[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.
____________________