[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 89 (Wednesday, June 29, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7605-S7608]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, yesterday I was necessarily absent from the
Senate during final passage of H.R. 6, the Energy bill. I was attending
the funeral of Mrs. Marcia Lieberman, the mother of my good friend and
our colleague, Senator Lieberman. Had I been here, I would have voted
for the bill, albeit with considerable reservations.
I commend the chairman and ranking member for their hard work in
crafting a bipartisan bill. But let me be clear, this bill is not
perfect. All things being equal, it seeks to balance the economic needs
of our country with the well-being of our environment and sets out a
policy to provide Americans with a reliable and affordable supply of
energy.
Overall, the Senate Energy bill is a more balanced approach to energy
tax policy than the House bill. It provides just under 50 percent of
the tax incentives to renewable energy and energy-efficient buildings,
homes and appliances. Unfortunately, the bill also provides 50 percent
of tax incentives to mature industries such as oil, gas, coal and
nuclear.
The bill now includes a renewable portfolio standard, by which
electric utilities must generate 10 percent of their power from
renewables by 2020. In the past, I voted for a higher percentage
because I believe our Nation can and should use even more renewable
energy. However, the bill begins a smart, economic, and environmentally
friendly path for this country to take and I am pleased that the Senate
acted.
For the first time, the Senate is on record in acknowledging the
existence of global warming and recognizing the need to take mandatory,
market-based steps to slow, stop or reverse the growth of greenhouse
gas emissions. It is a start, a baby step, but again, it puts this
country on the right path and I look forward to working with my
colleagues to determine the right proposals to combat these emissions.
Air pollution must be reduced. Long-term exposure to toxic emissions
and unhealthy air has been linked to increased risk of cancer, reduced
lung function in children, and premature death of people with heart and
lung disease. Asthma rates in Connecticut are over two and a half times
the national average; 7.9 percent of adults and 8.9 percent of children
under age 18 in Connecticut have asthma.
I am pleased the Senate included an amendment that I offered to study
the
[[Page S7606]]
effect of electrical contaminants on the reliability of energy
production systems, including nuclear power facilities. In April, 2005,
the Millstone 3 nuclear power plant in Waterford, CT, automatically
shut down and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, determined the
cause to be a failure of a circuit card in a computerized reactor
protector system. It was revealed that ``tin whiskers'' were present on
the circuit card which led to the subsequent shutdown. Earlier this
year, the January 10, 2005, edition of Fortune magazine had a lengthy
article entitled, ``Tin Whiskers: the Next Y2K Problem?'' The article
explained the seriousness of this problem.
Finally, I am just as pleased with a few items that were not included
in the Senate bill. Unlike the House, this bill does not grant
retroactive liability to producers of MTBE, a gasoline additive that my
home State of Connecticut has already banned. I urge my colleagues to
keep this provision out of the conference report. There is no explicit
opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, although there are
attempts to open that pristine land through other pieces of
legislation. Finally, the Senate bill steers clear of removing
environmental protections from the Safe Drinking Water Act and the
Clean Water Act. Nor does the bill reduce environmental review for
energy projects.
I am disappointed that H.R. 6 includes language to inventory the
Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, including what is currently covered by a
23-year moratorium. Since 1982, Congress and the executive branch have
prohibited new offshore leases in the OCS. While an inventory sounds
benign, it is a costly endeavor that will cause irreparable harm to our
coastal waters and could well set us on a slippery slope to drilling
and exploration in these environmentally sensitive areas.
I am also troubled by section 381 of the underlying Senate bill that
preempts state authority and gives exclusive authority to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, with regard to the siting,
construction or expansion of liquified natural gas terminals. I
understand the need for increasing our supply of natural gas, but I
have grave concerns over the process for siting LNG facilities. This
hits close to home because there is a proposal to place a 1,200 foot
long, 180 foot wide, 100 foot high LNG facility within Long Island
Sound. FERC authority is also augmented by authorizing it to site
transmission facilities in certain areas if a State fails to act within
one year. Again, every State's authority is undercut by this provision.
I am deeply concerned that the bill terminates FERC's proposed
rulemaking for Standard Market Design, SMD, while doing nothing to
address FERC's actions with regard to Locational Installed Capacity,
LICAP. My attempts to insert a simple sense of the Senate amendment to
clarify that governors and utility regulators throughout New England
are opposed to LICAP and FERC should take their concerns and
alternative proposals into account before a final ruling in September,
were refused. The theoretical purpose of LICAP is to set prices that
will provide an economic incentive for construction of new generation
within New England. However, as proposed by FERC, LICAP will cost
ratepayers more than $14 billion over 4 years without any guarantee
that new generation will be built, with no penalty for not building new
generation, and with no provision for refunding payments if no
generation is built. I will continue to work with my colleagues to
address this unfair situation.
Finally, on the day after the price of a barrel of crude oil topped
$60 for the first time, we must recognize that this Energy bill does
virtually nothing to stem the tide of rising oil, gasoline, and heating
oil prices. The majority defeated efforts to even urge the
administration to divert oil from filling the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve, SPR, and to release oil from the SPR through a swap program.
I urge my colleagues participating in the conference to stand firm on
the will of the Senate and return an energy conference report that
moves our country on the path to energy security.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last Thursday, June 23, the full Senate
voted to pass amendment No. 825, the small business and farm energy
emergency relief amendment of 2005, to the Energy bill, H.R. 6. I thank
my colleagues for supporting my amendment. I want to also thank the
cosponsors, Senators Reed, Snowe, Kohl, Levin, Baucus, Jeffords,
Harkin, Pryor, Schumer, Lautenberg, Kennedy, and Lieberman.
Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to help small
businesses and small farms struggling to make ends meet with the record
high cost of energy--natural gas, heating oil, gasoline, propane,
kerosene. We can do this very easily by making those small businesses
eligible to apply for low-cost disaster loans through the Small
Business Administration's Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program. To
help small farms and agricultural businesses, Senator Kohl has included
a provision making them eligible for loans through a similar loan
program at the Department of Agriculture. It also includes a provision
by Senator Levin, passed unanimously last time this was considered in
Committee and the full Senate to promote the use of alternative energy
sources.
The need for this type of safety net is clear. The volatile and
significant rise in cost for these fuels over the past several years
has threatened the economic viability and survival of many small
businesses. For example, last week the spot price for oil hit a record
high of $58.90, a cost when adjusted for inflation that has not been
seen in over 20 years. This is raising the price of gasoline, with the
average U.S. price now at $2.16 per gallon, an increase of 22 cents
compared to last year. The cost of home heating oil has jumped as much
as 45 percent, and the natural gas market is likely to tighten over the
next few months as summer cooling demand picks up. Prices are projected
to continue to increase as the winter heating season boosts natural gas
demand.
As we've heard in testimony after testimony, these prices hurt small
manufacturers that rely heavily on natural gas and cite energy costs as
one of the top three factors driving them out of business. These prices
hurt farmers that rely on natural gas and propane and gasoline to run
their farms and produce crops. And these prices hurt small heating fuel
dealers in the northeast.
Most small companies typically have small cash flows and narrow
operating margins and simply don't have the reserves to compensate for
significant and unexpected spikes in operating costs. For those
businesses financially harmed by the energy prices, they need access to
capital to mitigate or avoid serious losses or going out of business.
Commercial lenders typically won't make loans to these small businesses
because they often don't have the increased cash flow to demonstrate
the ability to repay the loan.
There has been a bipartisan push for this assistance in Congress
twice in the past few years. In the 107th Congress, in 2001, I
introduced virtually the same bill, S. 295, and was joined by 34
cosponsors to pass it in the full Senate. Of those who voted to pass
the bill, 77 are still in the Senate, including 37 Republicans. Most
recently, in November, during the consideration of the mega funding
bill, the fiscal year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations conference report,
Senator Reed, as head of the Senate Northeast-Midwest Coalition, worked
to have a version of this amendment adopted as part of the the bill.
Seventeen Senators signed a letter to chairmen Stevens and Gregg, and
ranking members Byrd and Hollings requesting its inclusion. It makes no
sense, but out of 3,000 pages of legislation and almost $400 billion in
spending, this assistance was not included because the administration
objected. The little guy was not helped.
As frustrating as that is, and while it would have been most helpful
to these businesses--from small heating oil dealers to small
manufacturers--to enact the legislation in November when the prices
were at an all-time high, we can still be helpful now.
In that spirit, along with my colleagues mentioned earlier, I am very
pleased to have offered the Small Business and Farm Energy Emergency
Relief Act of 2005, S. 269, as an amendment to that energy bill. I ask
my colleagues in the Senate and House to preserve the provision in the
final bill--conference--as they work out differences between the two
sides.
[[Page S7607]]
Mr. President, we have built a very clear record over the years on
how this legislation would work and why it is needed. I am glad that my
colleagues have gotten behind this bill and have put us one step close
to making this law in the near future. In the past, this assistance has
received bipartisan support and I am glad that this year is not
different.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a bipartisan letter of support
and a copy of the cosponsors from past bills be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Demonstrating Bipartisan Support Over Years
List of S. 295 cosponsors: Senators Bond, Lieberman, Snowe,
Bingaman, Landrieu, Johnson, Domenici, Levin, Wellstone,
Jeffords, Harkin, Schumer, Clinton, Kohl, Edwards, Leahy,
Baucus, Collins, Dodd, Chafee, Bayh, Kennedy, Inouye,
Daschle, Akaka, Corzine, Reed, Murray, Cantwell, Cleland,
Enzi, Torricelli, Smith, and Specter.
List of those who voted to pass S. 295 and are still in the
Senate: Senators Allard, Allen, Bennett, Biden, Boxer,
Breaux, Brownback, Bunning, Burns, Byrd, Campbell, Carnahan,
Carper, Cochran, Conrad, Craig, Crapo, Dayton, DeWine,
Dorgan, Durbin, Ensign, Feingold, Feinstein, Fitzgerald,
Frist, Graham, Gramm, Grassley, Gregg, Hagel, Hatch, Helms,
Hutchinson, Hutchison, Inhofe, Kyl, Lincoln, Lott, Lugar,
McCain, McConnell, Mikulski, Miller, Murkowski, Nelson,
Nelson, Nickles, Reid, Roberts, Rockefeller, Santorum,
Sarbanes, Sessions, Shelby, Smith, Smith, Stabenow, Stevens,
Thomas, Thompson, Thurmond, Voinovich, Warner, and Wyden. (40
Democrats, 37 Republicans, 1 Independent)
List of signatories to approps letter: Senators Reed, Collins, Kerry,
Bingaman, Specter, Leahy, Dodd, Chafee, Kennedy, Lautenberg, Jeffords,
Lieberman, Bayh, Schumer, Sarbanes, Mikulski, and Clinton.
____
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, November 16, 2004.
Hon. Ted Stevens,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Judd Gregg,
Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
State and the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Fritz F. Hollings,
Ranking Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce,
Justice, State and the Judiciary, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Stevens, Byrd, Gregg and Hollings: We are
writing to request you include a provision in the fiscal year
2005 Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report to make heating
oil distributors and other small businesses harmed by
substantial increases in energy price eligible for Small
Business Administration (SBA) disaster loans. Many small
businesses are being adversely affected by the substantial
increases in the prices of heating oil, propane, kerosene and
natural gas. The recent volatile and substantial increases in
the cost of these fuels is placing a tremendous burden on the
financial resources of small businesses, which typically have
small cash flows and narrow operating margins.
Heating oil and propane distributors, in particular, are
being impacted. Heating oil and propane distributors purchase
oil through wholesalers. Typically, the distributor has 10
days to pay for the oil. The money is pulled directly from a
line of credit either at a bank or with the wholesaler. Given
the high cost of heating oil, distributors' purchasing power
is much lower this year compared to previous years. In
addition, the distributors often do not receive payments from
customers until 30 days or more after delivery; therefore,
their financial resources for purchasing oil for customers
and running their business are limited. Heating oil and
propane dealers need to borrow money on a short-term basis to
maintain economic viability. Commercial lenders typically
will not make loans to these small businesses because they
usually do not have the increased cash flows to demonstrate
the ability to repay the loan. Without sufficient credit,
these small businesses will struggle to purchase the heating
fuels they need to supply residential customers, businesses
and public facilities, such as schools. These loans would
provide affected small businesses with the working capital
needed until normal operations resume or until they can
restructure to address the market changes.
SBA's disaster loans are an appropriate source of funding
to address this problem. The hurricanes that caused
significant damage to the Gulf Coast along with the current
instability in Iraq, Nigeria and Russia caused a surge in the
price for oil and important refined products, especially
heating fuels. The conditions restricting these small
businesses' access to capital are beyond their control and
SBA loans can fill this gap when the private sector does not
meet the credit needs of small businesses.
A similar provision passed the Small Business Committee and
Senate with broad bipartisan support during the 107th
Congress when these small businesses faced substantial
increase in energy prices. In addition, there is precedence
for this proposal as a similar provision was enacted in the
104th Congress to help commercial fisheries failures.
Thank you for your consideration. Please find enclosed
suggested draft language for the proposal. If your staff has
questions about the proposal or the impacts of the current
energy price increases on small businesses, please ask them
to contact Kris Sarri at 224-0606.
Sincerely,
Jack Reed, John F. Kerry, Arlen Specter, Christopher J.
Dodd, Edward M. Kennedy, James M. Jeffords, Evan Bayh,
Susan M. Collins, Jeff Bingaman, Patrick J. Leahy,
Lincoln D. Chafee, Frank Lautenberg, Joseph I.
Lieberman, Charles E. Schumer, Paul S. Sarbanes,
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barbara A. Mikulski.
Mr. BAUCUS. President, I wish to explain my climate change votes.
This is an important debate, and I appreciate the efforts of my
colleagues to contribute substantively to our understanding of the
issue and to offer solutions.
First, let me be clear that although I voted for Senator Hagel's
amendment relating to the promotion of climate change technology at
home and abroad, I do not think that amendment goes far enough to
address the issue of rising greenhouse gas emissions. At the very
least, I would like to see more aggressive timetables and proposals for
Federal action than are contained in Senator Hagel's amendment.
At the same time, I am still not comfortable supporting the approach
of Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain. I admire their hard work and
dedication in advocating for immediate action to control U.S. emissions
of greenhouse gases. They have helped to educate their colleagues, and
have kept the issue on the front-burner in the Senate and made it
impossible for us to ignore. And, as they have so often pointed out,
the evidence that manmade greenhouse gas emissions are impacting our
climate system is growing every year.
However, I am still not ready to support the mandatory cap and trade
called for in their amendment that would freeze U.S. emissions of
greenhouse gases at 2000 levels in 2010. I still have questions about
the costs this proposal would impose on our economy, and in particular
on my state that has the largest coal reserves in the lower 48.
Projections vary widely, which makes it difficult to weigh costs and
benefits. I also have concerns about whether we currently--or will in
the immediate future--have the technological capabilities to meet the
challenges of the McCain-Lieberman bill, without imposing significant
costs on our economy or creating greater volatility in natural gas
markets than already exists. Perhaps not in the short term, but beyond
2010, this concern only grows.
These are not trivial questions, particularly when some of our
friends in the developing world will soon eclipse the industrialized
nations as the largest emitters of greenhouse gases. We cannot ignore
that fact, particularly as we contemplate placing a burden on our own
economy that could impact our international competitiveness, while at
the same time, will have little impact on overall global greenhouse gas
concentrations.
I also was unable to support Senator Bingaman's sense of the Senate,
calling on Congress to implement a mandatory program to reduce
emissions of greenhouse gases soon. While I do agree that Congress
should take this issue seriously and act sooner rather than later, I
can't agree at this point that we are ready to enact a purely mandatory
program in the short term.
Crafting truly bipartisan, comprehensive legislation to address
greenhouse gas emissions will take a great deal of work that this
Congress to date has avoided, except for the concerted efforts of
individual Senators, like Senators McCain, Lieberman, Bingaman, Byrd
and Hagel. Unfortunately, individual efforts generally are not enough
on legislation this complex and far-reaching without the structure and
support of a committee-led process, and encouragement from the
leadership and the administration.
This must happen, and I have been encouraged to hear many of my
colleagues express similar sentiments about pursuing a broader approach
to developing climate change legislation,
[[Page S7608]]
rather than on an ad hoc basis on the Senate floor, particularly the
Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, Senator Domenici. This is a
positive development.
Congress must act, and act in a concerted, thoughtful way. That's how
we have addressed complicated environmental legislation in the past,
including the Clean Air Act. But, we're talking about a potential
regulatory scheme that could dwarf the scope and impact of even the
Clean Air Act and is directly related to our future economic growth.
We're also talking about controlling a gas--CO2--for which we currently
have no widely available, proven control technology. Implementing
mandatory controls now looks to a certain extent like stepping off a
cliff and hoping something breaks our fall. We need to take the time to
do it right. I pledge my assistance to make this happen.
I also continue to believe that this administration must re-engage
with the international community in a meaningful way. The best way to
move forward in this body is concurrently with an international effort
that encompasses all of the major greenhouse gas emitters--and those
that will soon become the major emitters. Not only will this accelerate
the technology development curve, but it will level the economic
playing field. The fact that Kyoto left out much of the developing
world, including China and India, was that treaty's fatal flaw. We
don't need to go down that path again, and I think the world is ready
to step beyond Kyoto.
As the current number one emitter of greenhouse gases, it is
incumbent on the U.S. to lead, not follow, in this effort. That's why I
supported Senator Kerry's sense of the Senate.
____________________