[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.

                          ____________________