce, through the former 
Technology Administration, which would be renamed the Innovation 
Administration, to develop and implement new policies that foster 
technological innovation to address global warming. These new 
directives include: Developing and implementing strategic plans to 
promote technological innovation; identifying and removing barriers to 
the research, development, and commercialization of key technologies; 
prioritizing and maximizing key federal R&D programs to aid innovation; 
establishing public/private partnerships to meet vital innovation 
goals; and promoting national infrastructure and educational 
initiatives that support innovation objectives.
  It also authorizes the Secretary of Energy to establish public/
private partnerships to promote the commercialization of climate change 
technologies by working with industry to advance the design and 
demonstration of zero and low emission technologies in the 
transportation and electric generation sectors. Specifically, the 
Secretary would be authorized to partner with industry to share the 
costs (50/50) of ``first-of-a-kind'' designs for advanced coal, nuclear 
energy, solar and biofuels. Moreover, each time that a utility builds a 
plant based on the ``first-of-a-kind engineering'' design authorized by 
this amendment, a ``royalty'' type payment will be paid by the utility 
to reimburse the original amount provided by the government.
  After the detail design phase is complete, the Secretary would be 
able to provide loans or loan guarantees (up to 80 percent) for the 
construction of these new designs, including: Three nuclear plant 
designs certified by the NRC that would produce zero greenhouse gas 
emissions; three advanced coal gasification plants with carbon capture 
and storage that make use of our abundant coal resources while storing 
carbon emissions underground; three large scale solar energy plants to 
begin to tap the enormous potential of this completely clean energy 
source;

[[Page S7022]]

and three large scale facilities to produce the clean, efficient, and 
plentiful biofuel of the future--cellulosic ethanol.
  The loan program will be administered by a Climate Technology 
Financing Board, whose membership will include the Secretary of Energy, 
a representative from the Climate Change Credit Corporation, as would 
be created in the amendment, and others with pertinent expertise. Once 
each plant is operational, the private partner will be obligated to pay 
back these loans from the government, as is the case with any 
construction loan.

  I think it is important to be very clear about this ambitious, but 
necessary, technology title. We intend that much, if not all, of the 
costs of the demonstration initiatives, along with the loan program, 
will be financed by the early sale of emission allowances through the 
Climate Change Credit Corporation under the cap and trade program. 
While we would prefer to allow for the Corporation to expend these 
funds directly, our budgetary process doesn't readily lend itself to 
allow this--direct spending is not a popular proposition these days. 
Therefore, the amendment authorizes the revenues generated under the 
program to then be appropriated for these key technology programs. 
However, the industry and the market will actually be footing much of 
the bill, not the taxpayers. And, as I already mentioned, the amendment 
requires that any federal money used to build plants will be repaid by 
the utility when the plant becomes operational.
  Finally, the amendment contains a mechanism requiring utilities to 
pay reimbursement ``royalties'' as they build plants based on zero and 
low emission designs created with federal assistance. Again, this 
approach is more fair and certain than requiring taxpayers to cover the 
entire costs of these programs. But there will be some costs. That is 
why it is important to weigh these expenditures against the staggering 
cost of inaction on global warming. I think we'll find more than a 
justified cost-benefit outcome.
  In addition to promoting new or underutilized technologies, the 
amendment also includes a provision to aid in the deployment of 
available and efficient energy technologies. This would be accomplished 
through a ``reverse auction'' provision, which would establish a cost 
effective and proven mechanism for federal procurement and incentives. 
Providers' ``bids'' would be evaluated by the Secretary on their 
ability to reduce, eliminate, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions.
  The ``reverse auction'' program also would be funded initially by the 
early sale of emission allowances. Eventually, the program would be 
funded by the proceeds from the annual auction of tradeable allowances 
conducted by the Climate Change Credit Corporation under the cap and 
trade program.
  I want to clarify that this amendment doesn't propose to dictate to 
industry what is economically prudent for their particular operations. 
Rather, it provides a basis for the selection and implementation of 
their own market-based solutions, using a flexible emissions trading 
system model that has successfully reduced acid rain pollution under 
the Clean Air Act at a fraction of anticipated costs (less than 10 
percent of the costs that some had predicted when the legislation was 
enacted). That successful model can and must be used to address this 
urgent and growing global warming crisis upon us.
  The ``cap and trade'' approach to emission management is a method 
endorsed by Congress and free-market proponents for over 15 years after 
it was first applied to sulfur dioxide pollution. Applying the same 
model to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is a matter of good 
policy and simple, common sense. It is an approach endorsed by industry 
leaders such as Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric, one of the 
largest companies in the U.S.
  Moreover using the proven market principles that underlie cap and 
trade will harness American ingenuity and innovation and do more to 
spur the innovation and commercialization of advanced environmental 
technologies than any system of previous energy-bill style subsidies 
that Congress can devise.
  Three decades of assorted energy bills prove that while subsidies to 
promote alternative energy technologies may sometimes help, alone they 
are not transformational. In the 1970's, Americans were waiting in line 
for limited supplies of high priced gasoline. We created a Department 
of Energy to help us find a better way. Yet today, 30 years later, we 
remain wedded to fossil fuels, economically beholden to the Middle East 
and we continue to alter the makeup of the upper atmosphere with the 
ever-increasing volume of greenhouse gas emissions. Our dividend is 
continued energy dependence and global warming that places our nation 
and the globe at enormous environmental and economic risk. Not a very 
good deal.
  Cap and trade is the transformational mechanism for reducing carbon 
dioxide emissions, protecting the global environment, diversifying the 
nation's energy mix, advancing our economy, and spurring the 
development and deployment of new and improved technologies that can do 
the job. It is indispensable to the task before us.
  The Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act does not prescribe the 
exact formula by which allowances will be allocated under a cap and 
trade system. This should be determined administratively through a 
process developed with great care to achieve the principles and 
purposes of the Act. This includes assuring that high emitting 
utilities have ample incentives to clean up and can make emission 
reductions economically and that low emitting utilities are treated 
justly and recognized for their efficiency. Getting this balance right 
will not be easy, but it can and must be done.
  The fact remains that, if enacted, the bill's emission cap will not 
go into effect for another five years. In the interim there is much 
that the country can and should do to promote the most environmentally 
and economically promising technologies. This includes removing 
unnecessary barriers to commercialization of new technologies so that 
new plants, products, and processes can move more efficiently from 
design and development, to demonstration and, ultimately, to the market 
place. Again, without cap and trade, these efforts will pale, but the 
new technology title we propose will work hand in glove with the 
emission cap and trade system to meet our objectives.
  As I already mentioned, the new title contains a host of measures to 
promote the commercialization of zero and low-emission electric 
generation technologies, including nuclear, clean coal, solar and other 
renewable energies, and biofuels.


  National Commission on Energy Policy Approach will not address the 
                                problem

  We have come a long, long way in recognizing the reality of this 
problem. Some former skeptics not only have acknowledged that global 
warming is real, but agree that we have to do something about it. The 
challenge now is to make sure that the medicine fits the ailment, 
rather than to engage in half-measures that might check a political box 
but do nothing to actually solve the problem. As Washington proves time 
and again, half-measures are worse than doing nothing because they give 
Congress a false sense of accomplishment and merely delay the 
necessary, and often more difficult, actions.
  It is my understanding that some members have been preparing an 
alternative proposal to address climate change--one which would 
incorporate the recommendations of the National Commission on Energy 
Policy. The Commission has recommended an approach that seems to be 
intended to initially slow the projected growth in domestic greenhouse 
gas emissions, but not to reduce such emissions, as our proposal would 
provide. And there is some question as to the extent to which emissions 
would be allowed to increase in the near term under the Commission's 
approach. It also includes what is being termed a ``safety valve'' 
mechanism, which is more of an escape valve, which would allow for 
additional allowances to be purchased to emit additional emissions. 
``Pay and pollute'' is hardly the way to reducing the factors 
contributing to climate change.
  The problem with the Commission's recommendations is that there is no 
guarantee that any reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases 
would result. It has been demonstrated that

[[Page S7023]]

we could meet the Commission's emission intensity targets while still 
increasing our actual emissions. The emissions intensity approach is 
the same as that proposed by the Administration. And, as we well know, 
that approach is not working nor does it allow for us to join with our 
friends in the international community in jointly addressing this 
worldwide problem.
  Further, the Commission's safety valve proposal precludes any 
interface with the international trading market which would restrict 
the number of market opportunities for achieving low cost reductions. 
The U.S. simply would be trading with itself, which makes the cost of 
compliance even higher.
  If we look at the science of the Earth's climate system, it does not 
react to emission intensity, but rather, to the level of greenhouse 
gases in the atmosphere. So, if we are truly committed to addressing 
climate change, we need to act in a manner that actually addresses the 
related problems and not those that may make for good sound bites but 
are otherwise ineffective.
  As we evaluate different climate proposals, the fundamental question 
that should be asked is: ``What is the environmental benefit?''
  Under the Commission's plan, the answer could be ``none'' since, as I 
mentioned, the safety valve essentially allows industry to buy its way 
out of the problem, which of course, results in no environmental 
benefit. As we well know, such costs would simply be passed on to 
consumers, but how would be consumers benefit? Would they get cleaner 
air? A better environment? Furthermore by having such an ``escape 
valve'', the powers of innovation and technology development to 
substantially reduce costs is strangled. Why invest in new technologies 
when you have the guaranteed option to just ``pay and pollute?''

  Of course, I welcome the growing level of interest and discussion by 
the Senate on what many have called ``the greatest environmental threat 
of out time.'' However, the proposal as recommended by the Commission 
doesn't go far enough to address that great threat. And it has the 
potential to generate huge costs to the taxpayers with no environmental 
benefit.
  I want to take some time to address the amendment's nuclear 
provisions. Although these provisions are only part of the 
comprehensive technology package, I'm sure they will be the focus of 
much attention.
  I know that some of our friends in the environmental community 
maintain strong objections to nuclear energy, even though it supplies 
nearly 20 percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. and much 
higher proportions in places such as France, Belgium, Sweden and 
Switzerland--countries that aren't exactly known for their 
environmental disregard. But the fact is, nuclear is, producing 
emissions, while the burning of fossil fuels to generate electricity 
produces approximately 33 percent of the greenhouse gases accumulating 
in the atmosphere, and is a major contributor to air pollution 
affecting our communities
  The idea that nuclear power should play no role in our energy mix is 
an unsustainable position, particularly given the urgency and magnitude 
of the threat posed by global warming which most regard as the greatest 
environmental threat to the planet.
  The International Energy Agency estimates that the world's energy 
consumption is expected to rise over 65 percent within the next fifteen 
years. If the demand for electricity is met using traditional coal-
fired power plants, not only will we fail to reduce carbon emissions as 
necessary, the level of carbon in the atmosphere will skyrocket, 
intensifying the greenhouse effect and the global warming it produces.
  As nuclear plants are decommissioned, the percentage of U.S. 
electricity produced by this zero-emission technology will actually 
decline. Therefore, at a minimum, we must make efforts to maintain 
nuclear energy's level of contribution, so that this capacity is not 
replaced with higher-emitting alternatives. I, for one, believe it can 
and should play an even greater role, not because I have some 
inordinate love affair with splitting the atom, but for the very simple 
reason that we must support sustainable, zero-emission alternatives 
such as nuclear if we are serious about addressing the problem of 
global warming.
  In a recent editorial by Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, Mr. 
Kristof made the following observation: ``It's increasingly clear that 
the biggest environmental threat we face is actually global warming and 
that leads to a corollary: nuclear energy is green.'' He goes on to 
quote James Lovelock, a British scientist who created the Gaia 
principle that holds the earth is a self-regulating organism. He quoted 
Mr. Lovelock as follows:

       I am a Green, and I entreat my friends in the movement to 
     drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy. Every 
     year that we continue burning carbon makes it worse for our 
     descendents Only one immediately available source does not 
     cause global warming, and that is nuclear energy.

  I have always been and will remain a committed supporter of solar and 
renewable energy. Renewables hold great promise, and, indeed, the 
technology title contains equally strong incentives in their favor. But 
today solar and renewables account for only about 3 percent of our 
energy mix. We have a long way to go, and that is one of the objectives 
of this legislation--to help promote these energy technologies.
  I want to stress nothing in this title alters, in any way, the 
responsibilities and authorities of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 
Safety and security will remain, as they should, paramount in the 
citing, design, construction and operation of nuclear power plants. And 
the winnowing effect of the tree market, as it should, will still 
determine which technologies succeed or fail in the market place. But 
the idea that a zero-emission technology such as nuclear has little or 
no place in our energy mix is just as antiquated, out-of-step and 
counter-productive as our continued dependence on fossil fuels. Should 
it prevail, our climate stewardship and clean air goals will be 
virtually impossible to meet.
  The environmental benefit of nuclear energy is exactly why during his 
tenure, my friend, Morris Udall, one of the greatest environmental 
champions the United States has ever known, sponsored legislation in 
the House, as I did in the Senate, to develop a standardized nuclear 
reactor that would maximize safety, security, and efficiency. The 
Department of Energy has done much of the work called for by that 
legislation. Now it's time for the logical next steps. The new title of 
this legislation promotes these steps by authorizing federal 
partnership to develop first of a kind engineering for the latest 
reactor designs, and then to construct three demonstration plants. Once 
the demonstration has been made, tree-market competition will take it 
from there. And the amendment provides similar partnership mechanisms 
for the other clean technologies, so we are in no way favoring one 
technology over another.
  No doubt, some people will object to the idea of the federal 
government playing any role in helping demonstrate and commercialize 
new and beneficial nuclear designs. I have spent 20 years in this body 
fighting for the responsible use of taxpayer dollars and against pork-
barrel spending and corporate welfare. I will continue to do so.
  The fact remains that fossil fuels have been subsidized for many 
decades at levels that can scarcely be calculated. The enormous 
economic costs of damage caused by air pollution and 11 greenhouse gas 
emissions to the environment and human health are not factored into the 
price of power produced by fossil-fueled technologies. Yet it's a cost 
that we all bear, too often in terms of ill-health and diminished 
quality of life. That is simply a matter of fact.
  It's also inescapable that the ability to ``externalize'' these costs 
places clean competitors at a great disadvantage. Based on that fact, 
and in light of the enormous environmental and economic risk posed by 
global warming, I believe that providing zero and low emission 
technologies such as nuclear a boost into the market place where they 
can compete, and either sink or swim, is responsible public policy, and 
a matter of simple public necessity, particularly, as we enact a cap on 
carbon emissions.
  The Navy has operated nuclear powered submarine for more than 50 
years and has an impressive safety and performance record. The Naval 
Reactors program has demonstrated that nuclear power can be done 
safely. One of

[[Page S7024]]

the underpinning of its safety record is the approach used in its 
reactor designs, which is to learn and built upon previous designs. 
Unfortunately for the commercial nuclear industry, they have not had 
the opportunity to use such an approach since the industry has not been 
able to build a reactor in over the past 25 years. This lapse in 
construction has led us to where we are today with the industry's aging 
infrastructure. As we have learned from other industries, this in 
itself represents a great risk to public safety.
  I want to close my comments on the nuclear provisions with two 
thoughts. A recent article in Technology Review seems particularly 
pertinent to those with reservations about nuclear power. It stated, 
``The best way for doubters to control a new technology is to embrace 
it, lest it remain in the hands of the enthusiasts.'' This is 
particularly sage advice because, frankly, the facts make it 
inescapably clear--those who are serious about the problem of global 
warming are serious about finding a solution. And the rule of nuclear 
energy which has no emissions has to be given due consideration.
  Don't simply take my word regarding the magnitude of the global 
warming problem.
  In 2001, President Bush wanted an assessment of climate change 
science. He further stated that climate change policy should be based 
upon sound science. He then turned to the National Academy of Sciences 
for an analysis of some key issues concerning climate change.
  Shortly thereafter, the National Academy of Sciences reported that, 
``Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a 
result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and 
subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, 
rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely 
mostly due to human activities[.]''
  As I mentioned earlier, the National Academy along with the national 
academies of 10 other countries are now calling for not only action, 
but prompt action for significant reductions in greenhouse gas 
emissions.
  Let's also consider the warning on NASA's website which states: 
``With the possible exception of another world war, a giant asteroid, 
or an incurable plague, global warming may be the single largest threat 
to our planet.''
  Also consider the words of the EPA that: ``Rising global temperatures 
are expected to raise sea level, and change precipitation and other 
local climate conditions. Changing regional climate could alter forest, 
crop yields and water supplies[.]''
  And let's consider the views of President Bush's Science Advisor, Dr. 
John Marburger, who says that, ``Global warming exists, and we have to 
do something about it, and what we have to do about it is reduce carbon 
dioxide.'' Again, the chief science advisor to the President of the 
United States says that global warming exists, and what we have to do 
about it is to reduce carbon dioxide!
  The road ahead on climate change is a difficult and challenging one. 
However, with the appropriate investments in technology and the 
innovation process, we can and will prevail. Innovation and technology 
have helped us face many of our national challenges in the past, and 
can be equally important in this latest global challenge.
  Advocates of the status quo seem to suggest that we do nothing, or 
next to nothing, about global warming because we don't know how bad the 
problem might become, and many of the worst effects of climate change 
are expected to occur in the future. This attitude reflects a selfish, 
live-for-today attitude unworthy of a great nation, and thankfully, not 
one practiced by preceding generations of Americans who devoted 
themselves to securing a bright and prosperous tomorrow for future 
generations, not just their own.
  When looking back at Earth from space, the astronauts of Apollo 11 
could see features such as the Great Wall of China and forest fires 
dotting the globe. They were moved by how small, solitary and fragile 
the earth looked from space. Our small, solitary and fragile planet is 
the only one we have and the United States of America is privileged to 
lead in all areas bearing on the advance of mankind. And lead again, we 
must, Mr. President. It is our privilege and sacred obligation as 
Americans.
  I thank Senator Inhofe. He and I obviously have fundamental 
disagreements, and this probably won't be the last time we discuss our 
fundamental disagreement.
  I ask unanimous consent to print a letter from the chairman of the 
Environment Committee in the European Parliament in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    June 22, 2005.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     Chairman, Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, 
         Dirksen Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Ranking Member, Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, 
         Dirksen Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman: I have reviewed 
     a document, apparently prepared by the American Petroleum 
     Institute (API), claiming that the United States has reduced 
     its greenhouse gas emissions intensity more than most other 
     European Union countries and more than the EU as a whole. 
     Similar claims were apparently repealed on the floor of the 
     U.S. Senate yesterday, including remarks made by Senator 
     Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming. While we can not be absolutely 
     sure that the EU will be able to meet its Kyoto target--and a 
     lot of efforts still have to be done within members states to 
     further curb emissions--this claim truly misrepresents the 
     performance of the European Union and its member states 
     compared to the United States. Data from the U.S. Energy 
     Information Administration indicates the following.
       From 1980 to 2002, the carbon dioxide ``intensity'' (i.e., 
     absolute tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted per 
     thousand dollars of gross domestic product (GDP) of the EU-15 
     has fallen by 34 percent, from 0.52 to 0.34, From 1980 to 
     2002 US carbon dioxide ``intensity' has fallen from 0.99 to 
     0.62, i.e., by 38 percent. Thus, U.S. carbon dioxide 
     ``intensity'' has indeed fallen slightly faster than 
     Europe's.
       However, America's carbon dioxide ``intensity'' of 0.62 
     tons of carbon dioxide emissions per thousand dol1ars of GDP 
     is still nearly double that of the European Union (0.34), 
     meaning that the U.S. economy is only about half as efficient 
     from the point of view of carbon content as that of Europe. 
     To reduce carbon intensity in the U.S. thus is much easier--
     and costs much less--than what is the case in the EU.
       Furthermore, what matters to the atmosphere and to the 
     world in terms of climate change is not ``intensity, but 
     total emissions of greenhouse gases. Over the period 1980 to 
     2002, U.S. total emissions of carbon dioxide increased 20.9 
     percent from 1980, while total carbon dioxide emissions in 
     Europe rose by only 8.6 percent. If we look at the more 
     recent period, namely developments from 1997 to 2002, U.S. 
     total emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion 
     increased from 5543.28 million metric tons (MMT) to 5749.41 
     MMT--this is by 206.13 MMT, or more than twice the total 
     emissions of Greece. Total carbon dioxide emissions from 
     fossil fuel combustion in Europe rose by only 145.06 million 
     metric tons of carbon dioxide during that same period (from 
     3307.16 MMT in 1997 to 3452.22 MMT in 2002). And, U.S. total 
     emissions of carbon dioxide are nearly two-thirds higher 
     (66.5 percent) than Europe's, despite the fact that the EU 
     has about 91 million more people than the United States.
       Six months ago, the European Union launched the world's 
     first-ever regional cap and trade market for cutting 
     greenhouse gas emissions. While in its infancy, that market, 
     together with other programs that the EU has instituted, is 
     beginning to provide powerful incentives for EU companies to 
     boost their economic growth while cutting their greenhouse 
     gas emissions. Parallel to that a series of policy 
     instruments have been introduced to encourage our citizens to 
     use energy in a more efficient way. As already stated, we do 
     experience problems in several member states when it comes to 
     meeting the Kyoto target. Emissions in the transport sector 
     cause particular concern and we are currently discussing ways 
     and means both to encourage greater use of bio-fuels and to 
     enhance fuel-efficiency for new cars. But in general terms I 
     believe our climate action program has to be considered a 
     model for how to go about emissions reductions in both a 
     responsible and cost-effective way.
       From the European Parliament point of view we very much 
     welcome contacts and dialogue with the U.S. Congress on 
     issues related to climate change. We strongly believe there 
     is a need to improve cooperation between Europe and the U.S. 
     on this issue. We welcome any opportunity for dialogue with 
     members of the U.S. Congress. I should mention that some of 
     us will participate in a one-day conference in London on July 
     3rd--on the invitation by Globe--where parliamentarians from 
     all over the world will come together and discuss climate 
     change. Regretful as it is, as of today we have no U.S. 
     participants confirmed. Another opportunity for dialogue 
     might be a conference in Washington, DC in September 20-21--
     the Trans-Atlantic Dialogue on Climate Change--organized by 
     Environment Defense in close cooperation with the European 
     Commission.

[[Page S7025]]

       I understand that you are currently holding hearings on 
     energy and climate-related subjects. I respectfully request 
     that this letter can be made a part of the Record of your 
     deliberations so as to avoid any misconceptions about climate 
     policy in Europe. Looking very much forward to future 
     contacts with you on these important issues!
                                              Hon. Anders Wijkman,
                                    Member of European Parliament.

  Mr. McCAIN. This is a letter to Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman 
from the chairman of the Environment Committee of the European 
Parliament. Basically, it says--astonishingly, I am shocked--I have 
reviewed a study prepared by the American Petroleum Institute, that 
unbiased bystander on this issue, ``claiming that the United States has 
reduced its greenhouse gas emissions intensity more than most other 
European Union countries and more than the EU as a whole. Similar 
claims were apparently repeated on the floor of the U.S. Senate 
yesterday, including remarks made by Senator Michael B. Enzi . . . 
While we can not be absolutely sure that the EU will be able to meet 
its Kyoto target . . . this claim truly misrepresents the performance 
of the European Union and its member states compared to the United 
States,'' which it does.
  It should surprise no one that the American Petroleum Institute would 
put out less than an objective study.
  Yesterday, Senator Voinovich and others referred to analysis by 
Charles River Associates concerning our climate change amendment, 
stating it would result in the loss of 24,000 to 47,000, blah, blah, 
blah. I think it is important to know that the Charles River Associates 
study was funded by an outfit called United for Jobs, Americans for Tax 
Reform, and various other industry-related entities, including 
petroleum-related organizations. It is based on totally false 
assumptions, including assuming a 70-year time line. I ask unanimous 
consent that a rebuttal to the Charles River Associates climate 
stewardship assumption article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Charles River Associates and Climate Stewardship: Assumptions Do Matter

       In recent months, a group of industry-funded nonprofits, 
     United for Jobs 2004, has commissioned an economic analysis 
     of the Climate Stewardship Act that was performed by Boston 
     consulting group Charles River Associates (CRA).
       Any economic model is, in essence, a machine; it receives 
     an input, processes it, and produces a conclusion based on 
     the input. In any economic model, the modeling assumptions 
     are the key input--by telling the model what sort of economic 
     conditions to model, they set the terms of economic analysis 
     and determine to a very large extent the conclusions produced 
     by the model. The chart below examines the assumptions that 
     underpin the economic analysis commissioned by the United for 
     Jobs campaign.

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      What is the assumption?              Why is this important?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 70-year timeline: The study       In fact, economists rarely attempt
 locks in today's market             to forecast economic impacts beyond
 conditions to an economic           a 10-20-year horizon because the
 analysis that spans 70 years.       national economy is such a complex
                                     system. Attempting to assign a 70-
                                     year cost horizon to the Climate
                                     Stewardship Act today is just as
                                     futile an effort as it would have
                                     been to assign a 70-year cost
                                     horizon to a telecommunications
                                     policy in 1934. Imagine it: using
                                     Charles Rivers Associates' method,
                                     those Depression-era regulators
                                     would have calcuated policy cost on
                                     the basis of primitive 1930s
                                     telephone technology over a
                                     timeline that would ultimately see
                                     the invention of computers, mobile
                                     phones, the internet, fax
                                     technology, e-mail, and even
                                     wireless access.
An innovation-free economy: The     Tomorrow's technologies aren't
 CRA analysis assumes that           incorporated into the model because
 industry complies with the bill     they don't yet exist and thus can't
 by using year 2004 technologies     have a cost assigned to them. For
 for the next 70 years.              example, the model incorporates a
                                     cutting-edge clean-coal technology
                                     available today, but assumes that
                                     it will continue to exist until
                                     2070 at today's prices, which is
                                     $300/ton of carbon.
Catastrophic business decisions:    Past experience with market-based
 The model assumes that businesses   policies gives no reason to assume
 will respond to the new policy by   irrational business behavior.
 making catastrophic business        Following the 1990 Clean Air Act
 decisions such as retiring coal-    Acid Rain Program, for example,
 fired power plants prematurely      energy companies have invested
 and mothballing other valuable      heavily in new technology while
 capital.                            continuing to boost electric
                                     generation at a robust rate. Key
                                     success factors in ensuring a
                                     reasonable climate for business are
                                     policy certainly and lead time to
                                     accommodate the policy changes.
Personal income taxes increase to   By CRA's own account, this single
 stabilize the government: In        assumption increases the
 CRA's model, big personal tax       consumption costs of the bill by 60
 increases prop up the federal       percent. No precedent exists for
 government as the economy takes a   this response to climate policy
 nose dive.                          cost. Moderate cost and lead time
                                     for industry to adapt to policy
                                     changes are, again, critical.
70 years of tight natural gas       Proven world gas reserves are over
 supply: The CRA model assumes       200 times U.S. annual consumption.
 that current natural gas market     Availability of gas is a function
 conditions remain in place for 70   of production capacity, not the
 years.                              availability of the fuel itself.
                                     Presently, natural gas markets are
                                     responding to increased demand by
                                     increasing supply, both domestic
                                     and imported.
No international market for carbon  As numerous studies have shown--and
 reductions: The U.S. never joins    common sense dictates--
 the global market for carbon        international emissions trading
 reductions.                         drives down the cost of emIssions
                                     reductions dramatically by allowing
                                     companies to take advantage of cost-
                                     effective opportunities to reduce
                                     emissions, wherever in the world
                                     they may be found. It is
                                     inconceivable that American
                                     businesses will forever be denied
                                     these cost-reducing opportunities.
No new state or federal             At this moment, both Congress and
 requirements to reduce air          the Administration are deeply
 pollution: The model assumes that   engaged in an effort to update--and
 Congress and the states do not      increase--the limits on domestic
 act to improve air quality for      air pollutants. These new pollution
 the next 70 years.                  limits will have some carbon
                                     impacts. The current policy changes
                                     are not assumed in this analysis,
                                     nor are any other policy updates
                                     during the next 70 years.
No growth in renewable energy: The  The year 2004 saw a massive increase
 model assumes that the demand for   in the attention to and development
 and supply of renewable energy      of renewable energy. With the
 remains unchanged from today's      ratification of the Kyoto Protocol,
 levels, for the next 70 years.      Europe and the industrialized world
                                     are placing a premium on
                                     renewables, and the demand for
                                     these technologies is expected to
                                     grow dramatically in the future.
No new efficiency requirements:     State and federal policymakers are,
 CRA's analysis assumes that no      in fact, continuing to update
 new efficiency requirements are     energy efficiency requirements. The
 enacted for the next 70 years.      state of Maine, for example, is at
                                     work on a bill to join other
                                     northeast states in adopting
                                     California's newest energy
                                     efficiency requirements for a host
                                     of consumer products. These exceed
                                     current federal requirements, which
                                     were also updated in recent years.
No state actions on global          States from Maine and Connecticut to
 warming: The model assumes no       Oregon and Idaho have enacted state-
 state actions that contribute to    level policies and initiatives to
 reductions in greenhouse gas        reduce greenhouse gases. CRA's
 emissions.                          model assumes that none of these
                                     policies reduces emissions, even
                                     though the northeast states in
                                     particular are actively developing
                                     a multi-state emissions trading
                                     program to reduce greenhouse gases.
 A misrepresentative ``high cost''  The ``high cost'' projection assumes
 projection: The CRA study           that greenhouse gas emissions will
 contains a ``high cost''            be 80 percent below 1990 levels in
 projection that is based on         the year 2050. This is a level
 provisions not found in the         never contemplated in any bill
 Climate Stewardship Act.            introduced in Congress, and wildly
                                     off the mark with respect to the
                                     Climate Stewardship Act. The
                                     Climate Stewardship Act caps
                                     emissions at year 2000 levels,
No reductions in non-CO2 gases:     Numerous studies have shown that
 The CRA analysis does not           allowing reductions in so-called
 recognize the possibility of        ``non-CO2 gases'' reduces overall
 reducing non-CO2 gases under the    costs of greenhouse gas reductions
 bill.                               dramatically. The Climate
                                     Stewardship Act allows use of these
                                     low-cost reductions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. McCAIN. The analysis is clearly flawed, and we all know that it 
is flawed. Of course, this is what we always hear whenever there is a 
proposal that would improve our environment and our lives and others. 
It is the apocalypse now.
  I would like for my colleagues to take note from this well-known 
sensationalist rag on the supermarket shelves, the National Geographic, 
which published probably one of the more comprehensive and in-depth 
pieces ever done called ``Global Warming, Bulletins From a Warmer 
World.'' The National Geographic, as they usually do, does an 
incredibly in-depth job to describe what is already happening and what 
will be happening in the future.
  It reads, in part:

       The climate is changing at an unnerving pace. Glaciers are 
     retreating. Ice shelves are fracturing. Sea level is rising. 
     Permafrost is melting. What role will humans play?

  I hope my colleagues, when they have a chance, will read that.
  I would like Members to look at this picture. This is Lake Powell. It 
was down to its lowest level since it was built. We did get some rain 
this winter, and there has been some change. A heat-damaged reef in the 
Indian Ocean offers poor habitat for passing fish. In fact, as I 
mentioned earlier, the Great Barrier Reef is predicted to be dying. 
This once was a lake, Lake Chad in Africa. The pictures go on and on. 
But perhaps one of the most important, of course, is the Arctic icecap. 
We know that the Arctic and the Antarctic are the miner's canary of 
what is going on. This clearly shows in 1979 the polar icecap. And it 
shows in 2003 the rather dramatic reductions. Also things are happening 
in Greenland which are significant and alarming.
  These are the CO2 records from 2004. The debate about the 
hockey stick is becoming one that is irrelevant because, unfortunately, 
we are seeing this dramatic increase.
  I would like to return for a minute to the joint science academies' 
statement, ``Global Response to Climate Change'':

       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.

  Mr. President, the Senator from Idaho mentioned that scientists from 
India and the Chinese also signed onto this, as if they were complicit. 
The fact is they are scientists first, and they are from China and 
India; they are as alarmed about this as anyone else should be.

[[Page S7026]]

  Two weeks ago, the National Academy of Sciences, the national 
academies from the G8 countries--this was not 9 years ago but 2 weeks 
ago--said:

       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 gases.

  That is why I appreciate the amendment of the Senator from Nebraska, 
which recognizes there is a problem. But we have to take prompt action 
now.
  Mr. President, I have a fact sheet on myth versus fact that responds 
to some of the statements made on the floor. I ask unanimous consent 
that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Myth: Most EU-15 countries are way above emissions targets
       Fact: The European Environmental Agency (EEA) recently 
     concluded that the EU is on schedule to meet its Kyoto 
     targets. This report analyzed existing and planned policies, 
     including the Kyoto emissions trading measures.
       When only previously implemented policies were evaluated, 
     the EEA calculated that the EU would not reach its Kyoto 
     targets--reaching 1%, rather than 8%, below 1990 levels. 
     Planned policies such as domestic EU policies (accounting for 
     greater than 7% reductions alone) and international emission 
     reduction projects (for which funds have already been 
     allocated), however, will enable the EU to exceed its 8% 
     goal.
       Myth: The U.S. beats the EU in reducing GHG emissions
       Fact: While the U.S. emissions intensity decreased by 17.4 
     percent in the 1990s, U.S. global warming pollution grew by 
     14. At the same time, the EU decreased their global warming 
     pollution by 4 percent. Greenhouse Gas intensity does not 
     measure the quantity of global warming pollution reduced. GHG 
     intensity is defined as the ratio of total global warming 
     pollution to total gross domestic product.
       Myth: U.S. CO2 emissions don't come from 
     industry
       Fact: Forty percent of energy-related CO2 comes 
     from power plants. As a sector, industry accounted for 28.8 
     percent (1,666.2 million metric tons of CO2) of 
     total U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions in 2003, 
     reported the DOE's Energy Information Administration. In the 
     same year, energy related carbon dioxide emissions did not 
     change for the industrial sector because industrial output 
     only grew by 0.2 percent in the year. While the largest 
     growth in CO2 emissions is not from industry, the 
     sector nonetheless is responsible for a significant portion 
     of U.S. CO2 emissions.
       Myth: Future global GHG emissions will come from developing 
     countries
       Fact: The United States is currently responsible for 25% of 
     global warming pollution, while less than 5 percent of the 
     global population resides here. U.S. per capita emissions are 
     5 tons of carbon per year, while Europe and Japan emit 2-5 
     tons of carbon per year per capita. By comparison, the 
     developing world average per capita is about 0.6 tC/year. In 
     order to stop global warming, the world will need to reach an 
     average of 0.3 tC/year per capita for a population of  10 
     billion people by the end of the century. [Kammen et al.]
       In addition, in the last century, developed countries were 
     responsible for 60 percent of the net carbon emissions that 
     have caused global warming. The United States alone 
     contributed 30 percent of the total from 1900-99. By 
     comparison, China was accountable for only 7 percent and 
     India for 2 percent.
       Myth: Industry voluntary actions are sufficient.
       Fact: The United States has tried a range of domestic and 
     international voluntary efforts to reduce global warming 
     pollution over the past decade, but U.S. emissions have 
     continued to rise. The fact is voluntary programs alone will 
     not stop the rise in emissions. Because the Hagel amendment 
     relies exclusively on voluntary programs, it won't work 
     either.
       Myth: Global warming emission limits should not be part of 
     the energy bill because it will undercut economic growth.
       Fact: Climate policy is essential for a secure and strong 
     U.S. economy, as well as a healthy environment. A carbon 
     emissions cap would encourage U.S. corporations to innovate, 
     develop new, competitive technologies for the global market 
     and be world leaders in new energy technology. Technological 
     innovation in energy efficiency and renewable energy will 
     stimulate job growth, energy independence and investments in 
     research and development.
       Political incentives to develop new clean technology will 
     provide the certainty that U.S. companies need in order to 
     make rational investments in long-lived assets. As the energy 
     infrastructure in the U.S. ages and we are ready to replace 
     it, building low and no-carbon technologies now is 
     economically essential. By planning ahead, we will prevent 
     costing our companies a lot more in mitigation costs when 
     they have to retrofit or shut down fossil fuel plants due to 
     inevitable future global warming policy. Being a leader in 
     technological development of low and no-carbon energy 
     technology is in fact essential to U.S. economic growth.
       Myth: Current energy policy is sufficient as is. Limiting 
     fossil fuel use will undermine this policy.
       Fact: Limiting carbon pollution will strengthen the new 
     national energy policy, which, in its current form, is 
     insufficient to increase U.S. energy security and to protect 
     against the threat of global warming. American companies are 
     currently losing out on billions of dollars in profits 
     because current U.S. energy policy has failed to provide 
     sufficient political incentives for cleantech innovation.
       Wind power, solar photovoltaics and fuel cell and hydrogen 
     infrastructure are high-growth markets, in which U.S. 
     companies are not the technological leaders. Solar and wind 
     power have each grown by more than 30% annually since 2000, 
     growth rates that are more common in such high-tech markets 
     as personal computers and the Internet. Yet, in the past 10 
     years, the United States went from owning 50% of the solar PV 
     market to 10%. The U.S. economy will be more secure if we 
     invest in technologies that reduce our dependence on fossil 
     fuels and will be stronger if we compete with the European 
     and Japanese companies in the profitable clean-energy market.
       Myth: The United States should not implement global warming 
     policy until developing nations commit to such policies as 
     well.
       Fact: More than one hundred and forty nations globally have 
     agreed to collaborate and make real reductions in global 
     warming pollution. Simply because the U.S. passes legislation 
     different from the rest of the world's climate policy does 
     not mean that we are going at it alone. In fact, all proposed 
     climate amendments are far less stringent than the mandates 
     in the Kyoto Protocol.
       The United States is responsible for more than a quarter of 
     world's carbon dioxide emissions--more than China, India and 
     Japan combined. While developing countries' emissions are 
     increasing, it will be impossible to stop global warming 
     without the world's largest polluter taking action.
       Domestic climate policy will create jobs in the U.S. and 
     save American consumers billions of dollars, in addition to 
     enabling U.S. companies to regain technological dominance in 
     the renewable energy sector. The renewable energy sector 
     ``generates more jobs per megawatt of power installed, per 
     unit of energy produced, and per dollar of investment, than 
     the fossil fuel-based energy sector [mining, refining, 
     utilities],'' concludes Kammen et al from the University of 
     California at Berkeley.
       Myth: Creating CO2 Limits would be Extremely 
     Costly.
       Fact: EIA's high cost estimates are based on an unrealistic 
     scenario in which the U.S. does not increase renewable energy 
     generation, fails to implement responsible energy policy and 
     does not utilize carbon capture technology.
       The Climate Stewardship Act provides a market-based 
     solution to climate policy. The Tellus Institute analyzed the 
     bipartisan Climate Stewardship Act using a modified version 
     of the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) NEMS model. 
     They calculated the net savings to consumers as a result of 
     this Act will reach $30 billion annually from 2013 through 
     2020. A different study by MIT economists found that the cost 
     to the economy will be a modest $15-$19 per household per 
     year from 2010-2020. Measured in terms of the impact on 
     household purchasing power (defined as welfare costs), this 
     is only 0.02 percent of business-as-usual consumption 
     levels from 2010 onward.
       Global warming policy will help U.S. companies profit from 
     the high-growth clean-energy market, currently estimated at 
     $12.9 billion. It is projected that by 2013, the combined 
     solar photovoltaics, wind power and fuel cells and hydrogen 
     infrastructure market will represent a $92 billion market 
     [Clean-edge]. Without the political incentive to invest in 
     global warming technology, European and Asian technological 
     innovation will out-compete American companies
       Myth: The President's plan is sufficient.
       Fact: President Bush's voluntary global warming plan does 
     not attempt to address climate concerns. It is far from 
     sensible, putting U.S. companies at a competitive 
     disadvantage in the global high-growth clean energy market 
     and allowing emissions of heat-trapping pollutants to 
     continue growing indefinitely at exactly the same rate they 
     have grown over the last 10 years. The president has used a 
     misleading emissions ``intensity'' metric that disguises more 
     pollution, not less.
       The United States has tried a range of domestic and 
     international voluntary efforts to reduce global warming 
     pollution over the past decade, but U.S. emissions have 
     continued to rise. The fact is voluntary programs alone will 
     not stop the rise in emissions. Because the Bush global 
     warming plan relies exclusively on voluntary programs, it 
     won't work either.
       Most of the president's proposed spending is only a 
     continuation of past work on the science of climate change.
       Bottom line: Under the Bush plan, emissions in 2012 will be 
     30 percent above 1990 levels and still rising.
       Myth: Climate Mandates are Not Scientifically Justified.
       Fact: As USA Today put it on their June 13 front page, 
     ``The debate's over. Globe is warming''.

[[Page S7027]]

       This headline reflects the mainstream scientific consensus 
     that humankind has induced global warming. Scientists are 
     virtually certain that CO2 pollution from fossil 
     fuel burning is the dominant influence on observed global 
     warming during the last few decades. Last week, the National 
     Academy of Sciences and science academies of 10 other 
     nations, said there is ``significant global warming'' and 
     called for ``an immediate response'' and ``prompt action'' to 
     reduce global warming pollution. They warned, ``Failure to 
     implement significant reductions in net greenhouse gas 
     emissions now, will make the job much harder in the future''
       The preponderance of scientific evidence concludes the 
     following:
       The warming in the late 20th century is unprecedented in 
     the last 1000 years.
       Seven of the ten warmest years in the past century were 
     since 1990, and NOAA concluded that 1998 was the hottest year 
     on observable record.
       Simulations of climate using solely natural climate 
     variability do not recreate or parallel actual climate 
     changes which have occurred over the last 50 years.
       Natural climate variability can not be the cause of the 
     rapid increase and magnitude of change in Earth's 
     temperature. The effect of natural phenomena, such as solar 
     variability, is quite small in comparison to the effect of 
     heat-trapping pollution added to the earth's atmosphere, 
     concluded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
     (IPCC), a group comprised of the 2,500 of the world's most 
     prominent climate scientists, economists and risk analysts. 
     Additionally, the net effect of natural climate factors for 
     the past two, and possible four, decades is negative--a 
     cooling effect.
       The mainstream global scientific consensus is that 
     humankind has induced global warming. Sallie Baliunas and 
     Willie Soon are the two ``climate contrarians'' at the 
     Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysical Center who challenged this 
     accepted conclusion and declared that there was a Middle Age 
     Warm Period. They received $53,000 for this study from the 
     American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry's 
     primary trade organization. Their methodology is 
     fundamentally flawed and their claims are inconsistent with 
     the preponderance of scientific evidence.
       Myth: Scientific Review has Discredited the Underlying 
     Study (``hockey stick'' report) on Warming.
       Fact: Scientists' conclusion that humans have induced 
     climate change is based on many scientific reports, computer 
     models and analyses. For example, a recent study by NASA, 
     Columbia University and DOE scientists has been called the 
     ``smoking gun'' of global warming. This report showed a clear 
     energy imbalance--the planet is absorbing one watt more of 
     the sun's energy, per square meter, than what is radiated 
     back into space. This increase in energy will accumulate and 
     warm the earth's atmosphere.
       The review by ``climate contrarians'', McIntyre and 
     McKitrick, who attempted to challenge mainstream scientific 
     consensus and Michael Mann's analysis, wholly misrepresented 
     the results of the model. McIntyre and McKitrick did not 
     follow standard scientific protocol, and they omitted key 
     data for the period 1400-1600. http://www.berlinwind.org/
environment.html has more description of Mann's report.
       Myth: Greenhouse Gas emissions are not Pollutants.
       Fact: Carbon dioxide is without a doubt a pollutant in the 
     quantities that humans are releasing it into our air. 
     Generally, a pollutant is defined as an ``undesirable state 
     of the natural environment being contaminated with harmful 
     substances as a consequence of human activities''. 
     Global warming pollution is also considered pollution 
     under the Clean Air Act. The act says that an air 
     pollutant is any ``physical, chemical, biological, [or] 
     radioactive . . . substance or matter which is emitted 
     into or otherwise enters the ambient air'' (CAA, sec. 
     302(g)). CO2 is, therefore, a pollutant under 
     the Clean Air Act, as well as in the real world.
       Carbon dioxide is, and will continue to be, the cause of 
     significant health impacts. According to the EPA, the 
     prevalence and severity of particular diseases depends 
     largely on the local climate. Extreme temperatures can be 
     directly lethal (in the U.S., twice as many people die from 
     the heat as from the cold). Indirectly, infectious diseases 
     such as malaria and yellow fever, which once only appeared in 
     warmer equatorial regions, will travel northward as 
     mosquitoes follow the warmer temperatures to the north. 
     Moreover, hotter temperatures can increase air and water 
     pollution, which indisputably cause asthma attacks, lung 
     disease and other serious health effects.
       Large and rapid climatic changes are already causing 
     extreme weather patterns, heat waves, rising ocean 
     temperatures and acidity, coral reef destruction, early snow 
     melts and noticeable ice-cap and mountain glacier thaws. 
     Hotter temperatures will continue to lead to coastal and 
     island submersion, disturbances to food production levels and 
     unpredictable changes to ocean and atmospheric circulation.
       While directly breathing CO2 is not a concern 
     for this pollutant, certainly the effects of the rapid 
     buildup of the gas in the atmosphere because of human energy 
     use is arguably the largest environmental threat to humankind 
     in the history of civilization.
       Myth: The ``Poison Pill'' Climate Amendment.
       Fact: This is a circular argument, asking Members of 
     Congress to oppose the climate amendment because Members of 
     Congress oppose the climate amendment.
       Without climate policy, the energy bill will not 
     significantly reduce oil dependence or address global 
     warming. A market-based solution such as the Climate 
     Stewardship Act provides the economic opportunities and real 
     emissions limits that must be included in a strong energy 
     bill.
       Myth: A ``methane-first'' strategy is more cost-effective 
     than reducing carbon dioxide.
       Fact: It is true that on a pound for pound basis, methane 
     is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, 
     and it should be controlled. However, carbon dioxide is the 
     primary concern for global warming because of the massive 
     quantities of it released from burning fossil fuels. Carbon 
     dioxide's concentration in the atmosphere is now over 360 
     parts per million, higher than at any time during the last 
     400,000 years.
       Myth: Greenhouse gas caps are bad for the strained supply 
     of natural gas.
       Fact: A key finding of the Tellus Institute analysis of the 
     Climate Stewardship Act is that natural gas prices would 
     decrease with a policy that limits global warming pollution 
     in conjunction with targeted complementary policies. When the 
     emissions cap is accompanied by energy efficiency measures 
     and demand response policies, the EIA NEMS model shows a 
     slight decrease in the price of natural gas relative to the 
     base case. The complementary policies that contribute to 
     cost-effective implementation of the Climate Stewardship Act 
     include energy efficiency investments funded by allowance 
     sales under the Act, renewable energy standards, and 
     promotion of combined heat and power systems.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I don't think it is likely that we will 
win this vote. I don't count votes, but I have been around here long 
enough that I can pretty well ``take the temperature of the body.'' It 
is rising. That is a bad metaphor that I can probably tell what is 
going to happen in our vote counts. All I can do is assure my 
colleagues that the first time Senator Lieberman and I came to the 
floor, there was no document from any scientific group that was as 
definitive as was issued 2 weeks ago by the National Academy of 
Sciences.
  The next time Senator Lieberman and I are on the floor--and we will 
be back--there will be even more definitive statements by the world 
scientific community, more manifestations of this terrible calamity 
that is besetting this great world of ours, and over time we will win. 
I am very confident of that because we must act.
  As far as Kyoto is concerned, Senator Lieberman and I know India and 
China would have to join as a condition for the United States to be 
even part of it, and the treaty itself may have to be modified to some 
degree. The reason why I worry is not because of the fact that I am not 
confident we will win; I am worried about what happens in the meantime. 
The condition was far less serious the first time Senator Lieberman and 
I took up this issue. The first time we had a hearing in the Commerce 
Committee 6 years ago, it was a problem. Now it is rapidly approaching 
a crisis of enormous proportions. So I worry that delay means further 
enormous challenges to make sure the environment of this Earth is not 
suffering permanent damage.
  I urge my colleagues, after this vote, to get briefed, to get 
information, travel with us, do what you can to ascertain what is 
happening on the Earth. I think the next time we are on the floor, we 
will gain a majority.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague and 
partner in this cause, Senator McCain, for his persistent, principled 
leadership. It is an honor to fight alongside him on behalf of what we 
believe is right for future generations of Americans--our kids and 
grandkids.
  As I have listened to the debate in the Senate--particularly, with 
all respect, listening to some of the opponents of this amendment--I 
keep thinking of a song by Bob Dylan, from a younger time in my life. I 
apologize to the great Dylan if I have the lyrics a little wrong, but 
it was generally along the lines of:

       Come Senators, Congressmen, please heed the call. Don't 
     stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall.

  The theme was that the times are rapidly changing. What is rapidly 
changing in our times is the temperature on this planet that God has 
given us. It is changing with observable, bad consequences, and it is 
changing as a result of what we humans are doing. The science is 
changing to be clearer

[[Page S7028]]

and clearer that global warming is a problem.
  What is not changing is the failure of some of my colleagues to 
recognize that science. Senator McCain is right. We fought hard again, 
but we are not going to win this vote. As he said earlier, the real 
losers here are our children and grandchildren. If we don't act soon, 
they are going to inherit a planet that is not going to be as 
hospitable as the one we were given by our parents and grandparents. 
The fact is, however, that I see something hopeful changing around this 
Senate, and it is an increasing recognition that global warming is a 
real problem. Some of our friends may go back to those old arguments. 
You can always find one scientist who disagrees with the great majority 
of them. But there is a prevailing, powerful consensus internationally 
that global warming is real. I see that consensus now being expressed 
in the Senate.
  When Senator McCain and I started on this effort to have America do 
something to reassert its moral leadership in the global battle to stop 
the planet from warming dangerously, some people said we were ``smoking 
something'' or that we were ``Chicken Littles.'' That has changed now. 
Now people are saying: Yes, we agree with you that there is a problem. 
But we think you are going at it the wrong way. You are trying to do 
too much too soon. I took heart from the statement by Senator DeWine of 
Ohio, who came to the conclusion, based on thoughtful consideration, 
that the science tells him this planet is warming, and he doesn't want 
to look back at the end of his service and say he didn't do anything 
about it. He is not ready to support the bill. He has a couple of 
changes he wants to make. Senator Domenici basically said the same 
thing.
  The science is compelling. Global warming is real. And colleague 
after colleague, including Senator Feinstein of California, Senator 
Akaka of Hawaii, Senator Nelson of Florida, has come to the floor and 
said that they see it in their statements. They see with their own eyes 
the impact that global warming is having. Senator Carper brought 
pictures his friend had taken of glaciers melting over a period of 
years.
  The question is, Are we going to change quickly enough to deal with 
this problem before it has catastrophic consequences? The science is 
real. Costs? Well, again, you could find economists--the old line is if 
you lined up end by end all the economists in the world, they would not 
reach a conclusion. An MIT study said if our amendment was adopted, it 
would add $20 a year per household to the cost of living. Isn't that 
worth it to save our children and grandchildren on this planet so they 
can enjoy it as we have?

  Times are changing in the business community. Listen to Wayne 
Brunetti, CEO and chairman of Xcel Energy, Inc., who says:

       Give us a date. Tell us how much we need to cut. Give us 
     the flexibility to meet the goals, and we will get it done.

  Linn Draper, former chairman and CEO of American Electric Power, 
says:

       Climate change is a challenge facing both business and 
     policymakers. Early action represents a commonsense approach 
     that can begin the process of lowering emissions along a 
     gradual, cost-effective glidepath.

  Steve Percy, former chief executive of BP America, said:

       Some companies feel if we don't act soon in the United 
     States, we may be missing out on opportunities to innovate 
     and to develop the technologies that will address these 
     problems in the future. On top of that, I think this is a 
     recognition on the part of some of these leading companies 
     that public opinion is slowly beginning to shift on these 
     issues. They want to be able to say in the future that they 
     were progressive on this issue.

  Senator McCain and I have worked a long time with a lot of people in 
the business and environment and scientific and political worlds to 
present this proposal. It is no more perfect than anything fashioned by 
human beings, but we think it is the only real opportunity the Senate 
will have in this session--on this bill certainly--to do something real 
about global warming. That is what this is about. Not only do you 
recognize that there is a problem--there is--are you willing to work to 
do something about it? If you are, you will vote for this amendment.
  I quoted Jonas Salk yesterday when we began the debate, the 
discoverer of the polio vaccine. He said something to this effect: One 
of the most important things for anybody to do in life is to be a good 
ancestor. We must be good ancestors, which is to say that the 
generations who follow us will look back at us and ask: Were they good 
ancestors? Did they turn the world over to us in better condition than 
they received it. If we don't do anything about global warming, we are 
going to turn this world over to our children and grandchildren in a 
much worse condition than we received it. I end not with science, not 
with economics, not with politics because the times are changing, and 
eventually the Senate will change with those times and catch up with 
the reality and the American people. Finally, we are blessed to live on 
God's good Earth, and at the beginning in the Book of Genesis, God 
instructed Adam and Eve to not only work the garden but to guard it. We 
are working the garden but not guarding it as well as we should be.
  This amendment will help us to do that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will use my leader time.
  Mr. President, global warming constitutes one of the greatest 
challenges of our time. I believe that. Greenhouse gas emissions from 
the burning of fossil fuels have threatened not only our environment 
but also our economy and public lands. Should we continue unabated our 
current rate of polluting, we threaten to disrupt the delicate 
ecological balance on which our livelihoods and our lives depend.
  Addressing this growing environmental threat demands strong 
leadership. I am afraid such leadership has been sorely lacking by this 
administration. Instead, the White House has been doctoring information 
about global warming in reports by Government scientists. A White House 
senior official named Philip Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions 
of climate change research that scientists had already approved. Mr. 
Cooney previously worked as a lobbyist for the American Petroleum 
Institute before joining the administration in 2001. A few days after 
resigning from the administration, Mr. Cooney had the audacity, and 
ExxonMobil had the misfortune and the inability to see how wrong they 
were, they hired him. ExxonMobil hired him--the same ExxonMobil that 
has opposed measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and has funded 
groups of global warming skeptics.
  It is time for the administration to bypass the filtering by White 
House officials and hear directly from the scientists, the 
international community, corporations, and a growing number of 
Republicans who are calling for a Federal policy to reduce global 
warming pollution.
  The President is increasingly isolated on this issue, as highlighted 
recently in a number of ways. First, in advance of the G8 summit next 
month, the National Academy of Sciences and the equivalent 
organizations from 10 other countries said last week:

       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.

  Even ``The Terminator,'' California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, 
recently said, ``The debate is over,'' and announced a goal of cutting 
the State's emissions by 80 percent by the year 2020.
  A bipartisan group of mayors from 158 American cities issued a 
statement calling on the Federal Government to reduce global warming. 
The mayors, who represent 32 million people, acknowledged the clear 
public mandate to address this issue and opined that reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions will help ensure our energy security for this 
country.
  Even industry is breaking ranks with the White House. General 
Electric, one of the largest companies in the Nation, if not the 
largest, recently joined a growing list of businesses calling on the 
Federal Government to provide stronger leadership on global warming. 
Fortune 500 companies, such as Alcoa, British Petroleum, DuPont, 
Eastman Kodak, IBM, Intel, Johnson & Johnson, and Nike, to name a few, 
have all made significant reductions in their greenhouse gas emissions.

[[Page S7029]]

  The United States accounts for about 4 percent of the world's 
population. Yet it is responsible for more than 25 percent of the 
world's global warming pollution. U.S. leadership on global warming is 
critical to building international support for future global 
reductions, and America's industry needs to be part of the solution to 
drive the technology that will make technology solutions feasible to 
all nations. We must set the example.
  The McCain-Lieberman amendment would cap greenhouse gas emissions in 
2010 at 2000 levels and establish a mandatory economywide cap-and-trade 
program. The amendment would limit emissions of global warming 
pollutants by electric utilities, major industrial and commercial 
entities, and refiners of transportation fuels.
  The amendment would allow businesses to devise and implement their 
own solutions using a flexible emissions trading system that has 
successfully reduced acid rain pollution under the Clear Air Act at a 
fraction of anticipated costs. By setting reasonable caps on emissions 
and permitting industry to trade in pollution allowances, this creates 
a new market for reducing greenhouse gases. We cannot afford to defer 
action to address global warming.
  I commend and applaud these two great Senators for joining together 
to bring to the attention of the Senate a world problem that takes the 
United States, via example, to solve.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 826, as modified. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Conrad), and the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan) are necessarily 
absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 148 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Collins
     Corzine
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gregg
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--60

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Conrad
     Dorgan
       
  The amendment (No. 826), as modified, was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I understand Senators Specter and Allard 
would like to speak. I ask unanimous consent they be recognized to 
speak for up to 10 minutes each and I then be recognized to call up my 
amendment, numbered 866.
  Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, do we have a time 
agreement on your resolution?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, there is no time agreement entered. I am 
glad to enter into an hour-long time agreement, equally divided, if 
that is acceptable.
  Mr. INHOFE. How about 20 minutes, equally divided, and I yield back 
my time.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I believe myself, Senator Domenici, and perhaps Senator 
Specter wish to speak on my amendment. I hesitate to limit it to 10 
minutes if that is what the Senator is suggesting.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me restate the request. Senators 
Specter and Allard would like to speak. I ask unanimous consent they be 
recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes each. Following that, the 
Senator from Oklahoma and I would have time equally divided on the 
modified Bingaman amendment, numbered 866, and a vote would occur in 
relation to that amendment at 5:30, with no amendments in order.
  Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, I would like to get into 
the queue. I am here to accept the manager's request. My amendment is 
filed. The Senator from Tennessee is my cosponsor. Could we follow the 
Senator?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. This is not a queue. This is a queue of one. We are 
just trying to get in a position to act on this amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. I want to help the managers keep this bill moving. We 
would not require more than 30 minutes, equally divided.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Just a moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Bingaman is trying his best to get something 
called up we have agreed on. He is not in a position to agree. I am 
trying to put it together, and he is agreeing I should do that.
  Would the Senator from Tennessee and you have an amendment with 
reference to windmills?
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
  This is offshore drilling.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I don't want to do that. I would rather wait a while.
  Mr. WARNER. If the distinguished manager would interpret what ``wait 
a while'' means.
  Mr. DOMENICI. There are 100 amendments. You want to go in the middle 
of the 100? Do you want to go first?
  Mr. WARNER. I am here to accommodate.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will take one at a time, sit down and organize at the 
table with you.
  Mr. WARNER. If the distinguished manager would indicate, we could go 
tonight. I would be willing to wait all night.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We are willing to try hard. Our leaders told us to stay 
here tonight and try to agree to some amendments. We will put you right 
there.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request by the 
Senator from New Mexico on his unanimous consent?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if we are going to open up an 
opportunity for additional amendments, I have an amendment that has 
been sitting here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question before the Senate, is there 
objection to the unanimous consent request by the Senator from New 
Mexico?
  Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let Senator Bingaman----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask you restate the unanimous consent at this time. It 
is my understanding we would have time equally divided, between now and 
5:30, at which time there would be a vote. I state my intention would 
be to move to table the Bingaman resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent request is for 10 
minutes for Senator Specter and Senator Allard and 20 minutes equally 
divided between the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from 
Oklahoma, with a vote time certain at 5:30. Is there objection?

[[Page S7030]]

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Could I ask the Senator from New Mexico, how do I get 
in the queue?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I object.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, could we have the unanimous consent 
request put to the Senate again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me restate it for Senators who might not have heard 
it before: We recognize Senator Specter to speak for up to 10 minutes. 
We recognize Senator Allard to speak for up to 10 minutes. The 
remainder of the time, between now and 5:30, would be equally divided 
between the Senator from Oklahoma and myself in relation to the 
modified amendment that I have offered, amendment No. 866. There would 
be a vote at 5:30 on or in relation to amendment No. 866, as modified.
  Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object; is there any proposal and/
or agreement with respect to what happens after that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum once 
again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me restate the request. I ask 
unanimous consent that Senator Specter be recognized to speak for up to 
10 minutes; Senator Allard from Colorado be recognized to speak for up 
to 10 minutes; and following that, I be recognized to present my 
amendment No. 866 and a modification of that amendment; that the time 
between then and 5:40 be equally split between myself and the Senator 
from Oklahoma; and that we would then have a vote at 5:40.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. A vote on or in relation to the amendment. He wants to 
table it.
  Mr. INHOFE. I already indicated that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is part of the consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for the time. I 
appreciate the 10 minutes. I will try to reduce that time because I see 
the congested calendar here today.
  Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment, first, about the 
very serious situation with oil prices--approximating $60 a barrel 
now--and the average cost of gasoline across the country at $2.13. This 
is a problem which has beset the United States and the world for 
decades now. I remember with clarity the long gas lines in about 1973.
  I have believed for a long time that we ought to be moving against 
OPEC under the laws which prohibit conspiracies and restraint of trade. 
I set forth, in a fairly detailed letter to President Clinton, on April 
11, 2000, my recommendations for litigation by the Federal Government 
against OPEC, and I repeated it in a letter to President Bush dated 
April 25, 2001. I ask unanimous consent that both of these letters be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SPECTER. I was then pleased to see my distinguished colleagues, 
Senator DeWine and Senator Kohl, introduce what is now S. 555, the No 
Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2005, which was accepted by 
voice vote yesterday. What this bill does essentially is to codify the 
ability of the Government to proceed against OPEC under the antitrust 
laws.
  It is my legal opinion, as set forth in the detailed letters to both 
President Clinton and President Bush, that the United States has that 
authority now, that it is not governmental activity when OPEC gets 
together and conspires, it is commercial activity. They do business in 
the United States. They are subject to our antitrust laws. And we 
should have moved on them a very long time ago.
  It is my hope the DeWine-Kohl bill, which I cosponsored, which has 
come out of the Judiciary Committee and the Antitrust Subcommittee, 
will be retained in conference. It is always a touchy matter to have a 
voice vote as opposed to a rollcall vote where if the numbers are very 
substantial it may be that the amendment will be taken more seriously 
in conference than if it is a voice vote. But I urge the managers to 
take the DeWine-Kohl amendment very seriously, which I have 
cosponsored. We ought to be moving against OPEC because of their cartel 
activity.
  To that end, I voted earlier today for the Schumer Sense of the 
Senate amendment calling on the President to confront OPEC to increase 
oil production and vigorously oversee oil markets to protect the U.S. 
from price gouging. I supported the amendment even though I disagreed 
with another section calling for the release of oil from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. While I recognize that the Sense of the Senate 
amendment is not binding, I believe the strong vote sends a signal to 
the Administration that there is support for action against OPEC.
  I know the floor is going to be very crowded a little later, so I am 
going to take this opportunity to speak very briefly on the amendment 
which is offered by Senator Bingaman--cosponsored by Bingaman-Byrd-
Specter. And I think Senator Domenici is going to join it as well.
  I commend Senator Bingaman for his initiatives on the issue of our 
energy policy to try to cut down on emissions and to try to cut down on 
the problems of global warming. We have just had a vote on the 
amendment offered by Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman. We had a 
vote on it in the year 2003. It has always been a very attractive 
amendment.
  I opposed it because I believe that it puts the United States at a 
very substantial economic disadvantage with other countries that are 
not compelled to comply. As a Senator from Pennsylvania, I have a duty 
to be specially concerned about what is happening in coal, what is 
happening in steel, but I think the thrust of it is something. The 
objectives need to be obtained.
  The National Commission on Energy Policy published a report last year 
which deals with the problems of emissions reductions and the cap on 
emissions in trade so that one company may utilize the emission limit 
of another company. I have been in discussions with Senator Bingaman on 
that, and I am glad to see his amendment is moving forward at this 
time. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of his amendment. I believe this 
will take a significant step forward on the issue of global warming. It 
would always be desirable to move farther ahead in a more dramatic 
fashion, but I think this is a significant step forward.
  I have been pleased to work with Senator Domenici. I compliment the 
chairman. And Senator Bingaman, the ranking member, I compliment him on 
a number of amendments which I think will strengthen the energy policy 
of the United States.

                               Exhibit 1


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, April 11, 2000.
     President William Jefferson Clinton,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: In light of the very serious problems 
     caused by the recent increase in oil prices, we know you will 
     share our view that we should explore every possible 
     alternative to stop OPEC and other oil-

[[Page S7031]]

     producing states from entering into agreements to restrict 
     oil production in order to drive up the price of oil.
       This conduct is nothing more than an old-fashioned 
     conspiracy in restraint of trade which has long been 
     condemned under U.S. law, and which should be condemned under 
     international law.
       After some considerable research, we suggest that serious 
     consideration be given to two potential lawsuits against OPEC 
     and the nations conspiring with it:
       (1) A suit in Federal district court under U.S. antitrust 
     law.
       (2) A suit in the International Court of Justice at the 
     Hague based, perhaps, upon an advisory opinion under ``the 
     general principles of law recognized by civilized nations,'' 
     which includes prohibiting oil cartels from conspiring to 
     limit production and raise prices.
       (1) A suit in Federal district court under U.S. antitrust 
     law.
       A case can be made that your Administration can sue OPEC in 
     Federal district court under U.S. antitrust law. OPEC is 
     clearly engaging in a ``conspiracy in restraint of trade'' in 
     violation of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1). The 
     Administration has the power to sue under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 4 
     for injunctive relief to prevent such collusion.
       In addition, the Administration should consider suing OPEC 
     for treble damages under the ``Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 
     15a), since OPEC's behavior has caused an ``injury'' to U.S. 
     ``property.'' After all, the U.S. government is a major 
     consumer of petroleum products and must I now pay higher 
     prices for these products. In Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 
     U.S. 30 (1979), the Supreme Court held that the consumers who 
     were direct purchasers of certain hearing aides who alleged 
     that collusion among manufacturers had led to an increase in 
     prices had standing to sue those manufacturers under the 
     Clayton Act since ``a consumer, deprived of money by reason 
     of allegedly anticompetitive conduct is injured in `property' 
     within the meaning of [the Clayton Act].'' Indirect 
     purchasers would appear to be precluded from suit, even in a 
     class action, under Illinois Brick v. Illinois 431 U.S. 720 
     (1977), but this would not bar the United States Government, 
     as a direct purchaser, from having the requisite standing.
       One potential obstacle to such a suit is whether the 
     Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (``FSIA'') provides OPEC, a 
     group of sovereign foreign nations, with immunity from suit 
     in U.S. courts. To date, there has been a ruling on this 
     issue in only on case. In International Association of 
     Machinists v. OPEC, 477 F. Supp. 553 (1979), the District 
     Court for the Central District of California held that the 
     nations which comprise OPEC were immune from suit in the 
     United States under the FSIA. We believe that this opinion 
     was wrongly decided and that other district courts, including 
     the D.C. District, can and should revisit the issue.
       This decision in Int. Assoc. of Machinists turned on the 
     technical issue of whether or not the nations which comprise 
     OPEC are engaging in ``commercial activity'' or 
     ``governmental activity'' when they cooperate to sell their 
     oil. If they are engaging in ``governmental activity,'' then 
     the FSIA shields them from suit in U.S. courts. If, however, 
     these nations are engaging in ``commercial activity,'' then 
     they are subject to suit in the U.S. The California District 
     Court held that OPEC activity is ``governmental activity.'' 
     We disagree. It is certainly a governmental activity for a 
     nation to regulate the extraction of petroleum from its 
     territory by ensuring compliance with zoning, environmental 
     and 'other regulatory regimes. It is clearly a commercial 
     activity, however, for these nations to sit together and 
     collude to limit their oil production for the sole purpose of 
     increasing prices.
       The 9th Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling in 
     Int. Assoc. of Machinists in 1981 (649 F.2d 1354), but on the 
     basis of an entirely different legal principle. The 9th 
     Circuit held that the Court could not hear this case because 
     of the ``act of state'' doctrine, which holds that a U.S. 
     court will not adjudicate a politically sensitive dispute 
     which would require the court to judge the legality of the 
     sovereign act of a foreign state.
       The 9th Circuit itself acknowledged in its Int. Assoc. of 
     Machinists opinion that ``The [act of state] doctrine does 
     not suggest a rigid rule of application,'' but rather 
     application of the rule will depend on the circumstances of 
     each case. The Court also noted that, ``A further 
     consideration is the availability of internationally-accepted 
     legal principles which would render the issues appropriate 
     for judicial disposition.'' The Court then quotes from the 
     Supreme Court's opinion in Banco Nacional de Cuba v. 
     Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964):
       It should be apparent that the greater the degree of 
     codification or consensus concerning a particular area of 
     international law, the more appropriate it is for the 
     judiciary to render decisions regarding it, since the courts 
     can then focus on the application of an agreed principle to 
     circumstances of fact rather than on the sensitive task of 
     establishing a principle not inconsistent with the national 
     interest or with international justice.
       Since the 9th Circuit issued its opinion in 1981, there 
     have been major developments in international law that impact 
     directly on the subject matter at issue. As we discuss in 
     greater detail below, the 1990's have witnessed a significant 
     increase in efforts to seek compliance with basic 
     international norms of behavior through international courts 
     and tribunals. In addition, there is strong evidence of an 
     emerging consensus in international law that price fixing by 
     cartels violates such international norms. Accordingly, a 
     court choosing to apply the act of state doctrine to a 
     dispute with OPEC today may very well reach a different 
     conclusion than the 9th Circuit reached almost twenty years 
     ago.
       You should also examine whether the anticompetitive conduct 
     of the international oil cartel is being effectuated, by 
     private companies who are subject to the enforcement of U.S. 
     antitrust laws (for example, former state oil companies that 
     have now been privatized) rather than sovereign foreign 
     states. If such private oil companies are determined to in 
     fact be participating in the anticompetitive conduct of the 
     oil cartel, then we would urge that these companies be mulled 
     as defendants in an antitrust lawsuit in addition to the OPEC 
     members.
       (2) A suit in the International Court of Justice at the 
     Hague based upon ``the general principles of law recognized 
     by civilized nations.'' which includes prohibiting oil 
     cartels from conspiring to limit production and raise prices.
       In addition to such domestic antitrust actions, we believe 
     you should give serious consideration to bringing a case 
     against OPEC before the International Court of Justice (the 
     ``ICJ') at the Hague. You should consider both a direct suit 
     against the conspiring nations as well as a request for an 
     advisory opinion from the Court through the auspices of the 
     U.N. Security Council. The actions of OPEC in restraint of 
     trade violate ``the general principles of law recognized by 
     civilized nations.'' Under Article 38 of the Statute of the 
     ICJ, the Court is required to apply these ``general 
     principles'' when deciding cases before it.
       This would clearly be a cutting-edge lawsuit, making new 
     law at the international level. But there have been exciting 
     developments in recent years which suggest that the ICJ would 
     be willing to move in this direction. In a number of 
     contexts, we have seen a greater respect for and adherence to 
     fundamental international principles and norms by the world 
     community. For example, we have seen the establishment of the 
     International Criminal Court in 1998, the International 
     Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in 1994, and the International 
     Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in 1993. Each of 
     these bodies has been active, handing down numerous 
     indictments and convictions against individuals who have 
     violated fundamental principles of human rights. For example, 
     as of December 1, 1999 the Yugoslavia tribunal alone had 
     handed down 91 public indictments.
       Today, adherence to international principles has spread 
     from the tribunals in the Hague to individual nations around 
     the world. Recently, the exiled former dictator of Chad, 
     Hissene Habre, was indicted in Senegal on charges of torture 
     and barbarity stemming from his reign, where he allegedly 
     killed and tortured thousands. This case is similar to the 
     case brought against former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet 
     by Spain on the basis of his alleged atrocities in Chile. At 
     the request of the Spanish government, Pinochet was detained 
     in London for months until an English court determined that 
     he was too ill to stand trial.
       The emerging scope of international law was demonstrated in 
     an advisory opinion sought by the U.N. General Assembly in 
     1996 to declare illegal the use or threat to use nuclear 
     weapons. Such an issue would ordinarily be thought beyond the 
     scope of a judicial determination given the doctrines of 
     national sovereignty and the importance of nuclear weapons to 
     the defense of many nations. The ICJ ultimately ruled eight 
     to seven, however, that the use or threat to use nuclear 
     weapons ``would generally be contrary to the rules of 
     international law applicable in armed conflict, and in 
     particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law.'' 
     The fact that this issue was subject to a decision by the 
     ICJ, shows the rapidly expanding horizons of international 
     law.
       While these emerging norms of international behavior have 
     tended to focus more on human rights than on economic 
     principles, there is one economic issue on which an 
     international consensus has emerged in recent years--the 
     illegitimacy of price fixing by cartels. For example, on 
     April 27, 1998, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
     Development issued an official ``Recommendation'' that all 
     twenty-nine member nations ``ensure that their competition 
     laws effectively halt and deter hard core cartels.'' The 
     recommendation defines ``hard core cartels'' as those which, 
     among other things, fix prices or establish output 
     restriction quotas. The Recommendation further instructs 
     member countries ``to cooperate with each other in enforcing 
     their laws against such cartels.''
       On October 9, 1998, eleven Western Hemisphere countries 
     held the first ``Antitrust Summit of the Americas'' in Panama 
     City, Panama. At the close of the summit, all eleven 
     participants issued a joint communique in which they express 
     their intention ``to affirm their commitment to effective 
     enforcement of sound competition laws, particularly in 
     combating illegal price-fixing, bid-rigging, and market 
     allocation.'' The communique further expresses the intention 
     of these countries to ``cooperate with one another . . . to 
     maximize the efficacy and efficiency of the enforcement of 
     each country's

[[Page S7032]]

     competition laws.'' One of the countries participating in 
     this communique, Venezuela, is a member of OPEC.
       The behavior of OPEC and other oil-producing nations in 
     restraint of trade violates U.S. antitrust law and basic 
     international norms, and it is injuring the United States and 
     its citizens in a very real way. Consideration of such legal 
     action could provide an inducement to OPEC and other oil-
     producing countries to raise production to head off such 
     litigation.
       We hope that you will seriously consider judicial action to 
     put an end to such behavior.
     Arlen Specter.
     Herb Kohl.
     Charles Schumer.
     Mike DeWine.
     Strom Thurmond.
     Joe Biden.
                                  ____



                                         United States Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, April 25, 2001.
     President George Walker Bush,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: In light of the energy crisis and the 
     high prices of OPEC oil, we know you will share our view that 
     we must explore every possible alternative to stop OPEC and 
     other oil-producing states from entering into agreements to 
     restrict oil production in order to drive up the price of 
     oil.
       This conduct is nothing more than an old-fashioned 
     conspiracy in restraint of trade which has long been 
     condemned under U.S. law, and which should be condemned under 
     international law.
       After some research, we suggest that serious consideration 
     be given to two potential lawsuits against OPEC and the 
     nations conspiring with it:
       (1) A suit in Federal district court under U.S. antitrust 
     law.
       (2) A suit in the International Court of Justice at the 
     Hague based upon ``the general principles of law recognized 
     by civilized nations.''
       (1) A suit in Federal district court under U.S. antitrust 
     law.
       A strong case can be made that your Administration can sue 
     OPEC in Federal district court under U.S. antitrust law. OPEC 
     is clearly engaging in a ``conspiracy in restraint of trade'' 
     in violation of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1). The 
     Administration has the power to sue under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 4 
     for injunctive relief to prevent such collusion.
       In addition, the Administration has the power to sue OPEC 
     for treble damages under the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 
     15a), since OPEC's behavior has caused an ``injury'' to U.S. 
     ``property.'' After all, the U.S. government is a consumer of 
     petroleum products and must now pay higher prices for these 
     products. In Reiter v. Sonotone Corp. 442 U.S. 330 (1979), 
     the Supreme Court held that the consumers of certain hearing 
     aides who alleged that collusion among manufacturers had led 
     to an increase in prices had standing to sue those 
     manufacturers under the Clayton Act since ``a consumer 
     deprived of money by reason of allegedly anticompetitive 
     conduct is injured in `property' within the meaning of [the 
     Clayton Act].''
       One issue that would be raised by such a suit is whether 
     the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (``FSlA'') provides 
     OPEC, a group of sovereign foreign nations, with immunity 
     from suit in U.S. courts. To date, only one Federal court, 
     the District Court for the Central District of California, 
     has reviewed this issue. In International Association of 
     Machinists v. OPEC, 477 F. Supp. 553 (1979), the Court held 
     that the nations which comprise OPEC were immune from suit in 
     the United States under the FSIA. We believe that this 
     opinion was wrongly decided and that other district courts, 
     including the D.C. District, can and should revisit the 
     issue.
       This decision in Int. Assoc. of Machinists turned on the 
     technical issue of whether or not the nations which comprise 
     OPEC are engaging in ``commercial activity'' or 
     ``governmental activity'' when they cooperate to sell their 
     oil. If they are engaging in ``governmental activity,'' then 
     the FSIA shields them from suit in U.S. courts. If, however, 
     these nations are engaging in ``commercial activity,'' then 
     they are subject to suit in the U.S. The California District 
     Court held that OPEC activity is ``governmental activity.'' 
     We disagree. It is certainly a governmental activity for a 
     nation to regulate the extraction of petroleum from its 
     territory by ensuring compliance with zoning, environmental 
     and other regulatory regimes. It is clearly a commercial 
     activity, however, for these nations to sit together and 
     collude to limit their oil production for the sole purpose of 
     increasing prices.
       The 9th Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling in 
     Int. Assoc. of Machinists in 1981 (649 F.2d 1354), but on the 
     basis of an entirely different legal principle. The 9th 
     Circuit held that the Court could not hear this case because 
     of the ``act of state'' doctrine, which holds that a U.S. 
     court will not adjudicate a politically sensitive dispute 
     which would require the court to judge the legality of the 
     sovereign act of a foreign state.
       The 9th Circuit itself acknowledged in its Int. Assoc. of 
     Machinists opinion that ``The [act of state] doctrine does 
     not suggest a rigid rule of application,'' but rather 
     application of the rule will depend on the circumstances of 
     each case. The Court also noted that, ``A further 
     consideration is the availability of internationally-accepted 
     legal principles which would render the issues appropriate 
     for judicial disposition.'' The Court then quotes from the 
     Supreme Court's opinion in Banco Nacional de Cuba v. 
     Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964):
       It should be apparent that the greater the degree of 
     codification or consensus concerning a particular area of 
     international law, the more appropriate it is for the 
     judiciary to render decisions regarding it, since the courts 
     can then focus on the application of an agreed principle to 
     circumstances of fact rather than on the sensitive task of 
     establishing a principle not inconsistent with the national 
     interest or with international justice.
       Since the 9th Circuit issued its opinion in 1981, there 
     have been major developments in international law that impact 
     directly on the subject matter at issue. As we discuss in 
     greater detail below, the 1990's have witnessed a significant 
     increase in efforts to seek compliance with basic 
     international norms of behavior through international courts 
     and tribunals. In addition, there is strong evidence of an 
     emerging consensus in international law that price fixing by 
     cartels violates such international norms. Accordingly, a 
     court choosing to apply the act of state doctrine to a 
     dispute with OPEC today may very well reach a different 
     conclusion than the 9th Circuit reached almost twenty-
     years ago.
       (2) A suit in the International Court of Justice at the 
     Hague based upon ``the general principles of law recognized 
     by civilized nations.''
       In addition to such domestic antitrust actions, we believe 
     you should give serious consideration to bringing a. case 
     against OPEC before the International Court of Justice (the 
     ``ICJ'') at the Hague. You should consider both a direct suit 
     against the conspiring nations as well as a request for an 
     advisory opinion from the Court through the auspices of the 
     U.N. Security Council. The actions of OPEC in restraint of 
     trade violate ''the general principles of law recognized by 
     civilized nations.'' Under Article 38 of the Statute of the 
     ICJ, the Court is required to apply these ``general 
     principles'' when deciding cases before it.
       This would clearly be a cutting-edge lawsuit, making new 
     law at the international level. But there have been exciting 
     developments in recent years which suggest that the ICJ would 
     be willing to move in this direction. In a number of 
     contexts, we have seen a greater respect for and adherence to 
     fundamental international principles and norms by the world 
     community. For example, we have seen the establishment of the 
     International Criminal Court in 1998, the International 
     Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in 1994, and the International 
     Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in 1993. Each of 
     these bodies has been active, handing down numerous 
     indictments and convictions against individuals who have 
     violated fundamental principles of human rights.
       Today, adherence to international principles has spread 
     from the tribunals in the Hague to individual nations around 
     the world. The exiled former dictator of Chad, Hissene Habre, 
     was indicted in Senegal on charges of torture and barbarity 
     stemming from his reign, where he allegedly killed and 
     tortured thousands. This case is similar to the case brought 
     against former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet by Spain on 
     the basis of his alleged atrocities in Chile. At the request 
     of the Spanish government, Pinochet was detained in London 
     for months until an English court determined that he was too 
     ill to stand trial.
       While these emerging norms of international behavior have 
     tended to focus more on human rights than on economic 
     principles, there is one economic issue on which an 
     international consensus has emerged in recent years--the 
     illegitimacy of price fixing by cartels. For example, on 
     April 27, 1998, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
     Development issued an official ``Recommendation'' that all 
     twenty-nine member nations ``ensure that their competition 
     laws effectively halt and deter hard core cartels.'' The 
     recommendation defines ``hard core cartels'' as those which, 
     among other things, fix prices or establish output 
     restriction quotas. The Recommendation further instructs 
     member countries ``to cooperate with each other in enforcing 
     their laws against such cartels.''
       On October 9, 1998, eleven Western Hemisphere countries 
     held the first ``Antitrust Summit of the Americas'' in Panama 
     City, Panama. At the close of the summit, all eleven 
     participants issued a joint communique in which they express 
     their intention ``to affirm their commitment to effective 
     enforcement of sound competition laws, particularly in 
     combating illegal price-fixing, bid-rigging, and market 
     allocation.'' The communique further expresses the intention 
     of these countries to ``cooperate with one another . . . to 
     maximize the efficacy and efficiency of the enforcement of 
     each country's competition laws.''
       The behavior of OPEC and other oil-producing nations in 
     restraint of trade violates U.S. antitrust law and basic 
     international norms, and it is injuring the United States and 
     its citizens in a very real way. We hope you will seriously 
     consider judicial action to put an end to such behavior.
       We hope you will seriously consider judicial action to put 
     an end to such behavior.
     Arlen Specter.
     Charles Schumer.
     Herb Kohl.
     Strom Thurmond.

[[Page S7033]]

     Mike DeWine.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time of my 10 minutes remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes 43 seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield it back and ask for an appropriate credit. Thank 
you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. So noted.
  The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Energy 
bill which we are considering on the floor.
  I am grateful to the majority leader and minority leader and to the 
leaders of the Energy Committee, for bringing this legislation to the 
floor. I want to especially commend Senator Domenici, chairman of the 
Energy Committee, for his leadership on this bill. He has worked 
tirelessly on this important legislation, and our Nation owes him a 
great deal of appreciation for his persistence.
  Ongoing events, here in the United States as well as around the 
world, are daily reminders of how desperately our country needs a sound 
energy policy. One only has to pick up a newspaper or listen to the 
nightly news to know that our national security is one of the most 
important issues we are currently facing. And one only has to receive 
their monthly electric bill or drive past a gas station to know that 
our energy markets are in need of certainty and stability. This is the 
third Congress during which we have tried to pass an energy bill, and I 
say it is time to get it done.
  I would like to first speak about oil shale, a promising fuel source 
found in abundance in the Rocky Mountain region. The oil shale in this 
region produces a very light crude, suitable to fill needs for jet fuel 
and other very pure fuels. During the last several years a handful of 
companies have worked to develop technologies that will allow for 
economically and environmentally feasible development of this resource.
  Some of the oil shale resources lie under private lands, but much of 
it--certainly the richest deposit--is under Federal lands. This area, 
now under the purview of BLM, was formerly known as the Naval Oil Shale 
Reserve. I would remind my colleagues that, when my former colleague 
Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, authored the legislation 
to transfer the Naval Oil Shale lands into the keeping of BLM, the 
legislation specified that the resource remain available for 
development. Congress recognized that BLM was in a better position to 
manage the publicly owned lands than was the Department of Energy, but 
we never intended to place the development of the resources in this 
area off limits.
  The energy legislation we are considering here allows for small-scale 
demonstration projects. But I am also working with my colleagues, 
Senator Hatch and Senator Bennett, on provisions that will help lead to 
commercialization after the demonstration projects have proven 
themselves.
  It is a bad business practice to pour millions of dollars into 
research and development projects with no hint of assurance those 
projects will lead to commercialization. I believe it is important to 
give companies that are investing tens of millions of dollars into 
these research projects a proverbial light at the end of the tunnel.
  As a founder and cochairman of the Renewable Energy and Energy 
Efficiency Caucus I am also supportive of incentives that are included 
in the legislation to continue moving the country's use of renewable 
resources forward. Technological advancements in solar, wind, 
geothermal, biomass, fuel cells, and hydro have made great strides. And 
increases in technology have led to decreases in price. Government has 
played an important role in the research that will help us reach our 
renewable technology goals, and we should continue to further those 
goals. The input and investments of the Federal Government have been 
vital in furthering industry and private sector involvement in the 
renewable field.
  The National Renewable Energy Laboratory, often called NREL in 
Colorado, has made an incredible contribution, and has played a very 
important part in current technological advancements. The technologies 
being developed at NREL--whether providing alternative fuels and power, 
or making our homes and vehicles more energy efficient--are vital to 
our Nation's energy progress.
  We must continue to provide incentives for the implementation of 
renewables use and for the infrastructure necessary to support these 
renewable sources. These technologies are a necessary step in balancing 
our domestic energy portfolio, increasing our Nation's energy security 
and advancing our country's technological excellence, and I believe 
this bill takes an important step in that direction.
  It is my hope that Congress passes an energy bill this year. I think 
that we will be making a huge step in that direction when the Senate 
does pass this bill. In closing I extend my thanks and admiration to 
Senators Domenici and Bingaman, and their staffs, for the long hours 
and extreme dedication they have given to this matter. I must say that 
I believe that this is the best energy bill we have produced in a 
number of years, and I know there are many throughout the country, even 
on the other side of the Hill, who agree with me. The President is 
ready to sign an energy bill and I am hopeful that we are able to give 
him one in the very near future.
  I yield the floor.


                     Amendment No. 866, As Modified

    (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on climate change 
                             legislation.)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, as I understand it, under our unanimous 
consent agreement, it is now appropriate for me to call up amendment 
No. 866, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself, 
     Mr. Domenici, Mr. Specter, Mr. Alexander, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. 
     Lieberman, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. McCain, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. 
     Kerry, and Ms. Snowe, proposes an amendment numbered 866, as 
     modified:

       At the end of title XVI, add the following:

     SEC. 16__. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON CLIMATE CHANGE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere are 
     causing average temperatures to rise at a rate outside the 
     range of natural variability and are posing a substantial 
     risk of rising sea-levels, altered patterns of atmospheric 
     and oceanic circulation, and increased frequency and severity 
     of floods and droughts;
       (2) there is a growing scientific consensus that human 
     activity is a substantial cause of greenhouse gas 
     accumulation in the atmosphere; and
       (3) mandatory steps will be required to slow or stop the 
     growth of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that Congress should enact a comprehensive and effective 
     national program of mandatory, market-based limits and 
     incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop, 
     and reverse the growth of such emissions at a rate and in a 
     manner that--
       (1) will not significantly harm the United States economy; 
     and
       (2) will encourage comparable action by other nations that 
     are major trading partners and key contributors to global 
     emissions.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I went ahead and allowed the clerk to 
complete the reading of the amendment because it is short and because 
it is important that Members focus on what is contained in the 
amendment. We just had a significant debate on the Senate floor with 
regard to the proposal made by Senators McCain and Lieberman to cap 
greenhouse gas emissions. Some voted for it because they believed that 
this was an appropriate proposal. Others voted against it--some because 
they did not believe the issue is a valid one; some because they did 
not believe the effect on the economy was one they would favor; others 
because of the workability of it.
  I have worked with Senator Domenici during recent weeks to see if we 
could come up with a proposal based on the National Commission on 
Energy Policy recommendations which would have done some of the same 
things but would have been a more modest beginning at containing and 
constraining carbon emissions going into the atmosphere.
  We were not able, frankly, to get agreement among enough Senators 
that the proposal, as currently drafted, is workable in all respects. 
Therefore, Senator Domenici has indicated here on the Senate floor that 
he will try to have hearings and that we will be able

[[Page S7034]]

in the next several months going forward to consider this with great 
deliberation in our Energy and Natural Resources Committee. There are 
other committees with jurisdiction as well over this same set of 
issues. I am sure they will have the opportunity to work on it.
  The resolution that is before the Senate right now and that we are 
scheduled to vote on in another half hour is an effort to see if we can 
get agreement on some basic propositions. In my opinion, it is 
important that we demonstrate agreement on basic propositions in order 
that we can move ahead and deal effectively with this important and 
complex issue.
  The propositions were as read. Let me go over them once again for my 
colleagues so that everyone knows what is contained in the resolution. 
Before I go through that, let me indicate the cosponsors of this 
resolution are Senators Domenici, Specter, Alexander, Cantwell, 
Lieberman, Lautenberg, McCain, Jeffords, Kerry, and Snowe. I ask 
unanimous consent that they all be listed as cosponsors of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. The amendment is a sense of the Senate. It reads:

       Findings. Congress finds that greenhouse gases accumulating 
     in the atmosphere are causing average temperatures to rise at 
     a rate outside the range of natural variability and are 
     posing a substantial risk of rising sea levels, altered 
     patterns of atmospheric and oceanic circulation, and 
     increased frequency and severity of floods and droughts.

  I know this is an issue that some in this Senate disagree strongly 
with, and I am sure my colleague from Oklahoma will take great 
exception to this. I believe the science is well established that this 
is the case, and the National Academy of Sciences has stood behind that 
basic statement.
  This is the second statement in the resolution:

       There is growing scientific consensus that human activity 
     is a substantial cause of greenhouse gas accumulation in the 
     atmosphere.

  Again, we may have Members here in the Senate who disagree with that 
conclusion. They are certainly free to do that. But I hope a majority 
of the Senate agrees with it.
  The third finding set out in this amendment is that ``mandatory steps 
will be required to slow or stop the growth of greenhouse gas emissions 
into the atmosphere.''
  There are some who have spoken in the Senate today who have said that 
mandatory steps are not required, that this problem will be solved by 
voluntary action, that the marketplace is solving this problem as we 
speak, and we do not need to be concerned about enacting any kind 
of mandatory provisions. I respectfully disagree with that perspective. 
I respectfully suggest that this is an issue that is going to require 
action of a mandatory nature by this Congress, and we need to 
acknowledge that.

  The final part of the amendment is the sense-of-the-Senate provision. 
It says:

       It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should enact a 
     comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, 
     market-based limits and incentives on emissions of greenhouse 
     gases that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of such 
     emissions at a rate and in a manner that, No. 1, will not 
     significantly harm the U.S. economy and, No. 2, will 
     encourage other action and key contributors to global 
     emissions.

  I will point to two charts that are an outgrowth of the work of this 
National Commission on Energy Policy in order to indicate to my 
colleagues why we have the language of this provision written as it is.
  This first chart is the Commission climate proposal timeline. What 
they have proposed in their recommendations is a system which has been 
criticized by some in the environmental community for being too weak 
and too modest. I can understand those criticisms. But it is a proposal 
that would slow the rate of increase of emissions for the first 10 
years. Then about 2020, you would be into a period where emissions 
would no longer be growing, and then you would go into a phase where 
emissions would begin to decline.
  As I say, some who are on the environmental side say that is too 
modest, we can't do that little. But others, of course, say it is too 
onerous, and we can't do that much. What we have tried to do with this 
sense of the Senate is to say, OK, some think it is too onerous, some 
think it is too much. Can we at least get agreement that we have to put 
in place some type of system, some type of mandatory limits that will, 
in fact, begin to slow the rate of emissions, eventually stop the rate 
of emissions, and bring emissions down? That is what we are trying to 
do.
  There is one other chart I wish to show. That relates to the harm to 
the economy. I know that much of the discussion on the McCain-Lieberman 
amendment was that if we were to enact that amendment, it would have a 
devastating effect on the U.S. economy. I disagree with that. But I am 
suggesting that there are ways--and the National Commission on Energy 
Policy concluded that as well--that we can responsibly act to contain 
emissions and to constrain the growth of emissions without 
significantly affecting our economy in an adverse way.
  This chart shows that graphically. What it basically shows is that 
the economy is expected to grow very dramatically between 2005 and 
2025. You can see that the growth of the economy will be $312.47 
trillion. That is business as usual. We asked the Energy Information 
Agency, which is part of our own Department of Energy and the executive 
branch of our Government, to model this and determine what they thought 
the effect of the National Commission's recommendations on greenhouse 
gas would be to those figures. How much would it impact the economy? 
They concluded that under the NCEP proposal, you would see a very 
slight reduction in the amount of growth in the economy. So over that 
20-year period, it would be $312.16 trillion instead of $312.47 
trillion of economic growth in this country. You cannot have a more 
modest proposal than that as far as impact on the economy.
  I am not here trying to persuade Members that this is the only way to 
proceed. I am saying this is evidence that we can, in fact, design a 
proposal for constraining the growth in greenhouse gases that will not 
adversely affect our economy, and that is exactly what we should be 
about, is trying to put that into place.
  This resolution is nothing but a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. But 
it is important that we pass it. In my opinion, it is important that we 
pass it because the Senate is on record in 1997 as voting unanimously 
against going forward with the Kyoto treaty. I was one of those who 
voted not to proceed with signing on to the Kyoto treaty. That does not 
mean we should not take this step. This step would be the responsible 
thing to do. It would say this Senate is resolved to move ahead and try 
to enact legislation that will deal with this serious problem. And we 
recognize that doing so will require some mandatory limits on 
emissions.
  I know that is something some Members in the Senate do not agree 
with. It is my hope that a majority of the Senate does agree with that, 
and it is my hope that a majority of the House of Representatives will 
agree with it, and that eventually we can persuade the administration 
to agree with this point of view as well. We need to move ahead with 
this issue--the sooner the better. This is a responsible way to do so.
  I very much appreciate the good faith with which my colleague, 
Senator Domenici, worked with me to see if there was something that 
could be jointly proposed to deal with this issue as part of the Energy 
bill. It was his conclusion--which is certainly understandable--that 
there was too much complexity involved at this point and too many 
unanswered questions for us to proceed with an amendment to solve the 
problem as part of the Energy bill.
  But I am very pleased that he is willing to cosponsor this sense-of-
the-Senate resolution, indicating that even though we are not able to 
do it as an amendment to the Energy bill, we can in fact plan to go 
ahead.
  Mr. President, with that, I will reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Bingaman has 5 minutes 21 seconds, and 
Senator Inhofe has 17 minutes 22 seconds.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I know what a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution is. Everybody here knows if you establish a position 
on a bill that is very meaningful, such as the bill

[[Page S7035]]

that was defeated--the McCain-Lieberman bill--you can turn around and 
vote for a sense of the Senate and play both sides. Essentially, I 
think that is what happened here.
  Very clearly, a sense of the Senate doesn't do anything except offer 
cover. I would like to suggest that it would be difficult for me to 
imagine that anyone who voted in opposition to McCain-Lieberman a few 
minutes ago would turn around and support this because this is making 
four assertions that are not true. We have demonstrated very clearly 
that they are not true and nonscientifically based.
  The first one is on the first page of the sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution. It says:

       Greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere are causing 
     average temperatures to rise at a rate outside the range of 
     natural variability. . . .

  We talked about this for 3 hours today. In fact, that is not true. If 
you are concerned about, for example, surface temperatures, we have 
climate research, published in 2004, that says overall averages of 
warming rates is overstated. This is due to significant contamination 
with land-based weather stations, which add up to a net warming bias at 
the global averaging level.
  Then, on climate research of 2004, this study refutes common claims 
that nonclimatic signals in the weather station data have been 
identified and filtered out by the IPCC. That is the International 
Panel on Climate Control, which we talked about in the beginning of 
this. Again, we look at this, in terms of satellite data, as printed in 
the text of the central station publication in 2004:

       Substantial cooling has occurred in the lower stratospheric 
     layer of the atmosphere over the past 25 years.

  In other words, in the stratosphere, starting between 8 and 25 miles 
above the surface, it is not heating, it is actually reducing; the 
temperatures are reducing. This false conclusion that the stratosphere 
is warming should never have been published since the evidence was 
misinterpreted.
  So we are saying something in this resolution that, quite frankly, is 
not true.
  Second, it is ``posing a substantial risk of rising sea levels, 
altered patterns of atmospheric and oceanic circulation,'' hurricanes, 
and all that.
  We have talked about this at some length today. First, if you talk 
about droughts, we have already talked about the surface temperatures 
and the fact that they are not increasing. The hurricanes in global 
warming, we spent time today talking about that. The foremost authority 
nationwide is a guy named Dr. Christopher Landsea. He says that 
hurricanes are going to continue to hit the United States on the 
Atlantic and Gulf coast, and the damage will probably be more expensive 
than in the past, but this is due to the natural climate cycles which 
cause hurricanes to be stronger and more frequent and rising property 
prices.
  Obviously, it is going to cost more if you damage property that is 
increasing in value. He says that contrary to the belief of the 
environmentalists, reducing CO2 emissions would not lessen 
the impact of hurricanes. The best way to reduce the toll hurricanes 
would take on coastal communities is through adaptation and 
preparation. I think we all understand that. Rising sea levels. We 
talked about this today, too. They always talk about this Tuvalu, the 
island supposedly that is going to sink into the ocean. John Daly, in 
the report that came out--I don't think anybody questions his 
credibility--says the historical record, from 1978 through 1999, 
indicated a sea level rise of 0.07 millimeters per year, where IPCC 
claims a 1 to 2.5 millimeter sea rise for the world as a whole, 
indicating the IPCC claim is based on faulty modeling. The national 
title facility based in Adelaide, Australia, dismissed the Tuvalu 
claims as unfounded. It goes on and on refuting that.
  The next thing it says in this resolution is that the science is 
settled. I don't know how many times we have to say that, since 1999, 
the science that was assumed to be true, based on the 1998 revelation 
of Michael Mann on the very famous ``hockey stick'' theory, has been 
refuted over and over again. We have the energy and environment report 
that came out in 2003 that says the original Mann papers contain 
collation errors, unjustifiable truncations of extrapolation of source 
data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect 
calculations of the principal components, and other quality control 
defects. It goes on to say that while studying Mann's calculation 
methods, McIntyre and McKitrick found that Mann's component calculation 
used only one series in a certain part of the calculation said to be 
serious. They discovered that this unusual method nearly always 
produces a hockey stick shape, regardless of what information is put 
into it.
  We had the charts out less than an hour ago. It is very clear that if 
you plot the temperature, as he did over the period of the last hundred 
years, it shows a fairly level line, until it comes to the 20th 
century, and it goes up. That is the blade on the hockey stick. That 
shows that temperatures start increasing after the turn of the century. 
What he failed to put on the chart was the medieval warming period, 
which was from about 1000 A.D. to 1350 A.D. During that time, nobody 
refutes the fact that temperatures were higher then than they are in 
this century.
  The other thing, if all else fails, use logic. In the 1940s, when we 
had the dramatic escalation of CO2 and methane and 
anthropogenic gases, this is what they are asserting causes global 
warming, but it precipitated a cooling period that started in the 
middle 1940s and went to the late 1970s. As we said an hour ago, the 
first page on the major publications around America, such as Time 
magazine, said we are now having an ice age coming. Everybody was 
hysterical. We are all going to die in an ice age. That is using the 
same logic that, if you are going to say it is due to anthropogenic 
gas, in the late 1940s, we had an 85-percent increase in that, and that 
precipitated not a warming period but a cooling period.
  So you can take this and pick it apart. I kind of think it is going 
to pass because we had a lot of people who voted against the real thing 
which would have caused all of the economic damages. Now it is very 
safe to cover your vote by voting for something so you can answer your 
mail and say: Yes, that is all right. I voted for the sense of the 
Senate, saying we are going to do these things and accept the fact 
that, No. 1, the planet is heating; No. 2, it is due to anthropogenic 
gases, and therefore vote for me.
  That is happening now. We understand that. It was also brought out by 
the Senator from New Mexico that the economic impacts are not all that 
great when dealing with global warming. I suggest to you they are very 
great. I cannot find a group that says they are not. Charles Rivers 
Associates. Sure, you can say the CRA is not a credible group. Nobody 
is going to say that because he is credible. They are saying if we had 
enacted the watered-down version of McCain-Lieberman, it would have 
cost the economy $507 billion in 2020, $525 billion in 2025. 
Implementing Kyoto would cost--and we are talking about this in the 
resolution--$305 billion in 2010; $243 billion in 2020. It would result 
in an annual loss per household of $2,780 by 2010. That means, for 
every household of four people, the average it is going to cost them. 
Don't let anyone tell you that the economic impact is anything but 
disastrous. When the CRA International studied the job loss, it stated 
that under the watered-down version, we would lose 840,000 U.S. jobs in 
2010; 1.3 million jobs in 2020; and implementing the Kyoto would mean 
job loss in the economy of 2.4 million jobs in 2010 and 1.7 million 
jobs in 2020. Energy prices--this is the economy we are talking about--
would increase. There would be a 28-percent increase for gasoline, a 
28-percent increase for electricity, 47-percent increase for gas, and 
it would be astronomical in terms of the cost of coal. These are the 
things that we turned around and wisely voted down in a meaningful 
bill. And I don't question the sincerity of McCain-Lieberman. They 
really believe in this. Nonetheless, cooler heads did prevail, and now 
we have a cover vote and people will come forth and say I am voting for 
this in spite of the fact that I voted against you before. I will turn 
around and vote for this as a sense of the Senate. It means nothing in 
terms of legislation. We understand that.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

[[Page S7036]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I want to begin my brief statement by 
congratulating the managers of the bill for their good work in 
explaining the bill to this point. This is not a resolution I can 
support, but I acknowledge its good faith.
  I point out that the resolution states, in the effective clause where 
it says what the sense of the Senate is, that we should ``enact a 
comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based 
limits on emissions,'' provided that--and subsection (1) says that 
``will not significantly harm the United States economy.'' I read it 
and caught that word ``significantly.'' Evidently it is OK, under the 
resolution, to harm the American economy provided that it is not 
significant. I just wonder what the word ``significant'' means. Not 
significant may be if somebody else loses their job as a result of it. 
If I do not lose my job, it is not significant. I am wondering how much 
of GDP, how much of a loss of manufacturing jobs is significant. The 
estimates of the McCain-Lieberman amendment would be $27 billion 
annually as a direct cost. I wonder if that is significant.

  High energy prices, which legislation of the kind envisioned by the 
resolution would cause, hurt the American economy. I do not want to do 
that. I do not want to vote for a resolution that presupposes it is OK 
to hurt the American economy. That is not the way to solve this 
problem.
  I want us to start thinking not in terms of economic prosperity or 
environmental quality, I want us to think in terms of economic 
prosperity and environmental quality. It is not a question of more jobs 
or doing something about climate change. It is a question of more jobs 
and doing something about climate change.
  Without prosperity, without growth, without the wealth that creates 
for the American people in their private lives, and also for the 
governments in this country--Federal, State, and local--we cannot 
defeat these environmental problems.
  Most of them come down to a question of money. That is certainly the 
case in the State of Missouri. We have significant water quality 
issues. We need funds to solve those problems. If we have funds, we 
have to have revenue; to have revenue, you have to have growth; and you 
are not going to have growth if you are passing resolutions saying it 
is OK to harm the American economy, providing it is not significant.
  I know the sincerity of the Senator in offering this amendment and 
others who are going to vote for this, but I ask them to get out of 
this mindset: We can solve the global warming problem, but we will do 
it with prosperity, not without prosperity.
  I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for yielding.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I want to voice my support for the sense of the Senate 
resolution on climate change offered by Senators Domenici, Bingaman, 
and myself. I believe that there is a problem with global warming. And 
I believe that there will be a mandatory national program to reduce 
carbon emissions sooner or later. I will be prepared to vote for 
controls on this when it is clear how they will be implemented. For 
now, I support the market-based incentives approach to reducing carbon 
emissions proposed by Senator Hagel and passed by the Senate yesterday. 
I do not expect us to be able in this Congress to put together a 
mandatory carbon reduction program, but I do expect to be working in 
hearings as soon as next month on this important issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 5 minutes 15 seconds remaining.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield that to my colleague from New Mexico, Senator 
Domenici.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico, the chairman of 
the committee is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first I remind everybody that 2 years 
ago the President of the United States gave a speech on this subject. 
It was a very lengthy speech, but there are two provisions, which I do 
not have in front of me--so forgive me, I am not quoting, I am just 
stating to the best of my recollection.
  In the second part of the speech, which I want to mention, the 
President said that we should proceed to reduce carbon greenhouse gases 
by 18 percent through 2012 on a voluntary basis, and thereafter we 
should use incentives and other ways to accomplish further reduction.
  First, I think that means the President of the United States is 
saying we should reduce carbon greenhouse gases. In fact, he, in a 
sense, is saying that is a good thing. In fact, he said recently we are 
doing it. ``We are going to meet the goal,'' said the President.
  When I was trying to put together a package, I was recognizing 
everything the President said, and I was recognizing that voluntary is 
the best way. Then I was saying: What if we do not get there when the 
voluntary time arrives?
  So anybody who suggests there is nobody around who thinks this is a 
problem, why is the President saying we ought to reduce them if there 
is no problem? Are we just doing it because it is the flavor of the 
times? I don't think so. I think the President is saying we ought to 
get on with doing it. He thinks there is a way to do it, and he thinks 
voluntary is doing it, and I do not argue with him.
  As a matter of fact, I think anybody who tries to start capping in 
any way one chooses to call capping early is mistaken because the 
United States of America is doing many things with many dollars on many 
fronts to reduce greenhouse gases.
  The question is, Do we do anything if we are unsuccessful in 
achieving some goal? As I read what I have agreed to help Senator 
Bingaman with, it says there is a problem. It says we ought to do 
something to reduce the problem, and it is says precisely that ``it is 
the sense of the Senate that Congress''--it does not even say when--
``that Congress,'' not next year, ``that Congress should enact a 
comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based 
limits.'' Then it says, ``and incentives on emissions of greenhouse 
gases,'' that do what? `` . . . that slow, stop, and reverse the growth 
of such emissions,'' and then it says--these are the goals, the 
concerns--that it will not significantly harm the economy.
  One could say you should not put ``significantly'' in there because 
is some OK? What does ``significant'' mean? I say it means what we want 
it to mean. It just says something. Should we put in ``no more than 
one-half of 1 percent''? Then we would be prejudging what can be done. 
``Significantly'' means to me something with which we can live and 
still have a very viable American growing economy but make some 
achievements in terms of diminution of carbon.
  Then it says this will also encourage a comparable action by other 
nations that are trading partners of the United States. That is what we 
are trying to do.
  Frankly, I know some will read more into this than is here, and I 
understand. I am not critical of anybody. Everybody has views on this 
issue.
  I also hope those who understand what we voted on a little while 
ago--I spoke in opposition to it--I think I understand it as well as 
anybody. It received 38 votes. I did not vote for it.
  Likewise, I am on this amendment because it is making a statement 
with reference to this issue. I, frankly, believe the time has come for 
some of us to make a statement regarding this issue, and I choose this 
one. Some others would say we want to be purely voluntary, and they 
could put in a sense of the Senate that we will remove as much carbon 
as we can, as soon as we can using all voluntary means, and that is a 
sense of a Senate. I would not be against that. I would say that is 
probably something good.
  That is all I wanted to say. I thank the Senator for yielding me 
whatever time I have used. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator 
from Oklahoma has 2 minutes 38 seconds.

[[Page S7037]]

  Mr. INHOFE. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes 38 seconds remaining.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this has been a good debate. I would like 
to have the same debate of 3 hours, 4 hours as we talked on the McCain-
Lieberman amendment on this amendment because it should be essentially 
the same thing. As I said before, it is not.
  One point I neglected to mention, since they talk in the findings 
about what is happening in the Arctic, one of the reports we used 
specifically said that the temperature in the Arctic during the late 
thirties and early forties was greater than it is today.
  In this brief time, I only repeat what the National Academy of 
Sciences stated in their written report--not in any kind of press 
release but their written report:

        . . . there is considerable uncertainty in current 
     understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and 
     reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols. . . .
        . . . a casual linkage between the buildup of greenhouse 
     gases and the observed climate changes in the 20th century 
     cannot be unequivocally established.
       The IPCC Summary for Policymakers could give an impression 
     that the science of global warming is settled, even though 
     many uncertainties still remain.

  That is the National Academy of Sciences.
  Lastly, we are refuting not just if we adopt this resolution, which I 
think we will adopt because it is an easy vote for a lot of people and 
nobody is going to pay a lot of attention to a sense of the Senate, the 
fact is, we had 17,800 scientists in the Oregon petition who said:

       There is no convincing scientific evidence that human 
     release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse 
     gasses 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 environment of the Earth.

  If we adopt this amendment, we are saying that science that has been 
refuted is a reality.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. All time has 
expired.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. 
Coleman) would have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Conrad), and the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan) are necessarily 
absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 149 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--53

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Collins
     Corzine
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Coleman
     Conrad
     Dorgan
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on rollcall No. 149 I voted ``nay'' but 
intended to vote ``yea.'' I ask unanimous consent that my vote be 
changed, as it will not affect the outcome.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
866, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 866), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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. On behalf of the leader, I wish to read a unanimous 
consent request regarding the lineup that we will follow henceforth.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, before my colleague reads that, I ask 
unanimous consent that Senator Collins be added as an original 
cosponsor of the amendment we just agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now proceed to the consideration of the following amendments: Senator 
Alexander's amendment, which is at the desk and relates to wind, 30 
minutes equally divided in the usual form; second, Senator Kerry's 
amendment, sense of the Senate on climate change, 30 minutes equally 
divided in the usual form.
  I further ask unanimous consent that there be no second-degree 
amendments in order to the Alexander or Kerry amendments prior to the 
votes in relation to those amendments and that votes in relation to 
those amendments occur in a stacked fashion following the debate on 
both amendments.
  Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following those votes, Senator 
Warner be recognized in order to offer an amendment relating to OCS, 
with his part of the agreement subject to the approval of both leaders; 
further, there be 15 minutes for Senator Lautenberg and 15 minutes for 
Senator Domenici or his designee during the aforementioned debate.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I think this is fair. I 
would just note for the record, so there is no confusion, the reason we 
are concerned about the Warner amendment is we want to make sure that 
the Parliamentarian has a chance to look at the amendment prior to 
Senator Frist and I making a decision on whether it should come up 
tonight.
  Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, I want to be totally 
cooperative with the leadership, and they have been open and candid 
with me regarding the very strong opposition to the Warner amendment. I 
would advise my colleagues, whether we could get that parliamentary 
ruling is still not clear. So I will consider the following as a 
substitute to the provisions relating to the Senator from Virginia; 
that is, that I be recognized to bring the amendment up, that at least 
one or two colleagues who are in opposition would then express their 
opposition and, following that, I will commit, as long as there are one 
or two who will speak in opposition, to state the case, then I will ask 
to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Reserving the right to object, I wish to make 
sure that the Senator from New Jersey and I are protected because I am 
not quite sure what the distinguished Senator from Virginia has 
requested. Originally, it was the unanimous consent request that the 
Democratic leader would have the right to object if a certain 
determination by the Parliamentarian occurs. That is the protection.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield, there is no one in this body--no 
one--I respect more than Senator Warner, and I know he would never in 
any way do anything other than what he just said. What he said is, as 
long as someone comes and speaks in opposition to his amendment and if 
the Parliamentarian has ruled at that time, he will withdraw the 
amendment. For me, that is better than any unanimous consent agreement 
you could have.

[[Page S7038]]

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. And further questioning of the Democratic 
leader, I think Senator Warner said two people, two Senators could 
speak.
  Mr. REID. Two, you and me or you and Senator Corzine.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. All right.
  Mr. REID. And it is regardless of the Parliamentarian making a 
decision as to what he said.
  Mr. CORZINE. Reserving the right to object, I would like to hear the 
last statement by the distinguished Senator from Nevada. Did you say 
that regardless of the Parliamentarian's judgment, it will be 
withdrawn?

  Mr. REID. He will withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. CORZINE. Withdraw, precloture and postcloture?
  Mr. REID. Senator Warner does not play games.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Is the vote up or down?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, would the Chair recite the request now as 
it relates to the section pertinent to the Senator from Virginia? I say 
to my colleagues, if you would be willing to each speak 5 minutes, I 
will take 5, 5 minutes each for the Senators from Florida and New 
Jersey in opposition, then I will move to strike the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. There is another Senator who wants to be recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. All Senators will speak no more than 5 minutes on this 
matter.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. If I may be recognized, I would like to speak for 5 
minutes in opposition.
  Mr. WARNER. All right. That is sufficient.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object, I asked a question. Is the 
vote up or down?
  Mr. REID. Votes in relation to your amendment. It could be some other 
motion, but we will get a vote on or in relation to your amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request as modified by Senator Warner?
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I wish to say that I have nothing but the 
highest respect for the Senator from Virginia, and I fully appreciate 
that he is acting absolutely in good faith. I would like to hear what 
the unanimous consent is we are agreeing to so that once and for all, 
it is clear.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would also like 5 minutes for the 
distinguished Senator from Tennessee in favor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. With respect to the Warner amendment, there 
will be 5 minutes for Senator Warner, 5 minutes for Senator Alexander, 
5 minutes for Senator Nelson, 5 minutes for Senator Corzine, and 5 
minutes for Senator Martinez, after which he will withdraw the 
amendment.
  Is there objection to the unanimous consent request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair and Senator Warner and all others who 
participated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, would you advise me when I have 
consumed 7 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We will.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Do I understand I have 15 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senator has 15 
minutes.


                           Amendment No. 961

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today I am offering an amendment to 
protect our most scenic areas from unintended impacts by oversized wind 
turbines or windmills. I offer an amendment that is sponsored also by a 
number of other Senators, including Senators Warner, Landrieu, McCain, 
Allen, Voinovich, Brownback, Byrd, and Bunning, and that is also 
supported by the National Parks Conservation Association.
  Let me begin by saying exactly what the amendment does and what it 
does not do.
  No. 1, what the amendment says is no Federal subsidies for wind 
projects within 20 miles of most national parks, national military 
parks, national seashores, national lakeshores, or certain other highly 
scenic sites. We are talking about the Redwood National Parks in 
California, the Sequoia National Park, Yosemite National Park. We are 
talking about Mesa Verde in Colorado, Rocky Mountain National Park, 
Biscayne National Park in Florida, Yellowstone in Idaho, Acadia in 
Maine, Cape Cod in Massachusetts, Yellowstone in Montana, and Glacier. 
These are our national treasures. What we are saying is the taxpayers 
will not subsidize the building of these giant windmills within the 
view of those parks.
  Second, there will be an environmental impact statement for any wind 
project within 20 miles of those sites.
  Third, any community will have six months' notice before a wind 
project can be permitted.
  Here is what the amendment does not do. It does not prohibit the 
building of any wind project. It does not affect any wind project 
already receiving subsidies. It does not give the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission any new authority. And it does not interfere with 
any private property right.
  Why is this a concern? Here is the reason in a nutshell. The Federal 
Government, over the next 5 years, will spend $2 billion and, if we 
follow the recommendations of the Finance Committee, $3.5 billion 
subsidizing the building of giant windmills. These are not your 
grandmother's windmills. They are very large. There is one picture of 
it. Here is another one. This is just off Denmark, stretches over 2 
miles. Here is an example. These are people up here on this turbine 
housing. One way we think of them in Tennessee in describing them is 
that you can fit just one into the University of Tennessee football 
stadium. It is the third largest stadium in the country. It would rise 
more than twice as high as the skyboxes, and its rotor blades would go 
from the 10-yard line to the 10-yard line.
  My concern is not that there should not be any of these. It is just 
that we are, through Federal policy, changing our landscape, and we 
need to think about it now while we still can. All of the estimates are 
that the billions of dollars in subsidies we are spending will increase 
the number of these gigantic wind turbines from 6,700 today to 40-, 50-
, or 60,000 over the next 10 or 15 years.
  Here is what the National Parks Conservation Association has to say: 
Wind power is an important alternative energy. It deserves to be 
encouraged and promoted in areas where appropriate. At the same time, 
the principle that some of America's most special places could be 
adversely impacted by associated development is important to 
acknowledge and address.
  The Environmentally Responsible Wind Power Act of 2005 helps elevate 
the importance of this principle and ensures the protection of these 
places.
  What subsidies are we talking about? I just mentioned the $2 billion, 
the $1.5 billion more that is coming. We passed a renewable portfolio 
standard in the Senate. That is an additional subsidy. This is a brand 
new matter for most local governments to consider. It is causing 
consternation in cities from Kansas to Wisconsin to Vermont to Virginia 
where rural areas, many of them without land use planning, many of them 
without any expectation of this, suddenly find that in the most scenic 
areas we have in America, up go these massive, gigantic towers, and 
they are hard to take down.
  Twenty years ago, when I was Governor of Tennessee, I passed a scenic 
parkway program. We took 10,000 miles of scenic parkways and we banned 
new billboards, new junkyards. No one thought much about it then. 
Everybody is enormously grateful today because these things will never 
come down unless they blow down, and when they blow down, there are 
often not people to pick them up. So if we fail to do something now, to 
put some sort of disincentive to damage the viewscape of our most 
scenic areas, we will never be able to change that. In the State of 
Tennessee, we only have 29 of these now put up by the Tennessee Valley 
Authority, but they are there for 20 years, and you can see the red 
flashing lights from 20 miles away on a clear night.
  At other times in our debate on energy, I will be talking about the 
relative value of wind power. I am a skeptic, I will admit. You could 
string a swath of these gigantic windmills from

[[Page S7039]]

Los Angeles to San Francisco, and you would produce about the same 
amount of power that one or two powerplants would, and you would still 
need the powerplant because most people like to have their electricity 
even when the wind is not blowing and you can't store the 
electricity. And the amount of money that we are spending--$2 billion, 
$3 billion--is an enormous amount, and I think most colleagues are not 
aware of what we are doing with it. Once you put these windmills up, 
you have to build transmission lines through neighborhoods and back 
yards to carry it to some distant place. That is a debate for another 
day.

  The fact of the matter is that we are spending billions of new 
dollars for gigantic windmills. What I would like for us to do in the 
Senate is recognize our responsibility to the American landscape and 
say at least we are not going to subsidize putting these windmills in 
between us, our grandchildren, and children, and the view of the Grand 
Canyon, the Statue of Liberty or the Smoky Mountain National Park or 
Cape Cod. I would think windmill advocates would want to do that.
  This is a big country, a place where people can find plenty of places 
to put up gigantic windmills other than between us and our magnificent 
views. I don't think I need to spend much time. I will take 1 more 
minute, and I will go to the Senator from Virginia for 3 minutes.
  Teddy Roosevelt said:

       There can be nothing in this world more beautiful than the 
     Yosemite National Park's groves of the sequoias and redwoods, 
     the Canyon of the Colorado, the Canyon of the Yellowstone, 
     and the Canyon of the Three Tetons.

  We don't drive down to the Smokies, out to the Tetons or to see the 
Grand Canyon to see a view like that. Put them where they belong. Let's 
not subsidize putting them in between us and the most magnificent views 
we have. Egypt has its pyramids, Italy has its art, England has its 
history, and we have the great American outdoors. It is a distinctive 
part of our national character, and we ought to protect it while we 
can.
  That is why we have introduced this legislation, along with several 
other Senators who care. I hope my colleagues, whether they support 
wind power or whether they are a skeptic of wind power, will agree that 
we should not put these gigantic steel towers in between us and our 
most scenic treasures.
  I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from 
Tennessee have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has been yielded 3 minutes. The 
Senator has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend my good friend. I have for a 
long time stated, indeed, before the Committee on the Environment and 
Public Works, my concern about the wind situation. I am not against it, 
nor is my distinguished colleague from Tennessee. But we are moving 
toward--and with a tremendous Federal subsidy--a program by which 
industry, looking at the subsidy, cannot turn down the opportunity to 
put these mills wherever they want. I am concerned mostly about my 
shoreline of Virginia. This amendment would protect certain segments of 
that shoreline--from windmills being put in the proximity of the 
historic areas, marine areas, and the like.
  If you look at how carefully America has proceeded toward the 
erection of power-generating facilities, whether it is coal-fired 
plants, gas-fired plants, wind, whatever it is, there is a very well-
laid-out regulatory process. That doesn't exist for the potential of 
putting windmills offshore. It doesn't exist. I have tried hard to 
encourage the Congress of the United States to pass a regime comparable 
to what is taking place for other power-generating facilities to 
protect our environment, protect the taxpayer, and to enable wind to go 
forward but only where there is a clear justification and a protection 
of the environment. Now, they can go offshore under the Rivers and 
Harbors Act of 1899. They never envisioned, in 1899, the types of 
installations described by my colleague from Tennessee. There is 
nothing in there by which the States can gain any revenue for that wind 
generation offshore, as is now the case with oil and gas.
  Should not my State, having taken the risk of allowing these things 
to go offshore, get some revenue? I think they should. Right now, it is 
free and open and, should they generate a profit, all of it goes into 
the corporate structure; not a nickel goes into the State. Mr. 
President, I thank my colleague for allowing me to join with him on 
this amendment.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee has 3 minutes 40 
seconds.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, we have had a big debate about this in 
Kansas. We embrace wind power, wind generation. We will be a major 
benefactor and producer of wind energy. In the middle of the State, we 
have a tallgrass prairie, which is also in Oklahoma. This is really a 
majority of the untouched, unplowed, tallgrass prairie that remains in 
the United States. Over 90 percent is in a swathe between Kansas and 
Oklahoma. What we are asking and are part of in this bill is that those 
areas that are protected within the Flint Hills Refuge, the Tallgrass 
Prairie Preserve, and the Konza Prairie be within the designation areas 
that don't get the tax credits for the wind energy and the 20-mile 
radius around. That is responsible.
  These are very key areas, and the impact on the viewscape around it 
is significant and important. That is why I am pleased to be part of 
and I support this amendment that my colleague from Tennessee has put 
forward. This is a responsible way to do it. We need to embrace wind 
power and generation but not in environmentally sensitive areas. This 
is a responsible way to do it. I am glad to support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from New Mexico if I 
may reserve my remaining time for just before the vote, and he also has 
a minute at that time. I ask unanimous consent to do that.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. As I understand the request, the Senator would like us 
to go ahead with the argument in opposition.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes, and before the vote we would each have a minute.
  Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object. I think you would need 3 
minutes for this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to reserve that 
time.
  Mr. WARNER. At least 3 minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I am glad to agree to whatever unanimous consent the 
Senator from Tennessee believes is appropriate once we conclude our 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would all Senators suspend to give us an 
opportunity to report the amendment.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Alexander], for himself, 
     Mr. Warner, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. McCain, Mr. Allen, Mr. 
     Voinovich, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Burr, and Mr. Bunning, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 961.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide for local control for the siting of windmills)

       On page 697, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

     SEC. 1270A. LOCAL CONTROL FOR SITING OF WINDMILS.

       (a) Local Notification.--Prior to the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission issuing to any wind turbine project its 
     Exempt-Wholesale Generator Status, Market-Based Rate 
     Authority, or Qualified Facility rate schedule, the wind 
     project shall complete its Local Notification Process.
       (b) Local Notification Process.--
       (1) In this section, the term ``Local Authorities'' means 
     the governing body, and the senior executive of the body, at 
     the lowest level of government that possesses authority under 
     State law to carry out this Act.
       (2) Applicant shall notify in writing the Local Authorities 
     on the day of the filing of such Market-Based Rate 
     application or Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Form 
     number 556 (or a successor form) at the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission. Evidence of such notification shall be 
     submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
       (3) The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall notify 
     in writing the Local Authorities within 10 days of the filing 
     of such Market-Based Rate application or Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission Form number 556 (or a successor form) 
     at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

[[Page S7040]]

       (4) The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall not 
     issue to the project Market-Based Rate Authority, Exempt 
     Wholesaler Generator Status, or Qualified Facility rate 
     schedule, until 180 days after the date on which the Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission notifies the Local Authorities 
     under paragraph (3).
       (c) Highly Scenic Area and Federal Land.--
       (1)(A) A Highly Scenic Area is--
       (i) any area listed as an official United Nations 
     Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization World 
     Heritage Site, as supported by the Department of the 
     Interior, the National Park Service, and the International 
     Council on Monuments and Sites;
       (ii) land designated as a National Park;
       (iii) a National Lakeshore;
       (iv) a National Seashore;
       (v) a National Wildlife Refuge that is adjacent to an 
     ocean;
       (vi) a National Military Park;
       (vii) the Flint Hills National Wildlife Reserve;
       (viii) the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve;
       (ix) White Mountains National Forest; or
       (x) the Flint Hills Tallgrass Prairie Preserve or the Konza 
     Prairie in the State of Kansas.
       (B) The term ``Highly Scenic Area'' does not include--
       (i) the Pueblo de Taos World Heritage Area;
       (ii) any coastal wildlife refuge located in the State of 
     Louisiana; or
       (iii) any area in the State of Alaska.
       (2) A Qualified Wind Project is any wind-turbine project 
     located--
       (A)(i) in a Highly Scenic Area; or
       (ii) within 20 miles of the boundaries of an area described 
     in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), or (F) of paragraph (1); 
     or
       (B) within 20 miles off the coast of a National Wildlife 
     Refuge that is adjacent to an ocean.
       (3) Prior to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
     issuing to a Qualified Wind Project its Exempt-Wholesale 
     Generator Status, Market-Based Rate Authority, or Qualified 
     Facility rate schedule, an environmental impact statement 
     shall be conducted and completed by the lead agency in 
     accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). If no lead agency is designated, 
     the lead agency shall be the Department of the Interior.
       (4) The environmental impact statement determination shall 
     be issued within 12 months of the date of application.
       (5) Such environmental impact statement review shall 
     include a cumulative impacts analysis addressing visual 
     impacts and avian mortality analysis of a Qualified Wind 
     Project.
       (6) A Qualified Wind Project shall not be eligible for any 
     Federal tax subsidy.
       (d) Effective Date.--
       (1) This section shall expire 10 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Nothing in this section shall prevent or discourage 
     environmental review of any wind projects or any Qualified 
     Wind Project on a State or local level.
       (e) Effect of Section.--Nothing in this section shall apply 
     to a project that, as of the date of enactment of this Act--
       (1) is generating energy; or
       (2) has been issued a permit by the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I reluctantly rise to speak against this 
amendment. I do so for some very basic and sound reasons. I will just 
mention a few of them.
  No. 1, this amendment moves in the exact opposite direction of the 
legislation that is before us. I have been working with Senators 
Domenici and Alexander and others on the committee to develop a piece 
of legislation that would provide for the energy future of the country, 
would encourage domestic development of energy from all sources, all 
available sources. We are encouraging development of clean coal, 
natural gas, nuclear power, oil resources, hydrogen technology, 
renewable fuels, electricity; and in each case, we have tried to 
simplify the process that a person or applicant has to go through in 
order to develop these resources and meet the needs of the country, as 
we see them.
  We have also put incentives in this bill so as to further the 
development of these resources. This amendment, with regard to wind 
power, does just the opposite of that. It raises obstacles, and it says 
that we are going to make it more and more difficult for people to 
proceed with development of wind power projects. How does it do that? 
It goes through and it says we are going to, first of all, designate 
what we call highly scenic areas. Highly scenic areas are fairly 
broadly defined; they are any area listed as an official United Nations 
educational, scientific, cultural or World Heritage site, as supported 
by the Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and 
International Council of Monuments and Sites. Any lands designated as a 
national park, national lakeshore, national seashore, national wildlife 
refuge, national military park, Flint Hills--it goes on and on. It says 
if you are a highly scenic area, then a so-called qualified wind 
project, which is any wind turbine project located in a highly scenic 
area or within 20 miles of the boundary of various of these things I 
have listed here--then it says over here a qualified wind project shall 
not be eligible for any Federal tax subsidy.
  That essentially says there are not going to be wind power projects 
constructed in any of these locations. I think if we have ever had a 
proposal that is a one-size-fits-all proposal, this is that. There are 
a great many of these sites. I point out, also, by way of just a 
historical note, I think this will be the first time, if this amendment 
is adopted, that the Congress has put in law a provision that 
essentially recognizes the significance of World Heritage sites 
designated by the United Nations. I remember debates on the floor in 
recent years where people objected to the whole notion that U.N. World 
Heritage sites were going to get some kind of special protection. In 
this amendment, we are saying they get special protection. We are not 
going to allow the construction of one of these wind projects within 20 
miles of them.
  To my mind, there are undoubtedly areas in this country where we 
don't want windmills. I agree. But I think that needs to be a decision 
that is made on the basis of the local circumstances, on the basis of 
the geography of the area, and I think what we are trying to do here is 
sort of pass a very broad prohibition against getting tax benefits. If 
you want to build a site that is within 20 miles of any of these 
things, then you are out of luck, as far as any Federal tax support. I 
think that is contrary to the whole thrust of the legislation. I think 
it is contrary to good sense. In my own State of New Mexico, we have 
several sites that are listed. I have a list that the Senator from 
Tennessee has been kind enough to give me called, ``Scenic Sites that 
are Protected by this Legislation.'' When you go down the list, in my 
State, you can see Carlsbad Caverns National Park. Well, I could 
conceive of the people in Carlsbad, NM, wanting a wind farm, a wind 
project within 20 miles of Carlsbad Caverns National Park. I can 
conceive of there being an area within that 20-mile radius that would 
be appropriate for a wind site. I don't know that that is the case, but 
I would hate to legislate a prohibition against it. The same with Chaco 
Culture National Historic Park and with Carlsbad Caverns National Park 
and the Pueblo de Taos, which has been exempted. I appreciate that.
  The Senator from Tennessee--I mentioned to him there may be a desire 
on the part of people in the Taos area in my State to go ahead and have 
a wind project. I need to be legislating a prohibition against that--a 
prohibition on any Federal tax support in that circumstance. Each 
Senator can look at the list and see whether they want to do this to 
their home State. I think if people will look at this list carefully 
and get on the telephone and call back to their States, they may find 
this is not something they wholeheartedly embrace.
  The Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig, has asked for 5 minutes. I 
yield him 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 8 minutes 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I will yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for 
yielding.
  I do not stand up and speak against the Senator from Tennessee and 
the work he has done in this area lightly. I understand the process. I 
also understand that energy infrastructure is always sensitive. It is 
never quite near where you want it to be, and it is always where you do 
not want it to be.
  The Senator from New Mexico has spoken very clearly on this issue. 
There will be no windmills built off Cape Cod. Why? Because it is being 
killed by the people of Massachusetts in the processes that are 
available now. There will be no windmills near Yellowstone or the Grand 
Canyon or in

[[Page S7041]]

scenic areas today. Why? Because the process recognizes it now. Whether 
it is local or whether it is national, try to get a windmill farm sited 
on Federal properties and you will find it nearly impossible anywhere 
because the moment one is suggested, the land either becomes precious 
because of antiquities or unique because it has some kind of holiness 
to a native group. That has gone on and on.
  No one today in the wind farm business approaches siting windmills 
without caution. They already look for the very places where the wind 
is able to flow.
  What we are suggesting with this amendment is not here, not there, 
not over here, and certainly not in my backyard, and if it gets close 
to my backyard, whoa, stop, back up, and let's look at it. That is what 
is being said by this legislation.
  Yet this Nation, through the underlying bill, is rushing to get more 
energy of all kinds, except step back, take a deep breath and say: Not 
here, please, or not over there.
  Caution is abounding. More wind farms are not being sited today by 
opposition of the public than are being sited. The Senator from Kansas 
talks about the tall grass prairie. There is a major battle going on in 
Kansas to stop it now, and it appears it will succeed.
  I stood on the floor of the Senate the other day and spoke of public 
group after public group that is opposing siting, and they are using 
State law, as appropriate in this instance, to stop siting. So I do not 
believe this legislation is necessary.
  Here we are encouraging the business of clean energy. Both the 
Senator from Tennessee and I are very interested in clean energy. I 
even agree with him that we may be overpromoting wind, but now we are 
standing up another tripwire and saying: No, there are going to have to 
be all kinds of new qualifications.
  If you are a private property owner and you are within a 20-mile zone 
of this particular scenic area that is prescribed in this legislation, 
forget your private property rights--gone. And yet in most areas, that 
is the only place they are getting sited today.
  Look at the wind troughs on the national maps and where they are on 
the Rocky Mountain front. Nearly every area is scenic, and if it is not 
scenic now, if this legislation passes, it will rapidly become scenic 
for the very simple reason that once they see these 320-foot, tip-to-
tip windmills--they are awfully hard to site anyway--but we are 
creating and standing up a new Federal requirement and Federal 
restriction over a State process that appears at this moment to be 
quite thorough. That is why I oppose it. I think it is unnecessary.
  We are in the business of advancing the cause of energy of all 
kinds--clean coal, wind, photovoltaic, nuclear. We are even improving 
the existence of current hydro. We are doing all of those things, and 
we are asking our States to be partners. But here the heavy hand of 
Government--the Federal Government--comes in. I think it is 
inappropriate. I do not think it is necessary. I think the process is 
working quite well now.
  In a State such as mine where wind farms are being looked at now, our 
companies are approaching it very carefully and, in many instances--and 
it is nearly only Federal land on which you can get them sited--it is 
almost impossible to site on Federal land. Why? Because of the 
Environmental Policy Act, because of all the processes and safeguards 
we have already put in place. Therefore, I do believe this legislation 
is unnecessary. I think it is overkill.
  I do not think we need to do it. We already have a very thorough, 
open, public process between our Federal Government as it relates to 
the National Environmental Policy Act, and State governments as it 
relates to their zoning requirements and/or the regulatory process they 
put siting through, through the utilities commission. I think that is 
adequate and necessary.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New Mexico 
has 3 minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me speak for 30 seconds, and then I 
will yield to my good friend from Iowa, Senator Harkin.
  I do think, as the Senator from Idaho pointed out, that this does 
raise a very substantial obstacle to the construction of wind projects 
in a great many areas of the country about which we are somewhat 
uncertain. As I say, in my State I can conceive of areas near these 
scenic locations that would be appropriate for consideration as wind 
projects. I do think there is ample opportunity for local communities 
to object. There is ample opportunity for States to object.
  My experience is the burden is on the applicant to persuade all of 
the local government and all of the State government entities that have 
some claim on this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time is left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute 28 seconds remaining.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Alexander-
Warner amendment. Again, this amendment proposes to usurp local 
control. I find it hard to believe that those who argue States rights 
at the same time want to impose additional Federal regulations over 
local, county, and State jurisdictions.
  This amendment is simply an assault on the continued development of 
wind energy. It singles out wind for additional scrutiny. If the 
sponsors are so concerned about protecting our scenic areas, shouldn't 
this amendment be applied to all technologies?
  Some may say these turbines are unsightly. The Senator from Tennessee 
may believe they are unattractive. But many others believe them to be 
visually attractive as they drive down the highway.
  I just recently drove through Oklahoma and saw all these wind 
turbines out on the prairies of Oklahoma, and they look beautiful 
spinning in the wind with no pollution, providing electricity for our 
homes, our schools, and our factories. Yet they are unattractive? Come 
on, give me a break.
  This is a pathway to our energy independence. More wind energy--we 
can put them up in Iowa. If the Senator from Virginia does not want 
them in Virginia, we will put them in Iowa. We will put them in North 
Dakota, South Dakota, and we will be glad to ship the electricity we 
are making from the force of the wind.
  I urge my colleagues to turn down this ill-advised amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. THUNE). The Senator from Tennessee has 2 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time 
until just before the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, can we make a unanimous consent request 
that the Senator will have his 2 minutes now, and in addition to that, 
we will have 2 minutes equally divided before the vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I have no objection, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, this gives me a chance to clear up a 
couple of points.
  I say to my friend from New Mexico, the United Nations isn't picking 
any of these sites. We picked 20 of these sites in the United States 
that we recommended to the world be designated as heritage sites.
  Here is what we are talking about. We are taking billions of tax 
dollars--that is a debate for another amendment--billions of tax 
dollars, $200,000 per windmill. We should all resign the Senate and get 
in the windmill business. My friends on the other side say we are 
subsidizing the building of these windmills between us and the Grand 
Canyon, between us and Cape Cod, between us and the Smoky Mountains, 
between us and the Glacier National Park.
  Ansel Adams and John Muir would be rolling over at the idea of our 
destroying the American landscape in this wholesale fashion. If we had 
a level playing field and we had no Federal Government involvement, 
that would

[[Page S7042]]

be another thing, but we are putting billions of dollars out there to 
do this. In the Eastern United States, they only fit in areas where 
there are scenic ridges. That is the Tennessee Gorge, the Shenandoah 
Valley, the foothills of the Great Smoky Mountains, and it is being 
said we should use taxpayer dollars to encourage that. This says no in 
the most highly treasured areas we have. It is sponsored by the 
National Parks Conservation Association. I would think every 
conservation group in America would be for this. I would think every 
wind developer would say, of course, we are not going to put wind 
there.
  It prohibits nothing. It interferes with no private property right. 
It just says we are not going to spend taxpayer dollars putting 
gigantic steel towers between us and our view of the Statue of Liberty 
and the Grand Canyon. I would think that ought to be a vote of 100 to 
0.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized to call up an amendment where he is to be recognized for 30 
minutes, equally divided, for 15 minutes each side.


                           Amendment No. 844

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 844.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself, 
     Mr. Biden, Mrs. Feinstein, and Ms. Snowe, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 844.

  Mr. KERRY. 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 express the sense of the Senate regarding the need for the 
 United States to address global climate change through comprehensive 
  and cost-effective national measures and through the negotiation of 
  fair and binding international commitments under the United Nations 
                Framework Convention on Climate Change)

       On page 768, after line 20, add the following:

                        TITLE XV--CLIMATE CHANGE

     SEC. 1501. SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING THE NEED FOR THE UNITED 
                   STATES TO ADDRESS GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) there is a scientific consensus, as established by the 
     Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and confirmed by 
     the National Academy of Sciences, that the continued buildup 
     of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere threatens 
     the stability of the global climate;
       (2) there are significant long-term risks to the economy, 
     the environment, and the security of the United States from 
     the temperature increases and climatic disruptions that are 
     projected to result from increased greenhouse gas 
     concentrations;
       (3) the United States, as the largest economy in the world, 
     is currently the largest greenhouse gas emitter;
       (4) the greenhouse gas emissions of the United States are 
     projected to continue to rise;
       (5) the greenhouse gas emissions of developing countries 
     are rising more rapidly than the emissions of the United 
     States and will soon surpass the greenhouse gas emissions of 
     the United States and other developed countries;
       (6) reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the levels 
     necessary to avoid serious climatic disruption requires the 
     introduction of new energy technologies and other practices, 
     the use of which results in low or no emissions of greenhouse 
     gases or in the capture and storage of greenhouse gases;
       (7) the development and sale of such technologies in the 
     United States and internationally presents significant 
     economic opportunities for workers and businesses in the 
     United States;
       (8) such technologies can enhance energy security by 
     reducing reliance on imported oil, diversifying energy 
     sources, and reducing the vulnerability of energy delivery 
     infrastructure;
       (9) other industrialized countries are undertaking measures 
     to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which provide industries 
     in those countries with a competitive advantage in the 
     growing global market for such technologies;
       (10) efforts to limit emissions growth in developing 
     countries in a manner that is consistent with the development 
     needs of the developing countries could establish significant 
     markets for such technologies and contribute to international 
     efforts to address climate change;
       (11) the United States is a party to the United Nations 
     Framework Convention on Climate Change adopted in May 1992, 
     and entered into force in 1994 (referred to in this section 
     as the ``Convention'');
       (12) the Convention sets a long-term objective of 
     stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the 
     atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous 
     anthropogenic interference with the climate system;
       (13) the Convention establishes that parties bear common 
     but differentiated responsibilities for efforts to achieve 
     the objective of stabilization of greenhouse gas 
     concentrations;
       (14) the Kyoto Protocol was entered into force on February 
     16, 2005, but the United States is not, nor is likely to be, 
     a party to the Protocol;
       (15) the parties to the Kyoto Protocol will begin 
     discussion in 2005 about possible future agreements;
       (16) an effective global effort to address climate change 
     must provide for commitments and action by all countries that 
     are major emitters of greenhouse gases, whether developed or 
     developing, and the widely varying circumstances among the 
     developed and developing countries may require that such 
     commitments and action vary; and
       (17) the United States has the capability to lead the 
     effort against global climate change.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the United States should act to reduce the health, 
     environmental, and economic risks posed by global climate 
     change and foster sustained economic growth through a new 
     generation of technologies by--
       (1) participating in international negotiations under the 
     Convention with the objective of securing United States 
     participation in fair and binding agreements that--
       (A) advance and protect the economic interests of the 
     United States;
       (B) establish mitigation commitments by all countries that 
     are major emitters of greenhouse gases, consistent with the 
     principle of common but differentiated responsibilities;
       (C) establish flexible international mechanisms to minimize 
     the cost of efforts by participating countries; and
       (D) achieve a significant long-term reduction in global 
     greenhouse gas emissions;
       (2) enacting and implementing effective and comprehensive 
     national policies to achieve significant long-term reductions 
     in greenhouse gas emissions in the United States; and
       (3) establishing a bipartisan Senate observer group, the 
     members of which shall be designated by the majority leader 
     and minority leader of the Senate, to--
       (A) monitor any international negotiations on climate 
     change; and
       (B) ensure that the advice and consent function of the 
     Senate is exercised in a manner to facilitate timely 
     consideration of any future applicable treaty submitted to 
     the Senate.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Snowe 
be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  I will explain very quickly what this amendment does. We just voted a 
few moments ago a sense of the Senate that we should take mandatory 
action with respect to global warming in the United States. We did not 
specify what the action was. Obviously, the McCain-Lieberman mandatory 
action failed earlier, but we at least went on record accepting--I 
think it was about 54 votes on the tabling motion--that we should do 
something with respect to domestic. What my amendment seeks to do is 
express the sense of the Senate specifically, and let me quote from it:

        . . . that the United States should act to reduce the 
     health, environmental and economic risks posed by global 
     climate change and foster sustained economic growth through a 
     new generation of technologies by (1) participating in 
     international negotiations under the Convention with the 
     objective of securing United States participation in fair and 
     binding agreements that (A) advance and protect the economic 
     interests of the United States; (B) establish mitigation 
     commitments by all countries that are major emitters of 
     greenhouse gases . . . ) establish flexible international 
     mechanisms to minimize the cost of efforts by participating 
     countries; and (D) achieve a significant long-term reduction 
     in global greenhouse gas emissions.

  The whole purpose of this is to get the United States of America 
engaged in an international process that will get all nations 
simultaneously working toward the same goal. Let me remind my 
colleagues we have heard some questions about the science raised over 
the course of the last hours. Just yesterday the scientific evidence on 
climate change was addressed by the G8 scientific panels, all the 
panels of the G8, including our own National Academy of Sciences. All 
of these science academies of the G8 nations said that the evidence on 
climate change is now clear enough for the leaders of G8 to commit to 
take prompt action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

[[Page S7043]]

  I ask unanimous consent that this statement from the G8 science 
academics be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Clear Science Demands Prompt Action on Climate Change Say G8 Science 
                               Academies

       The scientific evidence on climate change is now clear 
     enough for the leaders of G8 to commit to take prompt action 
     to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, according to an 
     unprecedented statement published today (Tuesday 7 June 2005) 
     by the science academies of the G8 nations.
       The statement is published by the Royal Society--the UK 
     national academy of science--and the other G8 science 
     academies of France, Russia, Germany, U.S. Japan, Italy and 
     Canada, along with those of Brazil, China and India. It has 
     been issued ahead of the G8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland.
       The statement calls on the G8 nations to: ``Identify cost-
     effective steps that can be taken now to contribute to 
     substantial and long-term reductions in net global greenhouse 
     gas emissions.'' And to, ``recognize that delayed action will 
     increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will 
     likely incur a greater cost.''
       Lord May of Oxford, President of the Royal Society said: 
     ``It is clear that world leaders, including the G8, can no 
     longer use uncertainty about aspects of climate change as an 
     excuse for not taking urgent action to cut greenhouse gas 
     emissions.
       ``Significantly, along with the science academies of the G8 
     nations, this statement's signatories include Brazil, China 
     and India who are among the largest emitters of greenhouse 
     gases in the developing world. It is clear that developed 
     countries must lead the way in cutting emissions, but 
     developing countries must also contribute to the global 
     effort to achieve overall cuts in emissions. The scientific 
     evidence forcefully points to a need for a truly 
     international effort. Make no mistake we have to act now. And 
     the longer we procrastinate, the more difficult the task of 
     tackling climate change becomes.
       Lord May continued: ``The current U.S. policy on climate 
     change is misguided. The Bush administration has consistently 
     refused to accept the advice of the U.S. National Academy of 
     Sciences (NAS). The NAS concluded in 1992 that, `Despite the 
     great uncertainties, greenhouse warming is a potential threat 
     sufficient to justify action now', by reducing emissions of 
     greenhouse gases. Getting the U.S. onboard is critical 
     because of the sheer amount of greenhouse gas emissions they 
     are responsible for. For example, the Royal Society 
     calculated that the 13 percent rise in greenhouse gas 
     emissions from the U.S. between 1990 and 2002 is already 
     bigger than the overall cut achieved if all the other parties 
     to the Kyoto Protocol reach their targets. President Bush has 
     an opportunity at Gleneagles to signal that his 
     administration will no longer ignore the scientific evidence 
     and act to cut emissions.
       On the U.K.'s efforts on climate change, Lord May said: 
     ``We welcome the fact that Tony Blair has made climate change 
     a focus for its presidency of the G8 this year. But the U.K. 
     government must do much more in terms of its own domestic 
     policy if it is to turn its ambitions to be a world leader on 
     climate change into a reality. While the U.K. has managed to 
     reduce its emissions of carbon dioxide, most of the cuts have 
     been almost accidental rather than the result of climate 
     change policies. Indeed, its emissions actually increased by 
     over 2 percent in 2002--2003. Clearly the U.K. must take some 
     tough political decisions about how it manages our ever-
     growing demand for energy at a time when it's vital that we 
     cut our emissions of greenhouse gases.
       ``The G8 summit is an unprecedented moment in human 
     history. Our leaders face a stark choice--act now to tackle 
     climate change or let future generations face the price of 
     their inaction. Never before have we faced such a global 
     threat. And if we do not begin effective action now it will 
     be much harder to stop the runaway train as it continues to 
     gather momentum.
       The statement also warns that changes in climate are 
     happening now, that further changes are unavoidable and that, 
     ``nations must prepare for them.'' In particular it calls for 
     the G8 countries to work with developing nations to enable 
     them to develop their own innovative solutions to lessen and 
     adapt to the adverse effects of climate change.
       Lord May said: ``We, the industrialized nations, have an 
     obligation to help developing nations to develop their own 
     solutions to the threats they face from climate change.''

  Mr. KERRY. I emphasize to my colleagues, this sense of the Senate is 
not about Kyoto. It is not asking us to get involved in Kyoto. In fact, 
the diplomatic issue is no longer Kyoto yes or no. The world 
understands that we need to move beyond Kyoto. Kyoto is limited in time 
and in participation. Many of us, myself included, objected to that 
flaw in Kyoto because it left out many nations. We need to see that 
Kyoto, however, as a foundation for global cooperation with the 
principles of binding targets and emissions trading can serve as a 
blueprint for how to reduce those emissions. Other nations are ready to 
start a dialogue about the future.
  Prime Minister Blair is capitalizing on his chairmanship of the G8 to 
press for broad cooperative action, but the United States alone stands 
silent and apart from this process. That has to stop. We cannot wait 
for Kyoto to expire in order to consider the next steps. We need to 
evaluate options now. We need to signal to the world that we are 
prepared to shoulder our fair share of the burden of dealing with this 
problem, and we need to put action behind our words, accepting the 
principle of binding pollution reduction as a critical way of engaging 
the developing world.
  A number of proposals have been put on the table, from a G8 program 
to promote renewable energy, to technology funding, to development, to 
the framework convention. We do not suffer from a lack of ideas as to 
what to do. What we need is leadership, and the Senate has an 
opportunity to make a statement about that.
  No climate change program is going to work without all of the nations 
of the world being involved, and no climate plan can pass Congress, 
obviously, that does not have their participation. Their emissions may 
be a fraction of what the developed world does now, but without action 
they are going to skyrocket and they would soon exceed the largest 
nation's emissions, and we cannot suffer that.
  I had the privilege of going to Rio 13 years ago--I guess it was to 
the Earth Summit in 1992--which was the world's first effort to try to 
craft a global response to the threat of climate change. It was at 
those talks that the American delegation ultimately embraced the U.N. 
Framework Convention on climate change. As we know, in that agreement 
more than 100 nations, 13 years ago, accepted the scientific evidence 
that pollution is altering the composition of the atmosphere, and they 
set a voluntary goal to prevent dangerous anthropogenetic interference 
with the climate system. In other words, 13 years ago we as a country 
recognized, under President George Herbert Walker Bush, that climate 
change is a global problem in need of a global solution. We defined a 
global goal. We set a path for future negotiations. It was a small 
step, but it was a first step and it was progress.
  Regrettably, after that, going to the year 2000 when President Bush 
took office, he had any number of options in front of him. He could 
have used the bully pulpit to push for greater participation from the 
largest emitters in the world. He could have focused on targets beyond 
2012. He could have reached out to less developed countries and offered 
technical assistance and technology. He might have pushed for a more 
robust trading program or greater technology transfer, but he took a 
decidedly different tack contrary to the science. He flatly rejected 
the active approach of the prior administration and in many ways he 
even rejected the incremental approach, voluntary approach, of his own 
father. Instead, in the months after taking office, the President 
questioned the underlying science. He broke a campaign promise to cap 
carbon emissions from powerplants. He rebuked his EPA chief for 
positive comments about Kyoto. He proposed an energy plan that would 
increase pollution, and he withdrew from the protocol and the 
international process altogether.
  If the Senate is prepared, as we just were, to embrace domestic 
efforts, at least in principle, we need to embrace the larger effort to 
reach out to the world and create a global approach so that all of us 
can avoid the potential downside of what scientists tell us is coming 
our way.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from 
Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will not take a great deal of time, but I 
want to visit this issue in the context that it has just been presented 
by our colleague from Massachusetts. First, I think it is awfully 
important to understand a couple of things that just have transpired 
that the Senator referenced as it relates to these National Academies 
of Science. On the surface, when

[[Page S7044]]

one reads that and sees that the G8 academies are all standing 
together, including ours, one would say, wow, that is a powerful 
statement. What I am terribly afraid has happened is that good 
academicians and scientists have in some way been co-opted and in this 
case possibly politicized.
  Let me explain what I am talking about. It is terribly frustrating 
for me--and I trust it is for the Senator from Massachusetts--to see a 
group of scientists say one thing at one time and something else a 
little later.
  After that statement came out, I asked Bruce Alberts, the president 
of our National Academy of Sciences, what was meant by this statement. 
In his reply to me, here is what he said:

       The press release is not an accurate characterization of 
     the eleven academies' statement, and it is not an accurate 
     characterization of our 1992 report. I have enclosed a copy 
     of the letter that I sent yesterday to Dr. May, President of 
     the Royal Society [who is pushing this initiative right now 
     because, obviously, Prime Minister Blair is the chairman of 
     the G8,] expressing my displeasure with their press release.

  Here is what President May said in return to our own president of our 
own National Academy of Sciences:

       We've read what you said and we've read what you've written 
     and we've chosen to interpret it differently.

  Stop and think about that. Are scientists at the National Academy of 
Sciences, who we rely on, who we think have done credible work and are 
advancing the issue and building the science on climate change from the 
1992 report to the path forward and beyond, recognizing there is an 
increase in temperature and saying there may be a direct relationship 
between that temperature rise and greenhouse gases? No, the collective 
academies jump to a different conclusion. And then the Royal Academy 
suggests that, well, we just do not interpret it the way you interpret 
your own work. It is one scientist saying: We know better what you have 
said than what you have said.
  Here is exactly what Dr. Robert May, head of the Royal Academy, said:

       Given the very clear recommendations that your 1992 report 
     contains for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, I fail to see 
     how you could make the accusation that our press release 
     misrepresents its contents.

  Already there is a fight within the academies. Why? Because it was 
such a unique time to advance the political cause of climate change.
  But what is the reality? Getting back to 1990 levels. Great Britain 
isn't there and can't get there now, and they are having to ask for 
greater credits. Italy, in Buenos Aires this winter, told me that 
because they had shut down a nuclear reactor, they were no longer 3 
percent toward compliance, they were 12 percent away. Japan, at the 
time they ratified Kyoto, I believe was like 5 percent or 6 percent 
away from meeting 1990 standards. Now they are 13 or 14 percent away. 
If you are growing the economy under current technology, you can't get 
where you want to get.
  It has been suggested that our President does nothing. Our President 
has done more to advance the cause of international cooperation than 
any President to date. We have just seen the Global Earth Observation 
System first in 1993 and another advancing in the United States 
generating international support to link thousands of individual 
technologies and assets together. There is a comprehensive global 
system coming together. That is nothing? Our Nation is spending $5 
billion on new technology, more than all of the rest of the world 
combined on climate change, and we are sharing that technology with the 
world. That is nothing?
  No, no, no, the record is quite different. And the record is 
accurate. There is a great deal going on out there. There is about $11 
billion tied to this bill that is all about clean. All of this clean 
technology we are about to advance and cause to happen is transparent 
and transferrable and available for the world to have.
  What is lacking in all of this? Why so much ado today about climate 
change? It is the politics that drive, not the science, and not the 
technology.
  When we were in Buenos Aires, I actually had nations who have 
ratified come up to us and say: We know we cannot meet the standards. 
We know we cannot get to 1990. But if you could just be with us 
politically, it is so important.
  I said: Why should we be for something that cannot get to? Why not 
join us in these cooperative efforts? Why not work with us in the new 
technology? Why do we have to have an international political statement 
to do something when we are already doing it?
  That is what it is all about. I am not going to work at disputing any 
of the science. It is advancing, and we are getting to know a great 
deal more. The bill now attempting to be amended with a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution is a bill that is the cleanest thing we have ever 
done for climate change. We advance more technology, we bring about 
more science than ever before. And we share it with the rest of the 
world.
  What has happened is quite simple: The great groundswell of politics 
that grew out of the original Buenos Aires that took us to Kyoto, that 
tried to divide the world, failed. The environmental movement that 
first drove this failed. Why did they fail? Because they first 
said: World, turn your lights out. Third World, stay where you are. And 
the world collectively, nation by nation, has said: Can't go there. 
Just can't go there. We cannot deny our people a livelihood, 
opportunity, clean water, and pollution control. We cannot deny them 
management of their waste.

  We need energy. How do we get there? Got to be clean. And it is 
getting clearer and cleaner and cleaner. Last year, we reduced our 
greenhouse gases by 2.3 percent. This year, it may be 3 or greater. We 
don't know yet. We are saying to the rest of the world: Come with us. 
We will share with you our technology. We will do all the right things. 
We are developing bilaterals.
  This administration has moved very rapidly, working hand and glove 
with other nations of the world to take to them our technology, to 
share with them the cooperative nature and spirit that we enter into 
these kind of relationships. What is missing is the politics. We have 
not politically committed this country the way some would like, as the 
rest of the world went, as Russia finally was the final ratifier; and 
now they all turn and say: Well, we said it politically, but we cannot 
get there. What do we do now?
  That is what the G8 is all about. That is what the debate is about. 
Let's get on with the business of advancing clean air technologies. 
Let's get on with the business of doing what we are doing. In this 
case, the political statements have little value compared to the great 
work that is in this marvelous piece of energy legislation called this 
comprehensive act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Let me answer quickly that there is nothing at all in what the 
Senator just said that rebukes the process set forward in the sense-of-
the-Senate effort. I cannot imagine the Senator is against us trying to 
find a fair and binding agreement. We are not talking about something 
unfair and unnecessary. I cannot imagine he would not want to advance 
and protect the economic interests of the United States, establish 
mediation agreements for those countries that are major emitters. With 
principles of common but differentiated responsibilities, this makes 
sense.
  With respect to what he said about the National Academy of Sciences, 
I respectfully just plain flat disagree. They took a comment made by 
one group and sent it to the chairman whom he cited, who wrote back 
about that outside comment. That is not the comment made by the G8 
themselves. Go to the Web site of the National Academy of Sciences 
tonight, and you will see the following statement on the Web site:

       The United States National Academy of Sciences join ten 
     other national science academies today in calling on world 
     leaders, particularly those at the G8 countries meeting next 
     month in Scotland, to acknowledge that the threat of climate 
     change is clear and increasing, to address its causes, and to 
     prepare for its consequences.

  That is the unequivocal clear finding of the National Academy of 
Sciences.
  The fact is, the consensus hasn't failed on environment. The 
countries that signed on to Kyoto have ratified it and are implementing 
it. Are they going to meet the goals? I admit they are not going to 
meet the goals--we all

[[Page S7045]]

understand that--which is a good reason to go back to the table and 
begin to negotiate to arrive at an exchange of technologies, at an 
exchange of science, at a multinational global cooperative effort to 
try to avoid catastrophe if it presents itself.
  Why the opponents want to keep turning their backs on the effort to 
find the best science and the best solutions is beyond comprehension. 
When you have scientists from all over the world, I think they would be 
insulted by the Senator's insult to their independent scientific 
inquiry.
  They are doing what they are doing based on their life career 
efforts. I think we ought to respect the consensus of all those 
scientists on a global basis.
  Mr. President, I yield myself an additional minute.
  Finance ministers, environmental ministers, prime ministers, foreign 
ministers--all of them together in all these other countries have not 
put their political careers on the line and asked their countries to 
engage in something because it is a fool's errand. They have not 
suggested, as their scientists in all of those 100 nations plus, that 
this is scientifically a consensus for the sake of politics. It has 
risks, especially if it is found to be false.
  I think we ought to listen carefully to what they have engaged in. I 
think most of our colleagues, indeed, are doing that.
  Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Idaho, let me, as 
we lawyers say, argue in the alternative. He may be accurate, but it is 
irrelevant. He is making an argument that was appropriate when we were 
debating Kyoto. We are not debating that. All my friends and I and 
Senator Lautenberg and others--and Senator Kerry has been the leader on 
this issue--are saying is that there are some basic facts about global 
warming. It is real simple. The science is real. The effects are 
profound. Inaction is not an option.
  We just finished passing, as my friend from Massachusetts said, a 
resolution, a sense of the Senate, saying domestically we have to take 
a look at this. That is a little bit like saying we can set up a 
firewall here where the impact on our health, the impact on our 
economy, the impact on our future is going to be able to be controlled 
somehow just by what we do here--the idea we are not going to reach 
out, particularly in the context of the inability of nations to meet 
the standards they signed on to Kyoto. This gives us another chance to 
do what we should have done in the first place: try to negotiate 
instead of walking away, try to negotiate something that is real.
  The resolution's findings declare principles on which we can reach a 
broad, if not unanimous, agreement. There is no need to revisit the 
decision that was made at Kyoto. Whatever you make of that decision, it 
should have been the first step toward a new phase of international 
negotiations, not a repudiation of the notion of negotiations.
  Let me conclude by saying one thing we know for sure: no agreement is 
going to work that does not include the United States. No agreement is 
going to work that does not include the United States, the largest 
current source; and the developing countries, such as China and India, 
Korea, Mexico, and Brazil, these countries will soon take over that 
dubious distinction.
  Here is our chance to get back on the right side of history and to 
put the Senate, with its constitutional power to ratify treaties, on 
record as favoring a serious effort under which the Framework 
Convention on Climate Change, signed by President Bush, can be 
negotiated.
  This resolution does not prejudge the outcome of those negotiations. 
We have to be creative, we have to recognize the many different ways we 
can begin to make real progress, to actually reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions, with the goal of stabilizing the still-growing human impact 
on our climate.
  Rather than try to attack every aspect of this huge issue at once, we 
might consider approaches that looked at the transportation, or the 
power sector, as areas where regional or other multilateral agreements 
could put a real dent in business as usual. 
  We are going to have to accelerate the discovery and deployment of 
new technologies, ramping up public investments in education and 
research, harnessing the creativity of private markets to bring new 
products on line.
  I ask my colleagues, what side of history will we be on? Should we 
cling to carbon until the last drop of fossil fuels is burned? Do we 
want our country to be the last one still dependent economically on 
19th century combustion technologies, or the first one to dominate the 
energy technologies of the future?
  The most innovative American companies, the ones that operate in a 
competitive international environment, are pleading with us to move our 
country into the future, to give them the certainty they need to make 
investments for the long term in technologies and products that reduce 
our dependence on fossil fuels.
  The DuPont Company, from my own State of Delaware, is one of the best 
examples. By aggressively reducing their own greenhouse gas emission--
by over 70 percent from 1990 levels--they have saved $2 billion in 
energy costs, added to shareholder value, and shown the way for other 
companies.
  But they still wait for our Government to provide the predictable 
international system in which their early actions can get credit, in 
which market mechanisms such as emissions trading can have the best 
effect, in which they will not be undercut by less responsible 
competitors.
  DuPont, and General Electric, and many other major corporations, are 
putting themselves on the right side of history. We need to back them 
up, for the simple reason that we need American firms, and the jobs and 
products they provide, to succeed in an increasingly competitive world.
  Which side will we be on? Will we fear the future, or will we take 
charge of it?
  This resolution puts us on the right side. It puts this Senate on 
record in favor of a constructive, responsible, fair, and effective 
approach to climate change in our international negotiations.
  It is time for us to wake up to the realities of climate change to 
both the threat and the opportunity it presents. It is time for us 
return the United States to a leadership role in the international 
search for a solution to this international problem.
  Our children are watching.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware and 
reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 6 minutes 9 
seconds; the Senator from Massachusetts has 1 minute 55 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have read through the 6-page document 
that the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has submitted as his 
proposal before the Senate.
  I was wondering, as I read through--if you skip the first few 
paragraphs, you begin seeing the word ``Convention'' with a capital 
letter. I went back to see what that is. That is the Kyoto Convention.
  Mr. KERRY. No, sir. The U.N. framework.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, would you like to address the Chair, please? 
Would you like to ask a question?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thought the Senator was asking a 
question. I apologize.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I was not. I was looking here. I said: What is he 
asking us to do? I finally got down to where the Senator's amendment 
says: It is the sense of the Senate that we shall do these things, work 
first by participating in intergovernmental negotiations under the 
convention with the objective of securing United States participation, 
et cetera, et cetera.
  I said: What is the convention? It is the U.N. Framework Convention. 
It says here. It produced Kyoto. That is what it says here. So I just 
want to remind the Senate, the Senator is suggesting that we ought to 
go back and join that convention and do something with the world so we 
can achieve something positive in global warming, the control of global 
warming gases.

[[Page S7046]]

  Frankly, everybody here should know, if they did not, the Senator 
from New Mexico voted for the Bingaman amendment, which many on my side 
did not, because I believe we have a problem. I said that. I thought 
that at sometime the Congress should address it. But I surely do not 
support this resolution which, in a sense, says now the Senate ought to 
be talking about going back into negotiations with the world under an 
architecture that has failed us. As a matter of fact, it yielded a very 
big, powerful what I would call pompous ceremonial proposal called 
Kyoto, which nobody is going to follow that has any industrial 
capacity.
  Now, maybe I should not say ``nobody,'' but very few nations. Most 
are trying to say: We would like to do it.
  This Senate has said, 99 to 0, do not send us the treaty, Mr. 
President, because we are not going to do it. So I think the Senator--
this is a good idea. It is a very excellent speech. His remarks are 
very admirable. But I do not believe we should today ask, through a 
sense of the Senate, that we go back to a convention architecture and 
enter into international agreements under its architecture, which 
yielded Kyoto, which I do not believe was very successful.
  I do not think I want to debate it particularly. I have just seen 
charts as to what it would require of the United States, and we could 
never do it. How much the other proposals do that is far less, and we 
can hardly do those. But that is another case. Is Kyoto achievable? No. 
Did that convention architecture achieve anything significant? I do not 
think so. We had a great debate, talked a lot about some good things. 
Maybe some great scientists attended. But I do not think we really want 
to say it is the sense of the Senate that we should go back to that 
format. I hope we do not. As far as I am concerned, I will not vote for 
it.
  I compliment the Senator again for the ideas expressed and the goals. 
But I do not think we should do this as a sense of the Senate.
  I yield the floor and reserve whatever time I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 55 seconds.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield myself 55 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say, quickly, this resolution, I say 
to the Senator from New Mexico, is similar to language unanimously 
accepted--unanimously accepted--by the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee in the 107th and 108th Congresses and language accepted by 
the full Senate, which the Senate included on April 23, 2002. It was 
first offered by Senator Biden and myself as an amendment during the 
Foreign Relations Committee markup of the Foreign Relations 
Authorization Act. The fact is, it then was modified and included in 
the Senate-passed Energy bill with a bipartisan initiative with 
Senators Hollings, Hagel, Stevens, Byrd, Lieberman, Murkowski, 
Bingaman, Snowe, and Thompson on April 23.
  Now, I can say to the Senator, there is no way possible to deal 
realistically with the issue of global warming on an international 
basis unless we deal with other countries. You can go find a different 
forum, but if you did not have this forum, you would have to invent it. 
I think it is the best way to proceed.
  I reserve the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 2 minutes 41 
seconds. The Senator from Massachusetts has 53 seconds remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, would you yield back your time if 
I yield back mine?
  Mr. KERRY. I would like to take the 53 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will reserve 53 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator form Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this is not about Kyoto. I voted against 
the Senate proceeding on the Kyoto agreement, as did other Members 
here, in a near unanimous agreement, as a matter of fact, because we 
thought it was flawed because it did not have other countries involved.
  This is an effort to put the Senate on record that we believe the 
science--yes, we have to believe it and move forward internationally. 
We even create a Senate bipartisan observer group appointed by the 
leaders of both sides so that they can report to the Senate on the 
effectiveness and propriety of what is happening.
  This is a bona fide effort to try to deal realistically with the 
problem. The Senate has used the language before. I hope my colleagues 
will embrace it.
  I yield back whatever time I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me say to my fellow Senators, you 
have already as an institution, whether you voted for it or not, the 
Bingaman sense of the Senate. It said the Senate recognizes greenhouse 
gases are a problem. There is a scientific consensus that it is a 
problem, that we ought to do something about it through incentives and/
or mandatory caps. So we are on record on that. This is not just an 
amendment saying we should have a bipartisan congressional group to 
observe international participation in some agreements. It is much 
broader than that. It talks about joining in a convention architecture 
with the world. I don't know what else it could be other than the 
architecture that was established under Kyoto because that is what it 
refers to. I don't think we need to do that.
  I yield back time I might have. I guess we want the yeas and nays.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 30 minutes 
evenly divided between the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from 
New Jersey. Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Jersey.


                           Amendment No. 839

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 839. I offer 
this amendment to this bill to protect the integrity of government 
science and research on global climate change. The amendment is 
cosponsored by Senators Reid of Nevada, Lieberman, Jeffords, and 
Corzine.
  We hear a lot of rhetoric these days by those who challenge climate 
change and the science that they supposedly use to back up their 
arguments. But the problem is that much of what they present is not 
science but, rather, fiction. And what we want to talk about tonight, 
as has been said many times, is the facts, just the facts, please.
  When I see what is being presented to us, I want to show this 
placard. It is called ``the Cooney Triangle.'' It is an alliance 
between the American Petroleum Institute, the White House, and 
ExxonMobil. Cooney used to be a lobbyist for the American Petroleum 
Institute. Put simply, his job at the White House was to cast doubt on 
the scientific evidence that our climate is changing.
  In 2001, Mr. Cooney went to work at the White House's Council on 
Environmental Quality. His mission at CEQ included editing reports by 
government scientists on global warming. And he tried to muddy the 
waters by interjecting uncertainty where, in fact, there is consensus.
  About 2 weeks ago, Mr. Cooney left the White House to go to work for 
ExxonMobil, the most outspoken of all the oil companies in its 
rejection of the scientific evidence that global warming is occurring. 
I call this unholy alliance between API, the White House, and 
ExxonMobil the Cooney triangle.
  What happens in the Cooney triangle is threatening our country. 
Bouncing from industry to government, back into industry--that is not 
new in Washington. We have had a revolving door policy for a long time. 
What is unprecedented is that industry lobbyists, such as Mr. Cooney, 
are no longer asked just to try to influence policy. Now they are given 
free rein to tamper with and distort the findings of professional 
scientists, including the National Academy of Sciences.
  How it works is displayed in an article in the New York Times printed 
on June 8, 2005. It provides a graphic example of strikeouts and 
changes in the

[[Page S7047]]

wording of a report. While working at the White House, Mr. Cooney, who 
is not a scientist, edited out entire sections of U.S. reports on 
climate change. He didn't just alter the words, he altered the meaning 
of what government scientists had written. An example is included, 
obviously, in these revisions.
  Mr. Cooney deleted an entire paragraph, taking out a description of 
global warming impacts widely accepted by scientists, calling it 
``speculative findings,'' ``amusing,'' to use his quotes.
  In the next example, he adds a made-up sentence about the need for 
research to reduce the significant remaining uncertainties associated 
with human-induced climate change.
  Contrast that heavy-handed editing with what scientists are saying 
about global warming. In January, Oxford University led a number of 
world-renowned universities in the largest climate change experiment 
ever conducted. The researchers found that the threat of global warming 
appears to be worse than previously thought and that the Earth is 
warming at twice the rate previously understood.
  There is a statement here from the National Academy of Sciences 
issued just 2 weeks ago. They say:

       The U.S. National Academy of Sciences joined 10 other 
     national science academies today in calling on world leaders, 
     particularly those of the G8 countries meeting the next month 
     in Scotland, to acknowledge that the threat of climate change 
     is clear and increasing, to address its causes, and to 
     prepare for its consequences.

  The date is June 7, 2005, not a month ago, put out by the National 
Academy of Sciences, a fairly respected group.
  When taxpayers pay for objective scientific studies, they don't want 
the findings altered. We expect scientists to go where the facts lead 
them, not to follow predetermined ideologies. Yet the administration 
has an alarming tendency to disregard or even distort scientific 
research. We have seen it in these reports. Nowhere is this more 
evident than when it comes to global warming.
  The front-page headline in USA Today last week said it all: ``The 
Debate is Over. The Globe is Warming.''
  Our planet is warming up. It is being documented by scientists. But 
instead of addressing the real problem, the administration wants to 
edit the problem away by tinkering with scientific reports.
  My amendment would help protect government reports on global warming 
and climate change from being altered for any reason, political reasons 
in particular.
  Under my amendment, if a government report about climate change is 
altered by the White House, then a draft of the preedited version has 
to be made available at the same time that the final report is 
released. This way people can determine for themselves whether the 
scientific evidence about global warming is being ignored or 
disregarded by the administration. The amendment also extends 
whistleblower protection for government scientists. It is too bad they 
have to have that, but we want to be sure that they are free to speak 
up. It is time to make sure everybody knows about this war on science, 
especially when it comes to global warming.
  The bottom line is that the oil industry lobbyists should not be 
rewriting scientific conclusions. My amendment will discourage such 
tampering in the future.
  In a national survey last year, two-thirds of the Americans surveyed 
said government science should be insulated from politics. Nobel 
laureates, former Federal agency directors, and university presidents 
have all called for legislative action to restore scientific integrity 
to Federal policymaking. It is time to smash the Cooney triangle. It is 
time to demand greater transparency, a hallmark of democracy, on all 
scientific reports on our planet's climate.
  As Russell Train, who served as EPA Administrator under Presidents 
Nixon and Ford, put it, the ``interest of the American people lies in 
having full disclosure of the facts.''
  Under my amendment, if the administration wants to fly in the face of 
peer-reviewed science, it can still do it. But when the administration 
publishes a bogus report on global warming, my amendment will make it 
easier for the American people to separate science from fiction.
  Mr. President, it is fairly obvious, by all kinds of physical 
evidence, that there is a warming taking place. If we see what happens 
in Antarctica or in the Arctic, and we see places changing their 
character, going from glacially covered ice mountains into pools and 
areas bare of any evidence of winter--the facts are there. They cannot 
be refuted. Yes, they can be altered. But we just want to know when the 
facts are changed. When the information is distorted in any way, we 
say, OK, you want to change them, but let the public know what the 
change is you are making.
  I yield the floor, and I ask, how much time is left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has 5 minutes 9 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. As I understand it--did the Senator use all his time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes 9 seconds remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask the Senator from New Jersey, would he be disposed 
to yielding back his time if this Senator would yield all of my time 
now?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the Senator from New Mexico would want to yield 
time, I am happy to yield the remaining time that I have.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back whatever time we have on our side. I ask 
the question so I understand carefully. The Senator did not ask for any 
consent that we take any action. He just delivered a speech. I didn't 
miss anything by way of a request, did I?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back my time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We yield back our time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 961

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand there is a parliamentary 
situation that I have 1 minute, and I guess Senator Alexander has 1 
minute on the Alexander-Warner amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I just ask one question. Why single out 
wind power? I ask my friends from Tennessee and Virginia, why not apply 
it to coal, coal-fired plants? Why not apply it to oil or gas? Maybe 
some people don't like seeing a smokestack out there on the horizon. 
Maybe people don't like to see the cooling towers of nuclear plants. 
Why not apply it to everything?
  It seems to me some people are ready to drill in a wildlife area but 
not put a windmill within 20 miles. Why not apply it to transmission 
lines? We see big power transmission lines going across scenic areas, 
marring the views or vistas. Why not apply it to transmission lines?
  Clearly, this amendment is aimed at wind power. I don't know why, but 
it is. I just say to restrict the development of the largest nonhydro 
renewable resource takes us in the wrong direction. So I ask my 
colleagues to please oppose the Alexander-Warner amendment and get on 
with building the windmills in Iowa, South Dakota, North Dakota, 
Minnesota, and all of the places that will give us clean renewable 
energy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. The answer to the Senator is the reason we are doing 
this is that he is advocating a national windmill policy instead of a 
national energy policy, which has spent billions on windmills. We ought 
not subsidize the destruction of our national treasures, such as the 
Grand Canyon, the Great Smokies, and we ought to tell people first.
  This bill doesn't prohibit the building of any wind project, affect 
anything already going on, or give FERC any new

[[Page S7048]]

authority. The reason Senators Alexander, Warner, Landrieu, McCain, 
Allen, Voinovich, Brownback, Burr, and Bunning all support it is 
because it says and the National Parks Conservation Association says no 
subsidies to destroy our views of our national treasures and more local 
controls.
  Please vote yes.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. 
Coleman) would have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Conrad), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton), the Senator from 
North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) 
are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 32, nays 63, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 150 Leg.]

                                YEAS--32

     Alexander
     Allen
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Frist
     Graham
     Gregg
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--63

     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Collins
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dole
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Thomas
     Thune
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Coleman
     Conrad
     Dayton
     Dorgan
     Jeffords
  The amendment (No. 961) was rejected.
  Mr. CRAIG. 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.


                           Amendment No. 844

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment by the 
Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield to the majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, the 
next vote will be the last vote of tonight. In fact, the next vote will 
be the last vote before the cloture vote tomorrow morning. The 
Democratic leader and I have not talked specifically about times, but 
we probably will come back in at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning and have 
the cloture vote at 10 o'clock.
  As all of you know, the postcloture amendments will be germane 
amendments. Right now, the Parliamentarian is going through about 170 
amendments to see what is germane and what is not. We make a request to 
our colleagues to talk to the managers tonight or very early on 
tomorrow about which amendments you feel strongly about offering.
  People have asked about the schedule. We have really all day 
tomorrow. We could go into Friday on the bill, but if people really 
focus on it tonight and in the morning, we have a good shot at 
completing this bill tomorrow afternoon or tomorrow evening. Again, it 
is going to take everybody coming together and sorting through the 
amendments.
  But this will be the last vote tonight, and the next vote will be the 
cloture vote at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
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 Minnesota, (Mr. Coleman).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. 
Coleman) would have voted ``nay''.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Conrad), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton), the Senator from 
North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) 
are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 151 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Collins
     Corzine
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Coleman
     Conrad
     Dayton
     Dorgan
     Jeffords
  The amendment (No. 844) was rejected.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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 Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask the Chair to advise the Chamber as to the pending 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is amendment No. 811, 
offered by the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia will state it.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there was a 
unanimous consent put into order that following the votes, the Senator 
from Virginia would be recognized for a period of time, together with 
the Senator from Tennessee, the Senator from Florida, and the Senator 
from New Jersey, for the purpose of an amendment, which I understood 
was in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to proceed at this 
time.
  Mr. WARNER. Is that under the unanimous consent, or is it that I just 
got the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the agreement.
  Mr. WARNER. It is my understanding that the Presiding Officer stated 
incorrectly with regard to the Senator from New York; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from New York is 
the pending business. But there is a unanimous consent order to allow 
the Senator from Virginia to go forth at this point.
  Mr. WARNER. All right. I further inquire, is it appropriate for the 
Senator from Virginia to ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside so that I can proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair notes that is not necessary at this 
point.

[[Page S7049]]

                           Amendment No. 972,

  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair. This is somewhat unusual. We will 
proceed as directed by the Chair.
  Mr. President, I first ask that the amendment at the desk be 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Reserving the right to object, if the 
distinguished Senator from Virginia would please inform the Senate what 
is the modification.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I modified it in such a way as to comport 
with the UC, whereby after I present the amendment, it can be 
withdrawn. That is the essence of it.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator.
  (The amendment No. 972 is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
amendments.'')
  Mr. WARNER. As I understand it, the Senator from Virginia has 5 
minutes, the Senator from Tennessee has 5 minutes, and my colleagues in 
opposition have 5 minutes each.
  First, I thank my colleagues for allowing me to proceed. There is a 
very strong opposition on both sides of the aisle to this amendment. I 
say to my colleagues that this amendment is important to have as part 
of the legislative history of this Energy bill--a bill that America has 
been waiting for for a very long period of time. Had I pressed on with 
certain parliamentary maneuvers, it could well have resulted in a 
filibuster. I have been here 27 years, and I think I have some 
understanding as to how to count votes and what is in the best interest 
of this Chamber. I did not want to precipitate that kind of 
parliamentary situation, particularly after the hard work of Senators 
Domenici and Bingaman and the leadership on both sides. But it is 
important.
  It is important that this amendment reflect that there is a need in 
America to recognize that the potential for the offshore energy, be it 
gas or oil, is enormous, and that we as a nation must conscientiously 
put politics to one side and look at this, in the event that the energy 
crisis gets any worse for this country. We have no other recourse of 
any significant energy other than to go offshore. The distinguished 
Senator from Louisiana, in the course of this bill, will put on an 
amendment which recognizes, I think quite properly, that the States 
which have permitted offshore drilling and which are now producing 
essential energy for the U.S. be given a share of the revenue. It has 
my strongest support.
  This amendment provides for the future, if other States so desire, to 
permit offshore drilling. They also can participate in the distribution 
of the proceeds from the oil and gas. It is entirely discretionary with 
the States. This amendment is designed to force no burden on any other 
State. If a State wishes to take those risks associated with drilling 
and the citizens accept that, and the legislatures accept it, then they 
should be entitled to the proceeds, or a portion of them.
  In my State--and I am proud of it--the general assembly, this year, 
passed legislation urging that our State, through its Governor, begin 
to explore the possibility of acquiring the offshore drilling rights 
and revenues. The Governor, for reasons that he explained--and I do not 
say this by way of criticism--vetoed that. But I felt it important for 
the Senator from Virginia to stand and advise the Senate of the 
necessity to put in legislation to allow those States the option of 
deciding for themselves to do offshore drilling.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from 
Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia. I am 
glad we have had this opportunity to discuss this issue tonight. I 
believe, if we had an opportunity to come to a vote, we would likely 
have a majority vote, more than 50 votes for the idea of giving more 
individual States the right to drill for natural gas offshore, the same 
right that four States already have.
  Why would we do that? It is because the single most important thing 
that this Energy bill, which is a superb bill as it has been developed, 
can do for the American people is to lower the price of natural gas.
  We talk a lot about gasoline at the pump, but by far the bigger 
problem for millions of American blue-collar workers, for millions of 
American farmers, and for millions of American homeowners is the high 
price of natural gas. To lower the price of natural gas, we have a 
number of provisions in our legislation.
  One is conservation. We have very strong conservation. One is make 
electricity in new and different ways. We would like to encourage 
nuclear power, but new reactors are a few years away. We would like to 
encourage coal gasification and carbon sequestration, but that is a few 
more years away. We would like to bring in more natural gas from 
overseas, but that leads us down the same road on natural gas as on 
oil.
  Part of our solution is to increase our supply at home, and we have a 
lot of it. But here is the price. If we think American jobs are going 
to stay in the United States when the price is $7 and headed up, when 
the price in Canada is $5.50, in the United Kingdom it is $5.15, and in 
Turkey it is $2.65, we are kidding ourselves. We are saying let's don't 
look for natural gas at home.
  The Senators from Florida do not want natural gas from Florida, and 
neither do I, if they don't. And the Senators from North Carolina do 
not want it off the coast of North Carolina, and neither do I, if the 
Senators and the people of North Carolina don't. But what we have 
suggested in the amendments I have proposed, with Senator Tim Johnson 
in the national gas price reduction bill, and it would be before this 
legislation, and what the Senator from Virginia has said, is let them 
do it.
  That would mean the Governor of Virginia could put a gas rig more 
than 20 miles out to sea. One gas rig would equal 46 square miles of 
these windmills that everybody seems to love. One gas rig, that you 
could not see, out to sea would bring you enough revenue to create in 
Virginia a terrific reserve fund for the university system and to lower 
the taxes, and it would bring to us in the United States a supply of 
gas to lower the price of natural gas so the workers at Tennessee 
Eastman can work in Kingsport, instead of flying to Germany to go to 
work, which is what they will have to do, and the farmers will not have 
to be taking a pay cut, and the homeowners can afford to pay their 
bills.
  So we need to have, as part of our solution, an increased supply of 
natural gas. I believe there are 51 votes in this Chamber for that. We 
cannot get to a vote tonight, but I think we have made great progress. 
A year ago, we could not even get this body to agree to take an 
inventory of the natural gas we have offshore, and we have lots of it. 
This year we passed that inventory. A year ago, nobody would even speak 
about the idea of giving a State, such as Virginia or South Carolina or 
North Carolina, the option of deciding for itself that out on the 
water, where it cannot be seen, it bring in this resource and use it 
instead of raising taxes. I think that is an option a lot of Governors 
and legislatures are going to want.
  We are contributing to the debate and moving in the right direction. 
Florida may want to not do it, but I predict there will be a day in 
Florida, 5 or 10 years from now, when somebody is going to say: We are 
going to have to have a State income tax. And somebody else will say: 
Well, maybe we can go 50 miles offshore, where nobody can see gas rigs, 
and drill for gas and avoid a State income tax and also contribute to 
the supply of natural gas in a way that would keep jobs in America, 
lower the cost for farmers, lower the cost for the auto companies, and 
lower the cost for homeowners.
  Lowering the price of natural gas is the single most important thing 
this energy legislation can do right now for the American blue-collar 
worker, American homeowner, and American farmer. Having some new 
supplies of natural gas is a part of the solution, and giving States 
the option would be a good way to do it, in my opinion.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a 
listing of companies and associations supporting expanded offshore 
development.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S7050]]

   Companies & Associations Supporting Expanded Offshore Development

       Abitibi-Consolidated, Inc.; AFG Industries; Air Liquide; 
     Air Products & Chemical Inc.; Albemarle; Alliance for the 
     Responsible Use of Chlorine Chemistry (ARCC); American 
     Chemistry Council (ACC); American Council for an Energy 
     Efficient Economy (ACEEE); American Farm Bureau (AFB); 
     American Fiber Manufacturers Association (AFMA); American 
     Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA); American Gas 
     Association (AGA); American Petroleum Institute (API); 
     American Public Gas Association (APGA); Arkema, Inc.; Ashland 
     Inc.; Associated Builders & Contractors (ABC); Association of 
     American Railroads (AAR); BASF Corp.; Bayer Corporation; C. 
     Brewer Co.; Cal-Mold, Inc.; Carpet & Rug Institute (CRI); 
     Celanese; CF Industries; Chemical Council of New Jersey; 
     Chemical Industry Committee, Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & 
     Industry; Chemical Industry Council of Illinois; Chlorine 
     Chemistry Council (CCC); Ciba Specialty Chemicals; Cinergy; 
     Consumers Alliance for Affordable Natural Gas (CAANG); 
     Council of Industrial Boiler Operators (CIBO); Crompton 
     Corp.; Degussa; Delta Pacific Products, Inc.; DJNypro; 
     Domestic Petroleum Council; Dow Chemical; Dow Corning 
     Corp.; DuPont.
       Dynisco; Eastman Chemical Company; The Energy Council; FMC 
     Corporation; Forest Products Industry National Labor 
     Management Committee; Georgia-Pacific Corporation; Guardian 
     Industries Corporation; Hercules Incorporated; High Sierra 
     Plastics; IGCC Coalition; Illinois Tool Works; INCOE 
     Corporation; Independent Petroleum Association of America 
     (IPAA); Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA); 
     International Paper Company; Itech; Jatco, Inc.; Key 
     Packaging; Longview Fibre Company; Louisiana-Pacific 
     Corporation; Lyondell; Massachusetts Chemistry & Technology 
     Alliance; MeadWestvaco Corporation; Merisol USA; Mid South 
     Extrusion; Milacron Inc.; Mill Hall Clay Products, Inc.; 
     National Association of Manufacturers (NAM); National 
     Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC); 
     National Corn Growers Association (NCGA); National Council of 
     Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC); National Lieutenant Governors 
     Association (NLGA); National Petrochemical & Refiners 
     Association (NPRA); Natural Gas Council; New Mexico Oil & Gas 
     Association; NOVA Chemicals, Inc.; Ohio Chemistry Technology 
     Council.
       Old Virginia Brick, Inc.; Pelican Products, Inc.; 
     Pennsylvania Chemical Industry Council; PPG Industries; 
     Praxair; Precise Technology; Pro Systems, LLC; Rayonier, 
     Inc.; Rohm and Haas Company; 60 Plus Association; Setco, 
     Inc.; Smurfit Stone Container Corporation; Society of the 
     Plastics Industry; Solar Energy Industries Association 
     (SEIA); Solutia; Southern Legislative Conference (SLC); 
     Southern States Energy Board (SSEB); Spartech Corporation; 
     Stora Enso North America; Styrotek Inc.; Temple-Inland Inc; 
     Texas Chemical Council; Ticona; Tomah Products, Inc.; Trex 
     Company; Tyco; United Southern; United States Combined Heat & 
     Power Association (USCHPA); United States Conference of 
     Mayors (USCM); Universal Dynamics; Versatech Inc.; Virginia 
     Chemistry Council; Waverly Plastics; Wexco Corporation; 
     Weyerhaeuser Company; and Xaloy Incorporated.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator 
from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I would like to respond to the 
two distinguished Senators, for whom not only do I have a great deal of 
personal respect but personal affection, especially as my chairman of 
the Senate Armed Services Committee knows of my personal feelings about 
him.
  I just want to point out where there is a flaw in the reasoning here 
for the States that have concerns that do not want the drilling off of 
their coast.
  I can give again the arguments I have made ad infinitum on the floor 
of the Senate of why Florida does not want to do this. In the first 
place, the geology shows there is not very much oil and gas off 
Florida. They have had all kinds of dry holes over the last half 
century. But in everything in life, there are questions of tradeoffs, 
and is it worth the tradeoff that we would despoil a $50-billion-a-year 
tourism industry that depends on pristine beaches, not even to speak of 
the delicate coastline of the environment, such as the Ten Thousand 
Islands, with the mangroves, the Big Bend area of Florida. I could go 
on and on.
  Clearly, as the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee 
knows, we have a unique national resource off our coast called 
``restricted airspace,'' where we train our military pilots and where a 
lot of the training, with the shutdown of Vieques in Puerto Rico, is 
integrated with surface ships, and at the same time there would be oil 
rigs down there. That is not what I want to speak to. I want to speak 
to what the two Senators have said.
  It seems, with all of this area in yellow that is under moratorium, 
it would be harmless off a State until you get to the specific language 
of the amendment which talks about the establishment of seaward lateral 
boundaries for coastal States to be set by the Department of Interior 
according to a guideline set by a Law of the Sea Treaty which was never 
ratified by the United States.
  I want to give an example of what that line would be off the gulf 
coast of Florida. Here is Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and 
here is the Alabama-Florida line on a latitude. But under that Law of 
the Sea Treaty that was never ratified by the U.S. Government, where 
would that line go for the State of Louisiana? It would come out here 
off the coast of Florida. That is what we are trying to protect 
against.
  That is a major flaw of this amendment. This is what we have in 
Florida. I have not been able to get an updated photograph, but that is 
a photograph from Alaska.
  There is a similar photograph that has not been processed in the 
photography room of what has just happened off the coast of Louisiana. 
That could happen right there to what is so precious in our State of 
Florida.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition as well. I 
again join with my colleague from Florida. I wish to speak again to a 
position that seems to continue to come up in this bill. Let me say, 
first, that I do respect the wishes of the Senator from Virginia about 
what they might do in the State of Virginia. I wish there were a simple 
way that we could simply say: Fine, drill in Virginia if you will, but 
do not do so in Florida. There just has not been a mechanism that has 
been devised, as my senior colleague, the Senator from Florida, has 
just pointed out, that would allow us to draw these seaward boundary 
lines in a way that would also protect the State of Florida. 
Particularly, I am talking about the area in the northwest part of our 
State around the area of Pensacola.
  There is no question that the drilling that we discussed as such a 
benign event in fact is not because in this particular bill, part of 
the effort is going to be to allow the State of Louisiana and other 
coastal States, about five of them that are currently drilling, to 
benefit more fully in the royalties from the product that is being 
drawn from their coast. The fact is that they need that money to 
correct the environmental damage to their coastline. That is the 
slippery slope down which we in Florida do not want to go.
  If this were totally benign, the people of Louisiana would not today 
be clamoring for assistance to rebuild their coast from all the damage 
and the trafficking and all of the things that go on with coastal 
offshore production.
  In addition to that, I know the Senator from Tennessee speaks 
passionately about this issue, and I also give great deference to his 
judgment as someone who has served in many distinguished roles, 
particularly as Governor of his own State, and I understand that he did 
a terrific thing, which is bring in industry to that State that today 
may be threatened by the high price of natural gas. But let me also say 
that we know Florida. The senior Senator from Florida and I know 
Florida just as well as the Senator from Tennessee knows Tennessee. I 
do not think there will be a time when the State of Florida is going to 
be willing to accept an income tax or the State of Florida is going to 
be in the need of drilling off its coast in order to supplement the 
income of our universities. Always there is more money available. There 
are more ways to spend it.
  The fact is, this is not an economic calculus that the State of 
Florida can make because we are too dependent on tourism. We are so 
dependent on our visitors. We are so dependent and so proud of the 
military presence on our coastline that desperately needs this area to 
conduct their training missions. This is one of the few areas in the 
world where the U.S. Armed Forces can train in joint operations on sea, 
land, and air all at the same time. That is because of the great 
expanse they have, this reserved airspace and the land adjacent to it.
  So if there were an easy way that we could accommodate and allow for 
coastal drilling in the State of Virginia

[[Page S7051]]

while at the same time in no way tampering with Florida, that would be 
just fine. The language in this bill simply does not do that. What it 
does is open a door for the northwest coast of Florida to be threatened 
with coastal drilling.
  I see the Senator from New Jersey is about to speak. I thank him for 
his participation with us in our endeavors to keep our coastlines clear 
of drilling. I know the Senator shares many of the same sentiments 
where so many of the people of his State are committed to keeping those 
coastlines free of drilling so that tourists can continue to come and 
enjoy the beaches of New Jersey as they do the beaches of Florida.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to speak against this amendment 
and the direction this amendment would take. I will try to give my 
reasons, but I very much respect and admire the courtesy the 
distinguished Senator from Virginia and others have provided so that we 
could have this debate. I believe it is truly one of those fundamental 
debates that we need to have with regard to both energy independence 
and how we look holistically at our economies and how our people will 
be able to continue to maintain their way of life, their quality of 
life, in its broadest context. This really gets at the heart of that 
matter as it relates to the people of New Jersey.
  I actually believe, for folks up and down our coastlines and a lot of 
different areas, I could go through the 127 miles of coastline, the $31 
billion of GNP we have in the State, the 800,000 jobs in the tourism 
industry. That is very focused in the State of New Jersey. But the 
reality is that we have made other choices with regard to energy 
independence that I think and many think could attack that need that 
the distinguished Senator from Virginia so ably talked about, that we 
need to protect America's role and its ability to have that 
independence.
  We have said we do not think changing mileage standards, we do not 
think developing even stronger efficiency standards, is the way we are 
going to go because we have cost-benefit tradeoffs. Now, I do not agree 
with those cost-benefit tradeoffs, but they were implied in the 
decisions we have taken in writing this bill.
  Those of us who are so dependent, as I tried to outline and my 
distinguished colleagues from Florida talked about in their economy, 
many of us are very dependent in our own economy on the kinds of things 
that could be threatened with regard to the kind of action we take. We 
had to make some tradeoffs. We made judgments and some choices about 
whether it was better to put at risk something that is incredibly 
important not only for the economy but the environment and the quality 
of life of the people who live in these communities, or do we say that 
we will protect those and take other choices that will produce the 
energy independence that we have? From our perspective in New Jersey, I 
believe this is a bad cost-benefit analysis. I can understand how 
someone can make that argument, but to those 836,000 folks dependent on 
the tourism industry, I cannot make that argument.
  There is another argument being made about States rights. That is 
probably too simple a way, but leave it to the legislature of one State 
or another. I look at these planning areas--and I do not know much 
about oceanography and how the tides move and the sea moves, but there 
is a reason that we have planning areas, the mid-Atlantic, the South 
Atlantic, and we did not do it by States because water does not know 
borders.
  The fisheries that are involved in those planning areas--it is not 
just Virginia or New Jersey that is impacted by a decision that is 
taken. If there is an oilspill or if some of the fisheries are 
destroyed because of the seismic explosions that test the capacity for 
oil and gas in these areas, it has impact beyond simple borders. This 
is something that needs to be considered not just from a State point of 
view, but we need to do this in a cooperative fashion. So I think there 
is a cost-benefit problem. How do we define borders and boundaries and 
oceans?
  Finally, it strikes me that we are not focused on some of the things 
that would allow us to deal with our energy independence, which is 
absolutely essential. I do not understand why we think this is the 
trade we need to make versus other trades when there is so much at 
stake for so many with regard to these coastal economies.
  I thank the Senator from Virginia for bringing this debate to the 
Senate floor. It is a healthy one, and I look forward to working with 
him in the future, hopefully in a positive way, on our energy 
dependence.
  Mr. WARNER. How much time remains on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has 1 minute 37 
seconds.
  Mr. WARNER. The opposition?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Nelson has 25 seconds, and Senator 
Martinez, 1 minute 14 seconds.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wind up the presentation by saying--and 
I regret to predict this--I see nothing but danger signs with regard to 
the worldwide energy consumption and the predicament the United States 
of America faces, particularly with the growing consumption of energy 
by China and India and other nations. It will impact here at home.
  To my colleagues in Florida, show us how to fix our bill to protect 
your State fully. It can be done. That is what we do all the time, 
craft legislation. How do you explain how four States have already been 
doing this for many years--Mississippi, Louisiana, and those four 
States offshore--without any great disaster.
  I predict the Halls of this Chamber will reverberate with the 
debate--maybe next year or the year after--and this subject will be 
brought back again when a solid realization will come to this Senate we 
have no place to go as a nation to protect ourselves and our energy 
needs but offshore.
  I am delighted tonight I forced the opportunity, together with my 
colleagues, to show in this bill there are those in this Senate who are 
seriously concerned about the future and believe we must start now to 
do the planning for offshore. If this crisis hits, we cannot go 6 
months or a year and suddenly tap those sources. We have to go through 
a legislative process in our States and the Federal Government. It will 
take 4 to 5 to 6 years before we could begin to draw the first bit of 
energy offshore.
  I thank my colleague for the opportunity for this very limited right 
of a Senator to make his case. Unfortunately, we will not have a vote 
to determine how many other colleagues feel as we do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, could I ask the Senator from Virginia to 
yield a moment of his time?
  Mr. WARNER. I regret to say to my colleagues I don't think we have a 
second. If the Senator would ask unanimous consent, I would strongly 
support it.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent for a moment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 2 minutes be given 
to our distinguished colleague from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank my colleague from Virginia. This has been a 
very good debate. I understand the feelings of the Senators from 
Florida and New Jersey. They have very strong feelings they have 
expressed, and some ideas have been laid out to consider.
  I understand this amendment will probably not be voted on, but I 
compliment the Senator from Virginia for his foresight and 
understanding that we have to increase the supply of gas, particularly 
oil and gas in this Nation.
  All of the conservation measures are in this bill and all those we 
could add when it goes to conference are not going to add up to enough 
conservation to get us out of the bind we are in.
  While we want to be sensitive to the individual States, we also have 
an obligation to the Nation. The Senator from Virginia has raised that 
issue.
  He is correct. We will be back sometime next year or the following 
year debating this issue and trying to come up with some way we can 
open up opportunities where we can, and maybe perhaps keep them closed 
in other places. Pretending this will go away, pretending the prices 
will come down, is jeopardizing the economic vitality of

[[Page S7052]]

our Nation. Regardless of the position of Mississippi or Louisiana, the 
national issue demands we come up with solutions.

  I thank the Senator from Virginia for his foresight and his comments 
in this regard.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Senator from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, in the remaining time I have, I 
respond to my dear personal friend and my chairman, the senior Senator 
from Virginia, to say in approaching your question, how do you perfect 
this for the future? You eliminate the part of your bill regarding the 
establishment of seaward lateral boundaries for coastal States.
  In all of this area in yellow off the gulf coast of Florida that is 
under moratorium, that seaward lateral boundary would cause that line 
to come off the coast of Florida. That is what the Senator from New 
Jersey is concerned about. That, then, establishes drilling off of one 
State that clearly starts to impinge on the rights of another State for 
which we have tried to articulate the reasons why that is so important 
to us and to our people and the States we represent.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I simply echo Senator Nelson's comments. It is terribly 
important, and I think the Senator from Virginia makes a good point. We 
should work at this. I am happy to sit down and start to work at it.
  The Senator from Louisiana and I and the committee sat down with the 
chairman under his guidance and attempted to draw lines. We made a lot 
of progress. We could not come up with a formula that seemed to work, 
but one has got to work. Even if it is a combination of continuing 
moratoria as well as boundary lines that are drawn, we should be able 
to do that to accommodate all that is sought to be done here.
  Also, the point needs to be made that, as dire as the circumstances 
of energy are, and I recognize China and India are tremendous consumers 
of energy that will surpass our own demands for energy in the years to 
come, it is incumbent upon us to put the great genius of America at 
work so we can develop alternative sources of fuel, that our dependence 
on fossil fuels has to be changed.
  I commend the chairman for moving in that direction in this bill, 
which is why I am so excited about this Energy bill. In addition to 
conservation measures, it also moves us into alternative fuels. It does 
a great deal to encourage the production and purchase of hybrid 
vehicles, and in combination with tax incentives that will come from 
the Finance Committee it makes a very strong energy policy for our 
Nation. While not perfect, it is a great step in the right direction.
  I appreciate all of the courtesies and the fact that we will not be 
voting on this tonight since we have not worked out those boundary 
lines in a way that affects the people of Florida. I thank the Senator 
from Virginia for his courtesy and invite the opportunity to work with 
the Senator to see if it is feasible to see if we can draw the lines to 
satisfy the needs of Virginia and Florida.


                           Amendment No. 972

  Mr. WARNER. I believe under the unanimous consent it is in order for 
the Senator from Virginia to seek unanimous consent to have this 
amendment withdrawn. I will do that momentarily.
  I simply say to my colleagues, there is a way to fix this legislation 
and there is a way, also, to fix it in such a manner that we could 
restrict such offshore exploration to gas alone. Right now the permit 
process requires oil and gas, but Congress can fix that.
  Gas alone would wipe out most of your arguments with regard to the 
environment. That should be taken into consideration because you have 
shared with me the risk to our national security, much less our 
economy, from this impending energy crisis.
  I ask unanimous consent this amendment be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Ring Fencing

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, The Senator from Kansas and I would like 
to engage in a colloquy with Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member 
Bingaman about an issue that we're concerned could adversely affect 
electricity consumers and small businesses.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I understand the Senators from Wisconsin and from 
Kansas have concerns about the potential for regulated utilities to 
cross-subsidize the business ventures of some of their affiliate 
companies.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes. Several small business groups have brought to our 
attention concerns they have about their ability to compete with energy 
service companies that are separate from, but affiliated with, 
regulated utilities. These small business groups are concerned about 
utility ratepayers subsidizing these competitive businesses. Because of 
these concerns, I have cosponsored an amendment with Senator Feingold 
to give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authority to require 
greater structural and financial separation of utility companies and 
their affiliates and to prevent anticompetitive abuses which are 
especially harmful to America's small businesses.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. In addition to consumers and small businesses, we have 
heard from a diverse array of financial companies and credit agencies 
that are deeply concerned about this issue. From 2001-2003, financial 
ratings agencies issued over 180 bond downgrades--overwhelmingly as a 
result of poor performance by nonutility investments. All too often, 
utilities have succumbed to temptation and have relied on the more 
stable, regulated utilities within the company to shore up balance 
sheets and offset risky nonutility investments, while customers, 
ratepayers and investors pay the bill. We all agree that we cannot let 
Enron-style abuses we keep hearing about from consumers, small 
businesses, and financial companies continue.
  The Feingold-Brownback amendment adds a new section to the Federal 
Power Act to give FERC new power to regulate transactions between 
public utility companies and their affiliate and associate companies. 
The amendment also requires FERC to issue regulations that require 
affiliate, associate, and subsidiary companies to be independent, 
separate, and distinct entities from public utilities; maintain 
separate books and records; structure their governance in a manner that 
would prevent creditors from having recourse against the assets of 
public utilities; and prohibit cross-subsidizing, or shifting costs 
from affiliate, associate, or subsidiary companies to the public 
utilities.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. As the Senator from Wisconsin knows, I see ring fencing 
as an important issue and think that we should push FERC to protect 
small businesses and consumers from these abusive practices. The 
underlying bill, however, contains strong new authority for the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission to oversee mergers of public utilities. 
Congress directs FERC to use this new authority to assure that mergers 
are conducted appropriately and that consumers are protected from 
Enron-style abuses. We also direct FERC to use its existing authority 
to ensure Enron-style abuses do not happen again. The antimarket 
manipulation language also works toward this goal.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I am pleased that language in the underlying amendment 
includes more merger oversight authority for FERC, it includes anti-
market manipulation language, and it allows FERC to look at the books. 
My concern is that if there are not standards about keeping the 
entities separate, FERC's authority will not be enough to prevent 
abuses. I am also concerned that State commissions, public service 
commissions, and others are not able to take care of these kinds of 
problems because they often do not have the authority to regulate these 
multi-State entities. That's why small businesses and consumers need 
increased Federal protection, especially given that this bill repeals 
the Public Utility Holding Company Act.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me assure the Senators from Wisconsin and Kansas 
that I appreciate their concerns, and I agree that utility customers 
should not be forced to unfairly bear the costs of business ventures by 
unregulated companies affiliated with their local utility. Neither 
should competition be undermined by unfair competition caused

[[Page S7053]]

by shifting costs from an unregulated utility-owned business to the 
public utility. We can agree to disagree on whether FERC needs new 
authority or simply needs to exercise its existing authority. I 
anticipate that FERC will use its existing and new authority to address 
the problems described by small businesses and financial groups, but I 
agree that if there are problem areas, we should take a look at them.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. The amendment is simply intended to ensure a level 
playing field between small businesses and utility affiliates, to 
protect ratepayers, and the financial integrity of utilities, and to 
preserve fair competition.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I commit to the Senators from Wisconsin and Kansas that 
I will work with them through conference to ensure that the final 
version of this bill does not undermine consumer protections or the 
financial integrity of utilities, or harm America's small businesses by 
undermining competition. I will also work with them to hold a hearing 
in the committee about transactions by holding companies and affiliate 
businesses of public utility companies. Finally, I suggest a General 
Accounting Office report on affiliate transactions by holding companies 
and affiliate businesses of public utility companies, as such a report 
could be a useful resource for us in the future.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I commit to the Senators from Wisconsin and Kansas that 
I will work on this important issue in conference and ensure that the 
Energy Committee holds a hearing on this important consumer protection, 
fair competition, and financial integrity issue. In addition, I agree 
to request, jointly with the Senators from Wisconsin and Kansas, a GAO 
investigation into the potential for abusive affiliate transactions by 
holding companies and affiliate businesses of public utility companies.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I appreciate the chairman and ranking member's 
commitment and look forward to working with them.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes, we thank you and look forward to working with the 
committee on this common-sense proposal.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to address the 
issue of climate change and the various proposals that have been 
debated this week on the energy bill including the McCain-Lieberman 
amendment, the Hagel amendment, and the Bingaman-Specter amendment. 
Climate change is a matter of great international importance and I 
believe any successful plan to address it must balance environmental 
protection with the need for economic development and jobs.
  I have voted many times for environmental protection for renewable 
energy and conservation measures. Most recently, on this Energy bill I 
voted for the Bingaman amendment to mandate that 10 percent of U.S. 
electricity production be from renewable sources by 2020. I also 
supported the Cantwell amendment to reduce U.S. oil consumption by over 
7 million barrels per day by 2025, in addition to the 1 million barrel 
per day reduction by 2015 already incorporated into the Energy bill 
which I have advanced since 2002.
  On climate change specifically, the most recent vote of significance 
prior to the current debate was on October 30, 2003, when the Senate 
voted on the McCain-Lieberman bill, S. 139, the Climate Stewardship 
Act, which failed by a vote of 43 to 55. The Senate again today 
rejected a similar amendment to the Energy bill by a vote of 38 to 60. 
I voted against this amendment and the previous bill because it is very 
difficult to meet the strict emissions limit of the year 2000 by the 
year 2010 in times of unpredictable national and State economies. 
Additionally, it is very difficult to limit industry in the United 
States when we do not have a plan for the rest of the world in curbing 
greenhouse gas emissions. I have urged the President to work through 
international means to address global climate change and support his 
efforts and those of individual companies to voluntarily curb domestic 
emissions, but stronger action will have to be taken in the future on a 
multilateral basis.
  I have been encouraged by the recent efforts of Senator Bingaman, the 
ranking Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 
to bring to the Senate a proposal based on the recommendations of the 
National Commission on Energy Policy, NCEP, which issued its report in 
December 2004. The Commission's recommended approach on climate change 
would be to implement a mandatory, economy-wide, tradable-permits 
system designed to curb growth in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2.4 
percent in 2010, while capping initial costs at $7 per metric ton of 
carbon dioxide equivalent. This would start the U.S. on a path toward 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions compared to business as usual, while 
calling for Government reviews at 5 year intervals of global action on 
climate change. This new approach addressed two of the basic questions 
that have led, in my opinion, to the failure of the McCain-Lieberman 
legislation concerns about cost and U.S. action in the context of 
international efforts.
  Senator Bingaman decided to offer a sense-of-the Senate amendment in 
place of this more complicated technical amendment to further this 
discussion on the important issue of climate change. I cosponsored this 
Bingaman-Specter-Domenici amendment calling on Congress to enact a 
comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based 
limits on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop, and reverse 
the growth of such emissions. It calls for this to be done in a manner 
that will not significantly harm the U.S. economy and will encourage 
comparable action by other nations that are major trading partners and 
key contributors to global emissions. This amendment received a very 
substantial vote of 54-43 against tabling, or setting it aside, and was 
subsequently accepted by voice vote.
  I am also pleased to see the action taken by the Senate to include 
the Hagel amendment to the Energy bill, which would promote the 
adoption of technologies that reduce greenhouse gas intensity--
emissions per dollar of GDP by providing loan guarantees for up to 25 
percent of the total cost of eligible projects that employ advanced 
climate technologies or systems. This amendment also promotes the 
adoption of such technologies in developing countries by allowing U.S. 
companies that invest in such technologies overseas to fully deduct the 
cost of investment. I supported this amendment because I believe it is 
a step in the right direction, however, I believe further action is 
necessary to address global climate change.
  While I was unable to support the McCain-Lieberman amendment, I 
believe the actions on the Hagel and Bingaman-Specter amendments will 
give impetus to further action to deal with global climate change. I 
look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate on this 
important issue in the hopes of finding common ground and a sensible 
balance between the goals of environmental protection and economic 
development.
  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, the long-standing moratorium in place on 
oil and gas exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf has protected 
our vital coastal areas from drilling. This moratorium has worked. Over 
the last quarter century, North Carolina's coast has become an 
increasingly popular destination. North Carolina's Outer Banks are 
world-famous for their beauty. The influx of tourists have brought much 
needed dollars and jobs and lifted up what previously were some of the 
poorest counties in the state.
  Today, however, our coastal communities and economies face a great 
threat--the provision that would allow individual states to ``opt out'' 
of the moratorium, and not just for exploration but for actual drilling 
off the coast.
  A State's decision to opt out of the moratorium and drill for oil 
would obviously affect its neighboring States. Water borders are not 
like land borders. Water actually knows no borders. It is fluid, 
continuously flowing and moving. An environmental hazard caused by 
drilling off the coast of one State would not be problematic for just 
that State. An oil spill would just keep spilling across these supposed 
``borders,'' polluting the waters and beaches of neighbor States. This 
is just common sense. It would negatively impact water quality, 
fisheries, wildlife, tourism and local economies.
  As I stated Tuesday during another offshore drilling debate, drilling 
off our coast would endanger North Carolina's booming tourism industry, 
a true economic engine of my state.

[[Page S7054]]

  And exploration or drilling off neighboring coasts most certainly 
would disrupt the waters off North Carolina. We do not need to recite 
again the dangers of environmental damage that offshore drilling can 
cause--especially in an area known as the Graveyard of the Atlantic.
  Proponents of lifting the moratorium inadvertently make the point for 
me of how dangerous this is for our coastal environment. In the 
amendment we are considering right now, there is revenue sharing with 
the coastal communities in the states where drilling is allowed. And 
what is this revenue to be used for? I quote: ``(A) Projects and 
activities for the conservation, protection, or restoration of coastal 
areas, including wetland. (B) Mitigation of damage to fish, wildlife or 
natural resources.'' Restoring wetlands? Mitigation of damage to fish? 
Mr. President, North Carolinians want to spend time enjoying their 
beaches, not restoring them.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to discuss briefly my vote 
today in favor of the McCain-Lieberman climate change amendment. I 
supported this amendment because I believe our nation needs to take 
real action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, something the Bush 
administration has so far refused to do. Global warming is a serious 
problem that has alarming repercussions for our future food production, 
water supplies, national security, and the survival of many species of 
wildlife. The vast majority of mainstream scientists now accept that 
global warming is real and that it is caused in large part by human 
activities.
  The McCain-Lieberman amendment would hold total U.S. greenhouse gas 
emissions at year 2000 levels starting in 2010. Most importantly, once 
that cap is set in place, emissions would not be allowed to increase. 
The amendment would establish a cap and trade regime for greenhouse 
gases based on the successful acid rain program that has harnessed the 
incentives of the free market to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions.
  I recognize the concerns that have been expressed about this 
amendment because its innovation title would provide funding for the 
demonstration of a list of technologies that includes new nuclear 
reactors. I share this concern, and I agree that many questions remain 
unanswered about the safe and secure disposal of nuclear waste.
  On the other hand, nuclear power is only one of many technologies 
that are eligible to compete for demonstration funding in the McCain-
Lieberman amendment, including, but not limited to, solar, biofuels, 
and coal gasification with carbon capture. In addition, these funds 
would come not from taxpayer dollars but from the sale of emissions 
allowances under the new cap and trade program. While I would prefer 
not to see nuclear power in this mix, the McCain-Lieberman amendment 
would have provided substantial mandatory reductions in greenhouse 
gases that are essential for our future. It is my sincere hope that the 
Congress and the Bush administration will finally recognize the reality 
of climate change and take action to reduce our Nation's greenhouse gas 
emissions.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like the record to show that on 
June 21, 2005, I missed a series of votes as I was out of the office 
for personal reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted yes for 
the Nelson amendment No. 783 to strike the section providing for a 
comprehensive inventory of Outer Continental Shelf oil and natural gas 
resources. I would have voted no for the Hagel amendment No. 817 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. I would have voted yes for the Voinovich 
amendment No. 799 to reduce emissions from diesel engines.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent from the Senate 
on June 20, June 21, and for a portion of today's session in order to 
attend a hearing of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission in 
Rapid City, SD. I missed six votes, and I would like to state for the 
Record how I would have voted in each instance.
  I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 142, the motion to invoke 
cloture on the nomination of John R. Bolton, of Maryland, to be 
Representative of the United States to the United Nations.
  I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 143, Senate amendment No. 
783, a Nelson of Florida amendment to H.R. 6 to strike the section 
providing for a comprehensive inventory of Outer Continental Shelf oil 
and natural gas resources.
  I would have voted yes on rollcall vote No. 144, Senate amendment No. 
817, a Hagel amendment to H.R. 6 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 protection for projects that employ advanced climate 
technologies or systems in the United States.
  I would have voted yes on rollcall vote No. 145, Senate amendment No. 
799, a Voinovich amendment to H.R. 6 to make grants and loans to States 
and other organizations to strengthen the economy, public health, and 
environment of the United States by reducing emissions from diesel 
engines.
  I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 146, the motion to table 
the Feinstein amendment No. 841 to H.R. 6 to prohibit the Commission 
from approving an application for the authorization of the siting, 
construction, expansion, or operation of facilities located onshore or 
in State waters for the import of natural gas from a foreign country or 
the export of natural gas to a foreign country without the approval of 
the Governor of the State in which the facility would be located.
  I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 147, the motion to table 
the Schumer amendment No. 805 to H.R. 6 to express the sense of the 
Senate regarding management of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower 
the burden of gasoline prices on the economy of the United States and 
circumvent the efforts of OPEC to reap windfall profits.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I cast a vote for the McCain-
Lieberman climate stewardship and innovation amendment to H.R. 6.
  My vote is a statement on the need for the United States to take 
action to address global climate change in a real and proactive manner.
  The authors of the amendment have recently added provisions related 
to nuclear power. I don't agree that these two policy issues should be 
linked, but it was my colleagues' option.
  The real message and point of this amendment remains that the United 
States needs to acknowledge and rapidly begin addressing global climate 
change.
  Voluntary measures are constructive but not good enough. We cannot 
afford to sit back and indulge those who choose against making 
reductions in harmful emissions at the expense of those who do. 
Scientific evidence shows that global warming poses a real threat to 
the Pacific Northwest environment, way of life, and economy.
  As the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, we should lead by 
example and innovation. We should not wait for other countries to lead 
on this important priority. We should seek and promote technologies 
that promote energy efficiency and make significant cuts in greenhouse 
gas emissions, as the climate stewardship and innovation amendment 
would have us do.
  Mr. President, I support this amendment because it commits the United 
States to a mandatory program that makes real cuts in greenhouse gas 
emissions. This amendment will make our country, and the entire globe, 
a safer, cleaner place.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, as we debate America's energy future, it is 
critical that we focus on the growing challenge to America's energy 
security and ultimately to our way of life--posed by an overseas threat 
currently underway to acquire the world's limited energy resources. 
China's need for energy is growing rapidly, as China is now the second 
largest consumer of energy in the world. For all of 2005, it is 
forecasted that China will consume 7.2 million barrels of oil per day, 
and its demand could double by 2020 as its economy grows.
  At the same time, China produces very little of the energy it uses, 
and thus is forced to import almost all energy. In its quest for oil, 
China has become aggressive in brokering deals in every part of the 
world through its national oil companies. These companies are 
Government controlled, and unlike private companies are willing to 
accept lower rates of return with no concerns

[[Page S7055]]

about a balance sheet. In short, our country's energy companies may 
soon find it difficult to compete against these Government owned energy 
companies in the global energy arena. These companies have access to 
abundant capital in national treasuries and none of the constraints of 
regulation faced by U.S. companies nor concerns about rates of return.
  Unfortunately, we have a very recent example of this. The China 
National Offshore Oil Company, CNOOC, has now made public the fact that 
it is seriously considering making a bid for a U.S. based company, 
Unocal. This is after Chevron, also a U.S. based California company, 
has just received FTC preliminary approval for acquisition. This would 
pave the way for lower energy prices for American consumers. Now, here 
in the eleventh hour, this Chinese national energy company may offer a 
counterproposal which would raise troubling policy concerns regarding 
our National and energy security. Certainly, there would have to be 
serious review of this situation by numerous Federal agencies including 
the FTC, SEC, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, Department 
of State, and many others. China in the past year has brokered deals 
for oil reserves in Africa, Iran, South America and Canada. Now they 
have their sights set on a U.S. company and its assets. We are not 
operating with a level playing field, and it is hard to imagine how 
America energy companies can continue to compete under these 
circumstances.
  We must do something about this. If we do not act now, we will see 
fuel prices for consumers increase, and it will be too late to do 
anything about it. We must begin working today to find a way to work 
cooperatively with our global trading partners, including addressing 
conservation, energy efficiency and technology issues, rather than 
finding ourselves on a collision course in a quest to seek energy 
resources.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the cruelest 
and most unfair tax our Government imposes, the death tax. The death 
tax destroys small businesses, it damages families, and it prevents job 
creation. The death tax forbids hardworking people from passing on 
their assets to spouses, children, friends, and loved ones. It damages 
farms, newspapers, shops, and factories. Let me make my principles 
clear: Americans spend their lives paying taxes; death should not be a 
taxable event. A typical family spends between $30,000 and $150,000 
simply planning to avoid this tax--$150,000, enough to start a business 
and create dozens of jobs--all of it wasted simply trying to avoid this 
unjust tax. The death tax is immoral.
  It needs to go.
  We have already begun to cut the death tax and current law will 
complete its phase-out in 2010. But, on January 1, 2011, the death tax 
will spring back to life. And, it will rise to confiscatory levels. 
That's why I have filed an amendment today that will abolish the death 
tax, immediately and forever, effective January 1, 2006. If we do not 
act, the death tax will come back to haunt our children's futures. I 
urge all of my colleagues to join me in ending the sway of this 
terrible tax once and for all.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have had some great discussion here 
on the floor of the Senate as we debate the merits of the Energy bill, 
and we have talked about conservation and about new production. We have 
talked a lot about renewables and alternatives.
  One of those areas that we have not heard a lot of discussion on, in 
terms of the renewables, is the area of ocean energy. When we look at 
our globe and at all those colors, we recognize that we have a heck of 
a lot of ocean to deal with, and there is great potential there.
  The Energy bill currently provides production incentives and Federal 
purchase requirement assistance to many forms of renewable energy: 
wind, solar, geothermal, and closed-loop biomass, but oddly enough, it 
doesn't provide such aid to this type of power that I am talking 
about--power that can benefit all 25 coastal States, and that is the 
area of ocean energy. This is a relatively new type of renewable power. 
It comes from harnessing the endless power of the ocean either by 
building the wave energy converters that transfer the power of waves 
into current; or the tidal and current systems that use tidal or 
current flows to spin underwater turbines; or the newest type, which is 
ocean thermal energy technology, and this generates electricity from 
the temperature differential of surface and deeper waters.
  Ocean electric projects are relatively new in this country, but not 
necessarily overseas. Currently, there are operating projects in plants 
off the coast of Scotland, the Azores, Australia, and Portugal.
  In America, we have some projects proposed off Hawaii, in Makah Bay 
in Washington State, in the East River off of New York City, and also 
for installation at Port Judith in Rhode Island.
  The amendment that the Senate will be considering is one I am 
proposing that will simply try to level the playing field to see if the 
technology can be improved to bring down the cost of ocean power so it 
can be competitive with other forms of renewable energy. When wind 
energy first started, when we started getting into this technology in 
1978, it was costing about 25 cents a kilowatt hour. Ocean energy is 
already starting at about half that cost, even before economies of 
scale, and years of technology testing and improvement have had a 
chance to reduce those costs.
  In my State, we certainly care a lot about developing different 
sources of renewable energy.
  Now, in Alaska, we have about 5.6 million megawatts of power that 
Alaskans use a year; 1.36 million megawatts come from lake taps or 
small hydropower. That is about 24 percent of Alaska's electricity, 
which is currently coming from hydro.
  We also produce 3,600 megawatts of power from wind turbines, which 
are working great. They are out in the Kotzebue area and St. Paul 
Island in the Pribilofs and in other southwestern Alaskan communities. 
Alaska gains 6,000 to nearly 10,000 megawatts of power from burning 
fish oil. I have had people say: Wait a minute, did I hear you right, 
that you burn fish oil to generate power? That is correct. Given the 
health of Alaska's seafood industry, this is a renewable energy source 
that has great potential. There are new wind and landfill renewable 
projects proposed for near Bethel, at Fire Island near Anchorage, and a 
number of other projects proposed in rural communities. Alaska, in the 
efforts that we are making currently, might gain 286,000 megawatts of 
power or 5 percent of our needs.
  I mention this to simply indicate that while we are committed to 
using renewables whenever possible, we have to acknowledge how far we 
can get with the technologies that we have and what is available to us. 
When you consider that in the State of Alaska we have about 125 
villages and towns either on our coastline or near the mouths of 
coastal rivers and bays that could benefit from ocean current 
generation, it becomes very easy to see why we want to encourage ocean 
energy resources.
  But ocean energy could also help hundreds of towns around Hawaii and 
all along our coastal communities in the lower 48. We have 23 lower 48 
ocean States. If we provide enough assistance to help with this 
technology, to look through the research, this can become an economic 
venture.
  Ocean current is environmentally friendly, completely clean. Already 
the plants in operation are able to be installed for $500 to $1,000 per 
kilowatt hour--costs that are very competitive to the roughly $1,200-
per-kilowatt capital cost of nuclear power.
  The Alaska delegation is also seeking an amendment to the tax title 
to extend ocean energy so that it qualifies for the existing energy 
production tax credit--currently 1.9 cents per kilowatt hour for wind. 
The additional cost of these two provisions is insignificant. But they 
could greatly diversify the Nation's energy portfolio in future 
decades. We recognize that the ocean is an

[[Page S7056]]

energy source that is truly renewable. I am looking, through my 
amendment, to help aid Americans to harness that energy from our 12,000 
miles of coastline. It is something that we need to look to as a 
positive reality and give the encouragement where necessary.
  I want to change focus a little bit and talk for a moment this 
evening about an energy policy--an energy policy that belongs to a 
nation whose demand and consumption of oil far outstrips domestic, a 
nation that accounted for 40 percent of the growth in oil demands over 
the last 4 years, and a nation whose demand for oil is one of the 
leading factors driving oil prices to record-high levels.
  I am not talking about the United States tonight. I am talking about 
China. Why the difference with China? They have an energy policy, and 
we don't. A couple weeks ago, I chaired a hearing in the Foreign 
Relations Committee on China's growth and what that means for the 
United States. One of the witnesses at that hearing, Mr. Mikkal 
Herberg, with the National Bureau of Asian Research, provided a very 
informative and eye-opening look at China's increasing role in the 
international energy market. To sum it up in one sentence: China is 
quickly becoming a major player in the geopolitics of global energy.
  China's demand for energy is a reflection of its two-decade-long 
economic growth. China surpassed Japan in 2003 as the world's second 
largest consumer of oil. It is the world's third largest importer and 
now imports more than 40 percent of its total oil needs.
  The International Energy Agency forecasts that China's imports will 
rise more than fivefold by 2030. This is from the current level of 
about 2 million barrels per day to nearly 11 million barrels per day, 
when imports will account for 80 percent of China's energy needs.
  The East-West Center predicts that by 2015, 70 percent of China's oil 
imports will come from the Middle East. China is very much aware of the 
vulnerable maritime choke points that this oil must pass through in 
order to reach its shores. Fifty percent of Asia's current daily oil 
supplies must transit through the Straits of Malacca near Singapore.
  Mr. President, the United States currently imports around 58 percent 
of the oil consumed in this country. What would happen to us in the 
United States if we were 80-percent dependent on other nations for our 
economic growth? For our transportation and our security needs? For our 
home heating needs?
  We might very well do what China is doing today--not just investing 
heavily in other countries but seeking to control all aspects of the 
oil production. For example, in Sudan, a Chinese State-owned oil 
company owns 40 percent of a conglomerate that produces 300,000 barrels 
of oil per day. The same company has a major stake in the oil pipeline 
to the coast, they built and own a share of an oil refinery, and they 
helped build oil-loading port facilities on the coast.
  While we in the United States naturally gravitate toward an economic 
model of supply and demand for energy resources where oil is fungible 
on the worldwide market, China does not abide by this market-based 
system.
  As Mr. Herberg noted at the hearing, China is unilaterally trying to 
secure its future oil and gas needs by direct state intervention. They 
are taking equity stakes in oil and gas fields and promoting the global 
expansion of their three national oil companies.
  I note that one of them, China National Offshore Oil Corporation, is 
looking to submit a counterbid to Chevron's offer to purchase Unocal 
Corporation. China is promoting state-to-state deals of new oil and gas 
pipelines to channel supplies directly to China and developing broader 
financial, diplomatic, and military ties with key exporter nations. In 
the past 5 years, the Chinese Government has signed strategic energy 
alliances with eight countries.
  Their push to develop a Shanghai Cooperation Organization to focus on 
combating terrorism in the region can also be attributed to their 
desire to forge stronger energy ties and more secure energy supplies. 
China has major oil investment in Kazakhstan and is currently building 
a large oil pipeline from Kazakhstan to western China.
  Many of my colleagues may be aware that China is investing heavily in 
Alberta, Canada's oil sands, the same fields that moved Canada up into 
the No. 2 slot in the world for proven oil reserves. China is also 
looking to construct a pipeline to Canada's west coast to export that 
oil to China.
  China has signed at least 116 major energy investments in 37 
countries since 1990, with another 25 proposals still pending. They 
have significant holdings in Sudan, Iran, and Venezuela. In Angola, the 
bidding process for the large offshore Greater Plutonio oilfield was 
additionally won by Indian's national oil company, but the Angolan 
Government mandated that the deal instead go to the Chinese, and this, 
of course, came on the heels of a $2 billion aid offer from China.
  China's energy security strategy is making waves throughout Asia. 
When you think of the large economies of Japan and South Korea, each 
nation is highly dependent on oil imports for their energy needs. The 
idea of China locking up future sources of oil cannot be comforting to 
them, leading to their own efforts to lock in stable sources of energy.
  As China and other Asian nations raise their level of diplomatic and 
political involvement in the Middle East, their influence will increase 
as well. Already, nearly two-thirds of the Persian Gulf's oil exports 
go to Asia, and this share will only increase. The United States will 
find its position as the traditionally dominant outside power in the 
Middle East significantly challenged in the future.
  My point tonight is not to criticize or to demonize China for their 
moves to secure an energy supply. In fact, China's growing energy 
demands also point to opportunities for American companies to promote 
greater energy efficiency and higher oil recovery rates for China's 
domestic production.
  My point is simply this: As a developing nation, China looked to the 
future and determined that it needed secure and more sources of energy. 
They developed a long-range plan. They have been implementing that plan 
and, as a result, will have continued access to energy resources in the 
future.
  China's foreign policy reflects their long-term strategy of gaining 
access to, and to some degree, control over energy sources for their 
needs. Our energy policy, on the other hand, has not nearly been as 
focused. It has sometimes been referred to as a ``tin cup'' policy 
where we go begging for oil from exporting countries when there is a 
shortage or high prices.
  Yet as other nations look to the Middle East to secure their own 
sources of energy, our influence in the region may diminish. Our cries 
for OPEC to increase production and output will be weighed against the 
interest of China and other developing nations.
  Congress could have--or should have--passed comprehensive energy 
legislation years ago, but that is the past. We have another 
opportunity in front of us to prepare this country for the future to 
look at our long-term energy needs and determine the best way to 
address them.
  I thank Chairman Domenici and Senators Grassley, Bingaman, and Baucus 
for their work in crafting this legislation. I think we all would agree 
it is long past time for Congress to enact a much needed energy bill. 
It is time for this country to have an energy policy of its own.
  Mr. President, 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. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


Amendments Nos. 786, 787, 798, 818, 822, 835, 850, 861, 864, 870, 927, 
                   933, as modified, 978 through 989

  Mr. FRIST. I have a package of manager amendments that have been 
cleared on both sides of the aisle. I would now send them to the desk, 
and I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be considered and 
agreed to with the motion to reconsider laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to as follows:

[[Page S7057]]

                           amendment no. 786

  (Purpose: To make energy generated by oceans eligible for renewable 
 energy production incentives and to modify the definition of the term 
``renewable energy'' to include energy generated by oceans for purposes 
                  of the Federal purchase requirement)

       On page 130, line 24, insert ``ocean (tidal, wave, current, 
     and thermal),'' after ``wind,''.
       On page 134, line 3, insert ``ocean (tidal, wave, current, 
     and thermal),'' after ``biomass,''.


                           Amendment No. 787

  (Purpose: To make Alaska Native Corporations eligible for renewable 
                     energy production incentives)

       On page 131, lines 18 and 19, strike ``or an Indian tribal 
     government or subdivision thereof,'' and insert ``an Indian 
     tribal government or subdivision thereof, or a Native 
     Corporation (as defined in section 3 of the Alaska Native 
     Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602)),''.


                           amendment no. 798

  (Purpose: To require the submission of reports on the potential for 
  biodiesel and hythane to be used as major, sustainable, alternative 
                                 fuels)

       On page 755, after line 25, add the following:

     SEC. 13__. ALTERNATIVE FUELS REPORTS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     reports on the potential for each of biodiesel and hythane to 
     become major, sustainable, alternative fuels.
       (b) Biodiesel Report.--The report relating to biodiesel 
     submitted under subsection (a) shall--
       (1) provide a detailed assessment of--
       (A) potential biodiesel markets and manufacturing capacity; 
     and
       (B) environmental and energy security benefits with respect 
     to the use of biodiesel;
       (2) identify any impediments, especially in infrastructure 
     needed for production, distribution, and storage, to 
     biodiesel becoming a substantial source of fuel for 
     conventional diesel and heating oil applications;
       (3) identify strategies to enhance the commercial 
     deployment of biodiesel; and
       (4) include an examination and recommendations, as 
     appropriate, of the ways in which biodiesel may be modified 
     to be a cleaner-burning fuel.
       (c) Hythane Report.--The report relating to hythane 
     submitted under subsection (a) shall--
       (1) provide a detailed assessment of potential hythane 
     markets and the research and development activities that are 
     necessary to facilitate the commercialization of hythane as a 
     competitive, environmentally-friendly transportation fuel;
       (2) address--
       (A) the infrastructure necessary to produce, blend, 
     distribute, and store hythane for widespread commercial 
     purposes; and
       (B) other potential market barriers to the 
     commercialization of hythane;
       (3) examine the viability of producing hydrogen using 
     energy-efficient, environmentally friendly methods so that 
     the hydrogen can be blended with natural gas to produce 
     hythane; and
       (4) include an assessment of the modifications that would 
     be required to convert compressed natural gas vehicle engines 
     to engines that use hythane as fuel.
       (d) Grants for Report Completion.--The Secretary may use 
     such sums as are available to the Secretary to provide, to 1 
     or more colleges or universities selected by the Secretary, 
     grants for use in carrying out research to assist the 
     Secretary in preparing the reports required to be submitted 
     under subsection (a).


                           amendment no. 818

  (Purpose: To commission a study for the roof of the Dirksen Senate 
   Office Building in a manner that facilitates the incorporation of 
energy efficient technology and amends the Master Plan for the Capitol 
                                complex)

       On page 15, strike lines 3 through 20.
       On page 719, strike lines 11 through 20 and insert the 
     following:

     as part of the process of updating the Master Plan Study for 
     the Capitol complex, shall--
       (A) carry out a study to evaluate the energy infrastructure 
     of the Capitol complex to determine how to augment the 
     infrastructure to become more energy efficient--
       (i) by using unconventional and renewable energy resources;
       (ii) by--

       (I) incorporating new technologies to implement effective 
     green building solutions;
       (II) adopting computer-based building management systems; 
     and
       (III) recommending strategies based on end-user behavioral 
     changes to implement low-cost environmental gains; and

       (iii) in a manner that would enable the Capitol complex to 
     have reliable utility service in the event of power 
     fluctuations, shortages, or outages;
       (B) carry out a study to explore the feasibility of 
     installing energy and water conservation measures on the 
     rooftop of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, including the 
     area directly above the food service facilities in the center 
     of the building, including the installation of--
       (i) a vegetative covering area, using native species to the 
     maximum extent practicable, to--

       (I) insulate and increase the energy efficiency of the 
     building;
       (II) reduce precipitation runoff and conserve water for 
     landscaping or other uses;
       (III) increase, and provide more efficient use of, 
     available outdoor space through management of the rooftop of 
     the center of the building as a park or garden area for 
     occupants of the building; and
       (IV) improve the aesthetics of the building; and

       (ii) onsite renewable energy and other state-of-the-art 
     technologies to--

       (I) improve the energy efficiency and energy security of 
     the building or the Capitol complex by providing additional 
     or backup sources of power in the event of a power shortage 
     or other emergency;
       (II) reduce the use of resources by the building; or
       (III) enhance worker productivity; and

       (C) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, submit to Congress a report describing the findings 
     and recommendations of the study under subparagraph (B).


                           amendment no. 822

  (Purpose: To promote fuel efficient engine technology for aircraft)

       On page 120, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:

     SEC. 14__. FUEL EFFICIENT ENGINE TECHNOLOGY FOR AIRCRAFT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary and the Administrator of the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall enter 
     into a cooperative agreement to carry out a multi-year engine 
     development program to advance technologies to enable more 
     fuel efficient, turbine-based propulsion and power systems 
     for aeronautical and industrial applications.
       (b) Performance Objective.--The fuel efficiency performance 
     objective for the program shall be to achieve a fuel 
     efficiency improvement of more than 10 percent by exploring--
       (1) advanced concepts, alternate propulsion, and power 
     configurations, including hybrid fuel cell powered systems; 
     and
       (2) the use of alternate fuel in conventional or 
     nonconventional turbine-based systems.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section 
     $60,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.


                           amendment no. 835

    (Purpose: To establish a National Priority Project Designation)

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

     SEC. 2__. NATIONAL PRIORITY PROJECT DESIGNATION.

       (a) Designation of National Priority Projects.--
       (1) In general.--There is established the National Priority 
     Project Designation (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Designation''), which shall be evidenced by a medal bearing 
     the inscription ``National Priority Project''.
       (2) Design and materials.--The medal shall be of such 
     design and materials and bear such additional inscriptions as 
     the President may prescribe.
       (b) Making and Presentation of Designation.--
       (1) In general.--The President, on the basis of 
     recommendations made by the Secretary, shall annually 
     designate organizations that have--
       (A) advanced the field of renewable energy technology and 
     contributed to North American energy independence; and
       (B) been certified by the Secretary under subsection (e).
       (2) Presentation.--The President shall designate projects 
     with such ceremonies as the President may prescribe.
       (3) Use of designation.--An organization that receives a 
     Designation under this section may publicize the Designation 
     of the organization as a National Priority Project in 
     advertising.
       (4) Categories in which the designation may be given.--
     Separate Designations shall be made to qualifying projects in 
     each of the following categories:
       (A) Wind and biomass energy generation projects.
       (B) Photovoltaic and fuel cell energy generation projects.
       (C) Energy efficient building and renewable energy 
     projects.
       (D) First-in-Class projects.
       (c) Selection Criteria.--
       (1) In general.--Certification and selection of the 
     projects to receive the Designation shall be based on 
     criteria established under this subsection.
       (2) Wind, biomass, and building projects.--In the case of a 
     wind, biomass, or building project, the project shall 
     demonstrate that the project will install not less than 30 
     megawatts of renewable energy generation capacity.
       (3) Solar photovoltaic and fuel cell projects.--In the case 
     of a solar photovoltaic or fuel cell project, the project 
     shall demonstrate that the project will install not less than 
     3 megawatts of renewable energy generation capacity.
       (4) Energy efficient building and renewable energy 
     projects.--In the case of an energy efficient building or 
     renewable energy project, in addition to meeting the criteria 
     established under paragraph (2), each building project shall 
     demonstrate that the project will--

[[Page S7058]]

       (A) comply with third-party certification standards for 
     high-performance, sustainable buildings;
       (B) use whole-building integration of energy efficiency and 
     environmental performance design and technology, including 
     advanced building controls;
       (C) use renewable energy for at least 50 percent of the 
     energy consumption of the project;
       (D) comply with applicable Energy Star standards; and
       (E) include at least 5,000,000 square feet of enclosed 
     space.
       (5) First-in-class use.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (2) 
     through (4), a new building project may qualify under this 
     section if the Secretary determines that the project--
       (A) represents a First-In-Class use of renewable energy; or
       (B) otherwise establishes a new paradigm of building 
     integrated renewable energy use or energy efficiency.
       (d) Application.--
       (1) Initial applications.--No later than 120 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register an invitation 
     and guidelines for submitting applications, consistent with 
     this section.
       (2) Contents.--The application shall describe the project, 
     or planned project, and the plans to meet the criteria 
     established under subsection (c).
       (e) Certification.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     application period described in subsection (d), and annually 
     thereafter, the Secretary shall certify projects that are 
     reasonably expected to meet the criteria established under 
     subsection (c).
       (2) Certified projects.--The Secretary shall designate 
     personnel of the Department to work with persons carrying out 
     each certified project and ensure that the personnel--
       (A) provide each certified project with guidance in meeting 
     the criteria established under subsection (c);
       (B) identify programs of the Department, including National 
     Laboratories and Technology Centers, that will assist each 
     project in meeting the criteria established under subsection 
     (c); and
       (C) ensure that knowledge and transfer of the most current 
     technology between the applicable resources of the Federal 
     Government (including the National Laboratories and 
     Technology Centers, the Department, and the Environmental 
     Protection Agency) and the certified projects is being 
     facilitated to accelerate commercialization of work developed 
     through those resources.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     this section for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.


                           amendment no. 850

  (Purpose: To modify the section relating to the establishment of a 
    National Power Plant Operations Technology and Education Center)

       Beginning on page 602, strike line 5 and all that follows 
     through page 603, line 7, and insert the following:

     SEC. 1107. NATIONAL POWER PLANT OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY AND 
                   EDUCATIONAL CENTER.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall support the 
     establishment of a National Power Plant Operations Technology 
     and Education Center (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Center''), to address the need for training and educating 
     certified operators and technicians for the electric power 
     industry.
       (b) Location of Center.--The Secretary shall support the 
     establishment of the Center at an institution of higher 
     education that has--
       (1) expertise in providing degree programs in electric 
     power generation, transmission, and distribution 
     technologies;
       (2) expertise in providing onsite and Internet-based 
     training; and
       (3) demonstrated responsiveness to workforce and training 
     requirements in the electric power industry.
       (c) Training and Continuing Education.--
       (1) In general.--The Center shall provide training and 
     continuing education in electric power generation, 
     transmission, and distribution technologies and operations.
       (2) Location.--The Center shall carry out training and 
     education activities under paragraph (1)--
       (A) at the Center; and
       (B) through Internet-based information technologies that 
     allow for learning at remote sites.


                           amendment no. 861

 (Purpose: To require the Secretary to enter into a contract with the 
  National Academy of Sciences to determine the effect of electrical 
     contaminants on the reliability of energy production systems)

       On page 755, after line 25, add the following:

     SEC. 13__. EFFECT OF ELECTRICAL CONTAMINANTS ON RELIABILITY 
                   OF ENERGY PRODUCTION SYSTEMS.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall enter into a contract with the 
     National Academy of Sciences under which the National Academy 
     of Sciences shall determine the effect that electrical 
     contaminants (such as tin whiskers) may have on the 
     reliability of energy production systems, including nuclear 
     energy.


                           amendment no. 864

(Purpose: To ensure that cost-effective procedures are used to fill the 
                      Strategic Petroleum Reserve)

       On page 208, line 12, strike ``The Secretary shall'' and 
     insert the following:
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall
       On page 208, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       (2) Procedures.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall develop, with an 
     opportunity for public comment, procedures to obtain oil for 
     the Reserve with the intent of maximizing the overall 
     domestic supply of crude oil (including quantities stored in 
     private sector inventories) and minimizing the costs to the 
     Department of the Interior and the Department of Energy of 
     acquiring such oil (including foregone revenues to the 
     Treasury when oil for the Reserve is obtained through the 
     royalty-in-kind program), consistent with national security.
       (B) Considerations.--The procedures shall provide that, for 
     purposes of determining whether to acquire oil for the 
     Reserve or defer deliveries of oil, the Secretary shall take 
     into account--
       (i) current and future prices, supplies, and inventories of 
     oil;
       (ii) national security; and
       (iii) other factors that the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.
       (C) Review of requests for deferrals of scheduled 
     deliveries.--The procedures shall include procedures and 
     criteria for the review of requests for the deferrals of 
     scheduled deliveries.
       (D) Deadlines.--The Secretary shall--
       (i) propose the procedures required under this paragraph 
     not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act;
       (ii) promulgate the procedures not later than 180 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (iii) comply with the procedures in acquiring oil for 
     Reserve effective beginning on the date that is 180 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.


                             AMENDMENT 870

   (Purpose: To require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to 
    complete its investigation and order refunds on the unjust and 
     unreasonable rates charged to California during the 2000-2001 
                          electricity crisis)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Amendment to be proposed by Mrs. Boxer.

     SEC.  . FINAL ACTION ON REFUNDS FOR EXCESSIVE CHARGES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) The state of California experienced an energy crisis;
       (2) FERC issued an order requiring a refund of the portion 
     of charges on the sale of electric energy that was unjust or 
     unreasonable during that crisis;
       (3) As of the date of enactment of this act, none of the 
     refunds ordered to date have been received by the state of 
     California; and
       (4) the Commission has ruled that the state of California 
     is entitled to approximately $3 billion in refunds; the state 
     of California maintains that that $8.9 billion in refunds is 
     owed.
       (b) FERC shall--
       (1) seek to conclude its investigation into the unjust or 
     unreasonable charges incurred by California during the 2000-
     2001 electricity crisis as soon as possible;
       (2) seek to ensure that refunds the Commission determines 
     are owned to the State of California are paid to the state of 
     California; and
       (3) submit to congress a report by December 31, 2005 
     describing the actions taken by the Commission to date under 
     this section and timetables for further actions.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 927

(Purpose: To provide a budget roadmap for the transition from petroleum 
                    to hydrogen in vehicles by 2020)

       On page 755, after line 25, add the following:

     SEC. 13__. FUEL CELL AND HYDROGEN TECHNOLOGY STUDY.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) according to the National Academy of Sciences, 
     ``Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as 
     a result of human activities, causing surface air 
     temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise . . . 
     Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are 
     expected to continue through the 21st century.'';
       (2) in 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
     (IPCC) concluded that the average temperature of the Earth 
     can be expected to rise between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees 
     Fahrenheit in this century and ``there is new and stronger 
     evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 
     years is attributable to human activities'';
       (3) the National Academy of Sciences has stated that ``the 
     IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the 
     last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase of 
     greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current 
     thinking of the scientific community on this issue'' and that 
     ``there is general agreement that the observed warming is 
     real and particularly strong within the past twenty years'';
       (4) a significant Federal investment toward the development 
     of fuel cell technologies and the transition from petroleum 
     to hydrogen in vehicles could significantly contribute to the 
     reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by reducing fuel 
     consumption;
       (5) a massive infusion of resources and leadership from the 
     Federal Government

[[Page S7059]]

     would be needed to create the necessary fuel cell 
     technologies that provide alternatives to petroleum and the 
     more efficient use of energy; and
       (6) the Federal Government would need to commit to 
     developing, in conjunction with private industry and 
     academia, advanced vehicle technologies and the necessary 
     hydrogen infrastructure to provide alternatives to petroleum.
       (b) Study.--
       (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall enter into a 
     contract with the National Academy of Sciences and the 
     National Research Council to carry out a study of fuel cell 
     technologies that provides a budget roadmap for the 
     development of fuel cell technologies and the transition from 
     petroleum to hydrogen in a significant percentage of the 
     vehicles sold by 2020.
       (2) Requirements.--In carrying out the study, the National 
     Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council shall--
       (A) establish as a goal the maximum percentage practicable 
     of vehicles that the National Academy of Sciences and the 
     National Research Council determines can be fueled by 
     hydrogen by 2020;
       (B) determine the amount of Federal and private funding 
     required to meet the goal established under subparagraph (A);
       (C) determine what actions are required to meet the goal 
     established under subparagraph (A);
       (D) examine the need for expanded and enhanced Federal 
     research and development programs, changes in regulations, 
     grant programs, partnerships between the Federal Government 
     and industry, private sector investments, infrastructure 
     investments by the Federal Government and industry, 
     educational and public information initiatives, and Federal 
     and State tax incentives to meet the goal established under 
     subparagraph (A);
       (E) consider whether other technologies would be less 
     expensive or could be more quickly implemented than fuel cell 
     technologies to achieve significant reductions in carbon 
     dioxide emissions;
       (F) take into account any reports relating to fuel cell 
     technologies and hydrogen-fueled vehicles, including--
       (i) the report prepared by the National Academy of 
     Engineering and the National Research Council in 2004 
     entitled ``Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, 
     and R&D Needs''; and
       (ii) the report prepared by the U.S. Fuel Cell Council in 
     2003 entitled ``Fuel Cells and Hydrogen: The Path Forward'';
       (G) consider the challenges, difficulties, and potential 
     barriers to meeting the goal established under subparagraph 
     (A); and
       (H) with respect to the budget roadmap--
       (i) specify the amount of funding required on an annual 
     basis from the Federal Government and industry to carry out 
     the budget roadmap; and
       (ii) specify the advantages and disadvantages to moving 
     toward the transition to hydrogen in vehicles in accordance 
     with the timeline established by the budget roadmap.


                     AMENDMENT NO. 933, as modified

              (Purpose: To provide a manager's amendment)

       On page 1, strike lines 4 and 5 and insert the following:

     SEC. 1500. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE.

       Beginning on page 2, strike line 5 and all that follows 
     through page 3, line 2, and insert the following:

                 Subtitle A--Electricity Infrastructure

       On page 7, lines 6 and 7, strike ``low-head hydroelectric 
     facility or''.
       On page 8, lines 10 and 11, strike ``Low-head hydroelectric 
     facility or nonhydroelectric dam'' and insert 
     ``Nonhydroelectric dam''.
       On page 8, strike lines 18 through 20 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(ii) the facility was placed in service before the date 
     of the enactment of this paragraph and did not produce 
     hydroelectric power on the date of the enactment of this 
     paragraph, and
       Beginning on page 8, line 24, strike ``the installation'' 
     and all that follows through page 9, line 1 and insert 
     ``there is not any enlargement of the diversion structure, or 
     construction or enlargement of a bypass channel,''.
       On page 9, strike lines 5 through 9.
       On page 26, strike lines 14 and 15 and insert the 
     following:
       (2) Section 1397E(c)(2) is amended by inserting ``, and 
     subpart H thereof'' after ``refundable credits''.
       On page 68, lines 8 and 9, strike ``the date of the 
     enactment of this Act'' and insert ``December 31, 2004''.
       On page 73, line 1, strike ``PATRONS'' and insert 
     ``OWNERS''.
       On page 90, strike lines 4 through 7.
       On page 90, line 21, strike ``and, in the case'' and all 
     that follows through line 23.
       On page 107, line 17, insert ``a home inspector certified 
     by the Secretary of Energy as trained to perform an energy 
     inspection for purposes of this section,'' after ``(IPIA),''.
       On page 110, line 22, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       On page 143, strike lines 1 through 6, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(1) Maximum credit.--The credit allowed under subsection 
     (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed--
       ``(A) $2,000 with respect to any qualified solar water 
     heating property expenditures,
       ``(B) $2,000 with respect to any qualified photovoltaic 
     property expenditures, and
       ``(C) $500 with respect to each half kilowatt of capacity 
     of qualified fuel cell property (as defined in section 
     48(d)(1)) for which qualified fuel cell property expenditures 
     are made,
       On page 149, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
       (1) Section 23(c) is amended by striking ``this section and 
     section 1400C'' and inserting ``this section, section 25D, 
     and section 1400C''.
       (2) Section 25(e)(1)(C) is amended by striking ``this 
     section and sections 23 and 1400C'' and inserting ``other 
     than this section, section 23, section 25D, and section 
     1400C''.
       (3) Section 1400C(d) is amended by striking ``this 
     section'' and inserting ``this section and section 25D''.
       On page 149, line 7, strike ``(1)'' and insert ``(4)''.
       On page 149, line 15, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(5)''.
       On page 149, lined 19 and 20, strike ``Except as provided 
     by paragraph (2), the'' and insert ``The''.
       On page 155, lines 2 and 3, strike ``for use in a 
     structure''.
       On page 155, line 12, insert ``periods'' before ``before''.
       On page 210, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
       (b) Written Notice of Election to Allocate Credit to 
     Patrons.--Section 40(g)(6)(A)(ii) (relating to form and 
     effect of election) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new sentence: ``Such election shall not take effect 
     unless the organization designates the apportionment as such 
     in a written notice mailed to its patrons during the payment 
     period described in section 1382(d).''.
       On page 210, line 20, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
       Beginning on page 228, line 19, strike all through page 
     229, line 2, and insert the following:
       ``(B) within 2 years after the date of such first retail 
     sale, such article is resold by the purchaser or such 
     purchaser makes a substantial nonexempt use of such article,
     then such sale or use of such article by such purchaser shall 
     be treated as the first retail sale of such article for a 
     price equal to its fair market value at the time of such sale 
     or use.
       On page 232, line 21, strike ``and''.
       On page 232, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
       (i) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``For 
     purposes of this subsection, any removal described in section 
     4081(a)(3)(A) shall be treated as a removal from a terminal 
     but only if such terminal is located within a secured area of 
     an airport.''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 978

 (Purpose: To clarify the definition of coal to liquid fuel technology)

       On page 767, strike lines 6 through 15, and insert the 
     following:
       (D) facilities that--
       (i) generate 1 or more hydrogen-rich and carbon monoxide-
     rich product streams from the gasification of coal or coal 
     waste; and
       (ii) use those streams to facilitate the production of 
     ultra clean premium fuels through the Fischer-Tropsch 
     process.


                             Amendment 979

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text 
of Amendments.'')


                           AMENDMENT NO. 980

       (Purpose: To require an investigation of gasoline prices)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. INVESTIGATION OF GASOLINE PRICES.

       (a) Investigation.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Federal Trade Commission shall 
     conduct an investigation to determine if the price of 
     gasoline is being artificially manipulated by reducing 
     refinery capacity or by any other form of market manipulation 
     or price gouging practices.
       (b) Evaluation and Analysis.--The Secretary shall direct 
     the National Petroleum Council to conduct an evaluation and 
     analysis to determine whether, and to what extent, 
     environmental and other regulations affect new domestic 
     refinery construction and significant expansion of existing 
     refinery capacity.
       (c) Reports to Congress.--
       (1) Investigation.--On completion of the investigation 
     under subsection (a), the Federal Trade Commission shall 
     submit to Congress a report that describes--
       (A) the results of the investigation; and
       (B) any recommendations of the Federal Trade Commission.
       (2) Evaluation and analysis.--On completion of the 
     evaluation and analysis under subsection (b), the Secretary 
     shall submit to Congress a report that describes--
       (A) the results of the evaluation and analysis; and
       (B) any recommendations of the National Petroleum Council.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 981

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary and the Administrator for Small 
 Business to coordinate assistance with the Secretary of Commerce for 
                     manufacturing related efforts)

       On page 53, strike lines 4 through 8 and insert the 
     following:
       Small Business Administration shall make program 
     information available directly to

[[Page S7060]]

     small businesses and through other Federal agencies, 
     including the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the 
     Department of Agriculture, and coordinate assistance with the 
     Secretary of Commerce for manufacturing-related efforts, 
     including the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program.''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 982

     (Purpose: To require the Secretary to conduct a study of best 
   management practices for energy research and development programs)

       On page 755, after line 25, add the following:

     SEC. 13__. STUDY OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR ENERGY 
                   RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall enter into an 
     arrangement with the National Academy of Public 
     Administration under which the Academy shall conduct a study 
     to assess management practices for research, development, and 
     demonstration programs at the Department.
       (b) Scope of the Study.--The study shall consider--
       (1) management practices that act as barriers between the 
     Office of Science and offices conducting mission-oriented 
     research;
       (2) recommendations for management practices that would 
     improve coordination and bridge the innovation gap between 
     the Office of Science and offices conducting mission-oriented 
     research;
       (3) the applicability of the management practices used by 
     the Department of Defense Advanced Research Programs Agency 
     to research programs at the Department;
       (4) the advisability of creating an agency within the 
     Department modeled after the Department of Defense Advanced 
     Research Projects Agency;
       (5) recommendations for management practices that could 
     best encourage innovative research and efficiency at the 
     Department; and
       (6) any other relevant considerations.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report on the study conducted under this section.


                           amendment no. 983

(Purpose: To expand the types of qualified renewable energy facilities 
     that are eligible for a renewable energy production incentive)

       On page 131, line 20, insert ``livestock methane,'' after 
     ``landfill gas,''.


                           amendment no. 984

(Purpose: To require the Secretary to establish a program of research, 
development, demonstration, and commercial application to maximize the 
         productive capacity of marginal wells and reservoirs)

       On page 517, after line 22, insert the following:

     SEC. 9__. LOW-VOLUME GAS RESERVOIR RESEARCH PROGRAM.

       (a) Definitions of GIS.--In this section, the term ``GIS'' 
     means geographic information systems technology that 
     facilitates the organization and management of data with a 
     geographic component.
       (b) Program.--The Secretary shall establish a program of 
     research, development, demonstration, and commercial 
     application to maximize the productive capacity of marginal 
     wells and reservoirs.
       (c) Data Collection.--Under the program, the Secretary 
     shall collect data on--
       (1) the status and location of marginal wells and gas 
     reservoirs;
       (2) the production capacity of marginal wells and gas 
     reservoirs;
       (3) the location of low-pressure gathering facilities and 
     pipelines; and
       (4) the quantity of natural gas vented or flared in 
     association with crude oil production.
       (d) Analysis.--Under the program, the Secretary shall--
       (1) estimate the remaining producible reserves based on 
     variable pipeline pressures; and
       (2) recommend measures that will enable the continued 
     production of those resources.
       (e) Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may award a grant to an 
     organization of States that contain significant numbers of 
     marginal oil and natural gas wells to conduct an annual study 
     of low-volume natural gas reservoirs.
       (2) Organization with no gis capabilities.--If an 
     organization receiving a grant under paragraph (1) does not 
     have GIS capabilities, the organization shall contract with 
     an institution of higher education with GIS capabilities.
       (3) State geologists.--The organization receiving a grant 
     under paragraph (1) shall collaborate with the State 
     geologist of each State being studied.
       (f) Public Information.--The Secretary may use the data 
     collected and analyzed under this section to produce maps and 
     literature to disseminate to States to promote conservation 
     of natural gas reserves.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this 
     section--
       (1) $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
       (2) $450,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 and 2008.


                           amendment no. 985

  (Purpose: To make petroleum coke gasification projects eligible for 
                        certain loan guarantees)

       On page 767, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
       (3) Petroleum coke gasification projects.--The Secretary is 
     encouraged to make loan guarantees under this title available 
     for petroleum coke gasification projects.


                           amendment no. 986

   (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Energy to make grants to 
increase energy efficiency, promote siting or upgrading of transmission 
     and distribution lines, and providing or modernizing electric 
                       facilities in rural areas)

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

     SEC. ____. RURAL AND REMOTE COMMUNITY ELECTRIFICATION GRANTS.

       The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 
     U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) is amended in title VI by adding at the 
     end the following:

     ``SEC. 609. RURAL AND REMOTE COMMUNITIES ELECTRIFICATION 
                   GRANTS.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `eligible grantee' means a local government 
     or municipality, peoples' utility district, irrigation 
     district, and cooperative, nonprofit, or limited-dividend 
     association in a rural area.
       ``(2) The term `incremental hydropower' means additional 
     generation achieved from increased efficiency after January 
     1, 2005, at a hydroelectric dam that was placed in service 
     before January 1, 2005.
       ``(3) The term `renewable energy' means electricity 
     generated from--
       ``(A) a renewable energy source; or
       ``(B) hydrogen, other than hydrogen produced from a fossil 
     fuel, that is produced from a renewable energy source.
       ``(4) The term `renewable energy source' means--
       ``(A) wind;
       ``(B) ocean waves;
       ``(C) biomass;
       ``(D) solar
       ``(E) landfill gas;
       ``(F) incremental hydropower;
       ``(G) livestock methane; or
       ``(H) geothermal energy.
       ``(5) The term `rural area' means a city, town, or 
     unincorporated area that has a population of not more than 
     10,000 inhabitants.
       ``(b) Grants.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior, 
     may provide grants under this section to eligible grantees 
     for the purpose of--
       ``(1) increasing energy efficiency, siting or upgrading 
     transmission and distribution lines serving rural areas,; or
       ``(2) providing or modernizing electric generation 
     facilities that serve rural areas.
       ``(c) Grant Administration.--(1) The Secretary shall make 
     grants under this section based on a determination of cost-
     effectiveness and the most effective use of the funds to 
     achieve the purposes described in subsection (b).
       ``(2) For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall allocate 
     grant funds under this section equally between the purposes 
     described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b).
       ``(3) In making grants for the purposes described in 
     subsection (b)(2), the Secretary shall give preference to 
     renewable energy facilities.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section 
     $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2012.''.


                           amendment no. 987

(Purpose: To require the Secretary to conduct a study on passive solar 
                             technologies)

       On page 755, after line 25, add the following:

     SEC. 13__. PASSIVE SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES.

       (a) Definition of Passive Solar Technology.--In this 
     section, the term ``passive solar technology'' means a 
     passive solar technology, including daylighting, that--
       (1) is used exclusively to avoid electricity use; and
       (2) can be metered to determine energy savings.
       (b) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine--
       (1) the range of levelized costs of avoided electricity for 
     passive solar technologies;
       (2) the quantity of electricity displaced using passive 
     solar technologies in the United States as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act; and
       (3) the projected energy savings from passive solar 
     technologies in 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act if--
       (A) incentives comparable to the incentives provided for 
     electricity generation technologies were provided for passive 
     solar technologies; and
       (B) no new incentives for passive solar technologies were 
     provided.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report that describes the results of the study under 
     subsection (b).


                           amendment no. 988

   (Purpose: To require the Secretary to conduct a 3-year program of 
  research, development, and demonstration on the use of ethanol and 
other low-cost transportable renewable feedstocks as intermediate fuels 
 for the safe, energy efficient, and cost-effective transportation of 
                               hydrogen)

       On page 489, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:

     SEC. 9__. HYDROGEN INTERMEDIATE FUELS RESEARCH PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, in coordination with the 
     Secretary of Agriculture,

[[Page S7061]]

     shall carry out a 3-year program of research, development, 
     and demonstration on the use of ethanol and other low-cost 
     transportable renewable feedstocks as intermediate fuels for 
     the safe, energy efficient, and cost-effective transportation 
     of hydrogen.
       (b) Goals.--The goals of the program shall include--
       (1) demonstrating the cost-effective conversion of ethanol 
     or other low-cost transportable renewable feedstocks to pure 
     hydrogen suitable for eventual use in fuel cells;
       (2) using existing commercial reforming technology or 
     modest modifications of existing technology to reform ethanol 
     or other low-cost transportable renewable feedstocks into 
     hydrogen;
       (3) converting at least 1 commercially available internal 
     combustion engine hybrid electric passenger vehicle to 
     operate on hydrogen;
       (4) not later than 1 year after the date on which the 
     program begins, installing and operating an ethanol reformer, 
     or reformer for another low-cost transportable renewable 
     feedstock (including onsite hydrogen compression, storage, 
     and dispensing), at the facilities of a fleet operator;
       (5) operating the 1 or more vehicles described in paragraph 
     (3) for a period of at least 2 years; and
       (6) collecting emissions and fuel economy data on the 1 or 
     more vehicles described in paragraph (3) in various operating 
     and environmental conditions.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000.


                           Amendment No. 989

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text 
of Amendments.''


                           amendment no. 864

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer, along with Senator 
Collins, an amendment to ensure that the Department of Energy, DOE, 
carries out the direction in this bill to fill the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve, SPR, in a cost-effective manner.
  I would like to thank the managers of the bill, Senators Domenici and 
Bingaman, and Senators Wyden and Schumer for working with Senator 
Collins and myself so that this amendment can be accepted.
  The Energy Bill being considered by the Senate today directs the 
Secretary of Energy to ``as expeditiously as practicable, without 
incurring excessive cost or appreciably affecting the price of gasoline 
or heating oil to consumers, acquire petroleum in quantities sufficient 
to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to [1 billion barrels].''
  This amendment will help the DOE ensure that it will acquire oil for 
the SPR without incurring excessive cost or appreciably affecting 
gasoline or heating oil prices. The amendment is simple. It directs DOE 
to consider the price of oil and other market factors when buying oil 
for the SPR. It also directs DOE to minimize the program's cost to the 
taxpayer while maximizing our energy security. At the same time, it 
does not restrict the Secretary of Energy's discretion to determine how 
quickly to fill the SPR, or when to put more oil into the SPR.
  A nearly identical amendment that I offered with Senator Collins was 
adopted by the Senate by voice vote on the Interior Appropriation Bill 
for fiscal year 2004. Unfortunately, it was not retained in conference.
  Under the amendment, DOE would have the discretion to determine when 
to buy oil for the SPR, and under which procedures, but DOE would be 
directed to use that discretion in a way to minimize costs while 
maximizing national energy security.
  The amendment also requires DOE to seek public comment on the 
procedures to be used to acquire oil. The Department would be wise to 
especially seek comment from energy industry experts and economists as 
to the effect that filling the SPR can have--and has had--on oil 
prices. I believe the Department can learn from our experience over the 
past few years as to the significant effect the SPR fill can have on 
oil prices.
  Since late 2001, the DOE has been steadily adding oil to the SPR. In 
late 2001, the Reserve held about 560 million barrels of oil; today it 
holds nearly 695 million barrels. DOE expects to complete its current 
program to fill the SPR to 700 million barrels in August of this year.
  Since early 2002, DOE has been acquiring oil for the SPR without 
regard to the price or supply of oil. Prior to that time, DOE bought 
more oil when the price of oil was low and inventories were full, and 
less oil when the price of oil was high and inventories low. In early 
2002, DOE abandoned this market-based approach. Instead, it adopted the 
current approach, which does not consider cost or any other market 
factors when buying oil. During this period the price of oil has been 
very high--often over $30 per barrel--and the oil markets have been 
tight. This cost-blind approach has increased the costs of the program 
to the taxpayer and put further pressure on tight oil markets, boosting 
oil and gasoline prices to American consumers and businesses.
  Any successful businessman knows the saying, ``Buy low, sell high.'' 
This is true for oil as well as for pork bellies; for the U.S. 
Government as well as for oil companies.
  In 2002, the DOE's staff recommended against buying more oil for the 
SPR in tight markets. As prices were rising and inventories falling, 
the DOE's SPR staff warned:

       Commercial inventories are low, retail prices are high and 
     economic growth is slow. The Government should avoid 
     acquiring oil for the Reserve under these circumstances.

  The administration disregarded these warnings. SPR deliveries 
proceeded. As the DOE staff predicted, oil supplies tightened, and 
prices climbed. American consumers paid the price.
  In 2003, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations published a 
report on how this change in DOE policy hurt consumers without 
providing any additional energy security. The investigation found:

       Filling the SPR in tight market increased U.S. oil prices 
     and hurt U.S. consumers.
       Filling the SPR regardless of oil prices increased taxpayer 
     costs.
       Despite its high cost, filling the SPR [in 2002] did not 
     increase overall U.S. oil supplies.

  The March report also warned that the deliveries that were then 
scheduled for later in 2003 would drive oil prices higher because 
prices were high and inventories were low. This prediction turned out 
to be accurate.
  Many experts have said that filling the SPR during the tight oil 
markets over the past several years increased oil prices.
  In January 2004, Goldman Sachs, the largest crude oil trader in the 
world, reported ``government storage builds will provide persistent 
support to the markets''--meaning that filling the SPR pushes up 
prices--and that ``government storage builds have lowered commercially 
available petroleum supplies.''
  Bill Greehey, chief executive of Valero Energy, the largest 
independent refiner in the U.S., criticized the administration for 
filling the SPR in tight markets. Back when oil was just under $30 per 
barrel, Mr. Greehey complained that the SPR program was diverting oil 
from the marketplace:

       If that was going into inventory, instead of the reserve, 
     you would not be having $29 oil, you'd be having $25 oil. So, 
     I think they've completely mismanaged the strategic reserve.

  The airline industry has been one of the industries hardest hit by 
high oil prices. Last year, Richard Anderson, the chief executive 
officer of Northwest Airlines, stated:

       U.S. taxpayers and the economy would realize greater 
     economic potential with a more prudent management of this 
     national asset by not further filling the SPR under the 
     current market structure. The DOE should wait for more 
     favorable prices before filling the reserve both today and in 
     the future.

  Larry Kellner, president and chief operating officer, Continental 
Airlines, also criticized the DOE's current SPR policy:

       The average price per barrel for 2003 was the highest in 20 
     years and to date, the price for 2004 is even higher. All the 
     while, our government continues to depress inventory stocks 
     by buying oil at these historic highs and then pouring it 
     back into the ground to fill the strategic petroleum reserve.

  The trucking industry also has suffered under high oil prices. Last 
year, the American Trucking Association urged the DOE to postpone 
filling the SPR when supplies were tight and prices high:

       When the government becomes a major purchaser of oil, it 
     only bids up the price exactly when we need relief. I know 
     that you recently testified to Congress that the SPR fill has 
     a negligible impact on the price of crude oil, but we 
     politely disagree.

  Many energy industry economists and analysts have stated that filling 
the SPR in a tight market increases prices.
  Energy Economist Philip Verleger estimated that in 2003 the SPR 
program added $8 to $10 to the price of a barrel of oil.

[[Page S7062]]

  Economist Larry Kudlow said:

       Normally, in Wall Street parlance, you're supposed to buy 
     low and sell high, but in Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     actions, we're buying higher and higher and that has really 
     helped keep oil prices high.

  In a May 2004 analysis, PFC Energy, a leading oil industry consulting 
firm, concluded:

       The Bush Administration has actually been helping OPEC to 
     keep spot prices high and avoid commercial stock increases by 
     taking crude out of the market and injecting significant 
     volumes into the SPR.

  Last March, in an article explaining why oil prices are so high, The 
Economist commented:

       Despite the high prices, American officials continue to buy 
     oil on the open market to fill their country's strategic 
     petroleum reserves. Why buy, you might ask, when prices are 
     high, and thereby keep them up? The Senate has asked that 
     question as well. It passed a non-binding resolution this 
     month calling on the Bush administration to stop SPR 
     purchases; but [the energy secretary] has refused.

  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record additional 
comments as to how filling the SPR during the tight markets over the 
past several years has boosted oil prices.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      Comments on the SPR Program

       ``Commercial petroleum inventories are low, retail product 
     prices are high and economic growth is slow. The Government 
     should avoid acquiring oil for the Reserve under these 
     circumstances.'' * * * ``Essentially, if the SPR inventory 
     grows, and OPEC does not accommodate that growth by exporting 
     more oil, the increase comes at the expense of commercial 
     inventories. Most analysts agree that oil prices are directly 
     correlated with inventories, and a drop of 20 million barrels 
     over a 6-month period can substantially increase prices.'' 
     John Shages, Director, Office of Finance and Policy, 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserves, U.S. Department of Energy, 
     Spring 2002.
       ``As a US Senate committee pointed out Wednesday, the US 
     government was filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve last 
     year as prices were rising. And by my estimate, had the US 
     government not filled the Strategic Petroleum Reserve or 
     returned the 20 million barrels they'd put in back to the 
     market, prices right now would be around $28 a barrel instead 
     of $38 a barrel and gasoline prices might be 25 to 35 cents 
     lower.'' Philip Verleger, NPR Morning Edition, March 7, 2003.
       ``We believe the administration has been making a mistake 
     by refilling the reserve to the tine of about 11 million 
     barrels since the start of May. . . . Washington should back 
     off until oil prices fall somewhat. Doing otherwise is 
     costing the Treasury unnecessarily and is punishing motorists 
     during summer vacation driving time.'' Omaha World Herald, 
     August 14, 2003.
       ``They've continued filling the reserve--which is crazy, 
     putting the oil under ground when its needed in refineries.'' 
     Dr. Leo Drollas, Chief Economist, Centre for Global Energy 
     Studies, The Observer, August 24, 2003.
       ``If that was going into inventory, instead of the reserve, 
     you would not be having $29 oil, you'd be having $25 oil. So, 
     I think they've completely mismanaged the strategic 
     reserve.'' Bill Greehey, CEO of Valero Energy, largest 
     independent refiner in the U.S., Octane Week, September 29, 
     2003.
       ``Over the last year, the [DOE] has added its name to this 
     rogues list of traders by continuing to acquire oil for the 
     nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). In doing so, it 
     has (1) wasted taxpayer money, (2) done its part to raise 
     crude oil prices, (3) made oil prices more volatile, and (4) 
     caused financial hardship for refiners and oil consumers. 
     Philip K. Verleger, Jr., The Petroleum Economics Monthly, 
     December 2003.
       ``U.S. taxpayers and the economy would realize greater 
     economic potential with a more prudent management of this 
     national asset by not further filling the SPR under the 
     current market structure. The DOE should wait for more 
     favorable prices before filling the reserve both today and in 
     the future.'' Richard Anderson, CEO, Northwest Airlines, NWA 
     WorldTraveler, January, 2004.
       ``The government is out buying fuel, it appears, without 
     much regard for the impact that it is having on prices.'' 
     James May, Chief Executive, Air Transport Association, quoted 
     in U.S. Airlines Blame Bush for Cost of Oil, Associated 
     Press, January 8, 2004.
       ``Government storage builds have lowered commercially 
     available petroleum supplies'' and ``will provide persistent 
     support to the markets.'' ``Changes in global government 
     storage injections will have [a] big impact on crude oil 
     prices.'' Goldman Sachs, Energy Commodities Weekly, January 
     16, 2004.
       ``The average price per barrel for 2003 was the highest in 
     20 years and to date, the price for 2004 is even higher. All 
     the while, our government continues to depress inventory 
     stocks by buying oil at these historic highs and then pouring 
     it back into the ground to fill the strategic petroleum 
     reserve.'' Larry Kellner, President and Chief Operating 
     Officer, Continental Airlines, Continental Airlines Earnings 
     Conference Call, January 20, 2004.
       ``The act of building up strategic stocks diverts crude 
     supplies that would otherwise have entered the open market. 
     The natural time to do this is when supplies are ample, 
     commercial stocks are adequate and prices low. Yet the Bush 
     Administration, contrary to this logic, is forging ahead with 
     plans to add [more oil to] the stockpile.'' Petroleum Argus, 
     January 26, 2004.
       ``[Bill O'Grady, Director of Futures Research at A.G. 
     Edwards, Inc.] also notes the Bush administration has been on 
     an oil-buying binge to stock the nation's strategic petroleum 
     reserves. He guesses that artificial demand boost is adding 
     as much as 15 cents to the cost of a gallon of gas.'' Las 
     Vegas Review-Journal, February 29, 2004. [West Coast gasoline 
     about $2/gallon at the time].
       ``When the government becomes a major purchaser of oil, it 
     only bids up the price exactly when we need relief. I know 
     that you recently testified to Congress that the SPR fill has 
     a negligible impact on the price of crude oil, but we 
     politely disagree.'' Letter from American Trucking 
     Association to Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, March 9, 
     2004.
       ``Normally, in Wall Street parlance, you're supposed to buy 
     low and sell high, but in Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     actions, we're buying higher and higher and that has really 
     helped keep oil prices high.'' Larry Kudlow, Kudlow & Cramer, 
     CNBC, March 22, 2004.
       ``Filling the SPR, without regard to crude oil prices and 
     the availability of supplies, drives oil prices higher and 
     ultimately hurts consumers.'' Letter from 53 Members of the 
     House of Representatives (39 Republicans, 14 Democrats) to 
     President Bush, March 22, 2004.
       ``Despite the high prices, American officials continue to 
     buy oil on the open market to fill their country's strategic 
     petroleum reserves. Why buy, you might ask, when prices are 
     high, and thereby keep them up? The Senate has asked that 
     question as well. It passed a non-binding resolution this 
     month calling on the Bush administration to stop SPR 
     purchases; but Spencer Abraham, the energy secretary, has 
     refused.'' The Economist, March 27, 2004.
       ``[T]he Energy Department plans to buy another 202,000 
     barrels a day in April. It can't resist a bad bargain.'' Alan 
     Reynolds, Senior Fellow, CATO Institute, Investor's Business 
     Daily, April 2, 2004.
       ``In my opinion, we have grossly mismanaged the SPR in the 
     last 12 months. When Venezuela went on strike and we had the 
     war in Iraq we probably should have drawn down some of the 
     Reserve in order to build up supplies in the Gulf Coast of 
     the U.S. We didn't do that. When the war was over we started 
     adding to the Reserve, so we were actually taking oil out of 
     the Market. We took something like 40-45 million barrels that 
     would have gone into our inventories--we put in the strategic 
     reserves. . . . We should have stopped filling the Reserves 6 
     months ago.'' Sarah Emerson, Managing Director, Energy 
     Security Analysis, Inc., Interview, New England Cable News, 
     April 4, 2004, 8:59 pm.
       ``The administration continues to have its hands tied on 
     the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, particularly with candidate 
     Kerry's `high ground' proposal to suspend purchases putting 
     Bush in a `me too' position.'' Deutsche Bank, Global Energy 
     Wire, ``Election-Year Oil: Bush Painted into a Corner,'' 
     April 6, 2004.
       ``At a time when supplies are tight and prospects for 
     improvement are grim, Bush continues to authorize the 
     purchase of oil on the open market for the country's 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Bush is buying serious 
     quantities of oil in a high-price market, helping to keep it 
     that way.'' Thomas Oliphant, Blatant Bush Tilt Toward Big 
     Oil, Boston Globe, April 6, 2004.
       ``He pointed out that Senator Carl Levin, D-Mich. had a 
     good idea earlier this month in proposing earlier this month 
     cutting back the contribution level to the Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve, which Kerr said is 93 percent full. `By 
     reducing the input, it could provide a great deal more supply 
     to help rein in prices a bit.''' CBS MarketWatch, Gasoline, 
     crude prices pull back, April 23, 2004, referring to the 
     views of and quoting Kevin Kerr, editor of Kwest Market Edge.
       ``The Bush Administration has actually been helping OPEC to 
     keep spot prices high and avoid commercial stock increases by 
     taking crude out of the market and injecting significant 
     volumes into the SPR.'' Crude Or Gasoline? Who Is To Blame 
     For High Oil Prices: OPEC Or The US? Market Fundamentals & 
     Structural Problems, PFC Energy, May 6, 2004.
       ``Kilduff said the Bush administration could have stopped 
     filling the SPR, saying `it's not the best move to start 
     filling the SPR when commercial inventories were at 30-year 
     lows.''' John Kilduff, senior analyst, Fimat, in Perception 
     vs. reality, CBS MarketWatch, May 17, 2004.
       ``Oppenheimer's [Fadel] Gheit said Bush's decision to fill 
     the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the wake of the 
     Sept. 11 attacks caused a crisis of confidence around the 
     world that led to the perception of short supply and drove up 
     prices. `The administration has not tried hard to dispel 
     notions and rumors and perceptions and concern over supply 
     disruption,' [said Gheit]. `Gasoline prices are at record 
     levels because of mismanagement on a grand scale by the 
     administration.'' Fadel Gheit, oil and gas analyst at 
     Oppenheimer & Co., in Perception vs. reality, Camps debate 
     Bush influence on Big Oil, CBS MarketWatch, May 17, 2004.

[[Page S7063]]

       ``With oil and more than $40 a barrel and the federal 
     government running a huge deficit, it should take a timeout 
     on filling the stockpile until crude prices come down from 
     record levels. That would relieve pressure on the petroleum 
     market and ameliorate gasoline prices.'' Houston Chronicle, 
     Keep the oil in it, but take a timeout on filling it, May 18, 
     2004.
       ``They tell Saudi Arabia to produce more oil. Then they put 
     it into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It just doesn't make 
     any sense at all.'' Bill Greehey, CEO of Valero Energy, 
     Washington Post, May 18, 2004.
       ``The Bush administration contributed to the oil price 
     squeeze in several ways, according to industry experts. 
     First, it failed to address the fact that demand for gasoline 
     in the United States was increasing sharply, thanks to ever 
     more gas guzzlers on the road and longer commutes. The 
     administration also continued pumping 120,000 barrels a day 
     of crude into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, making a tight 
     market even tighter.'' David Ignatius, Homemade Oil Crisis, 
     Washington Post, May 25, 2004.
       ``How can the administration rectify its mistakes? It could 
     calm the market by moving away from its emergency-only 
     stance. It could also stop buying oil to add to the strategic 
     reserve. The government has done a good job making sure that 
     the reserve is at its 700-million barrel capacity. But now 
     that we are close to that goal there is no reason to keep 
     buying oil at exorbitant prices.'' Edward L. Morse and Nawaf 
     Obaid, The $40-a-Barrel Mistake, New York Times, May 25, 
     2004.
       ``President Bush's decision to fill the reserve after the 
     terror attacks of September 2001 has been one of the factors 
     driving up oil prices in recent months, along with reports 
     that China, which recently surpassed Japan as the second-
     largest importer of oil, is going ahead with plans to build 
     its own petroleum reserve.'' Simon Romero, If Oil Supplies 
     Were Disrupted, Then. . . New York Times, May 28, 2004.
       ``The oil price run-up and scarcity of private inventories 
     can be laid squarely at the White House's door. Since Nov. 
     13, 2001 private companies have been forced to compete for 
     inventories with the government.'' Steve Hanke, Oil and 
     Politics, Forbes, August 16, 2004.

  Mr. LEVIN. In summary, this amendment directs DOE to use some common 
sense when buying oil for the SPR. It urges DOE to buy more oil when 
prices are relatively low and supplies are ample, and less oil when 
prices are high and supplies are scarce. This approach supports our 
energy and national security interests and at the same time protects 
American consumers and businesses. It also protects the taxpayer from 
excessive costs due to high oil prices.
  I again thank the managers and Senators Collins and Wyden for their 
efforts so that this amendment can be accepted.

                          ____________________