[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 20 (Thursday, February 16, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1376-S1377]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 ENERGY

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to address some troubling information 
about natural gas, energy, and the prices of energy as well as its 
availability. This information came from a hearing held in the Air 
subcommittee of the EPW Committee last week, and I think it is of 
sufficient importance to all Members and all States in the Nation that 
I rise to speak to my colleagues about it.
  We all know that American families and workers are suffering from 
high energy costs. They will suffer even more if we do not balance our 
environmental concerns with their energy needs. That is why the hearing 
held last week in the Air subcommittee is all the more important. If we 
fail to heed the warning our families and workers are sending us about 
high energy costs and their lost jobs, their lost incomes, their lost 
standards of living, then we risk doing even more harm.
  The people I am talking about include manufacturing workers who used 
to make chemicals, plastic products, automobile parts or fertilizer. 
Many of them are now out of work because their employer moved to a 
foreign country with cheaper natural gas prices.
  The pain, obviously, doesn't stop with workers. Families suffer from 
lost wages. Most of those who are lucky enough to get a new job will be 
working for lower wages. Does that mean that those wages have to move 
even lower? Do they have to live with a broken-down car even longer?
  In addition, seniors on fixed incomes are particularly vulnerable to 
high natural gas prices. Across the Midwest, indeed across the country, 
many depend on natural gas to heat their homes in the winter and cool 
their homes in the summer. What do we tell them: Wear a coat inside 
during the winter and turn on a fan during the summer? We all know of 
the tragedies that hit our seniors in summer heat waves. What do we 
tell their families?
  Some have said we should tell our workers and their families that we 
are going to hurt them even more in order to fight climate change. We 
will pass proposals to cap carbon emissions which, by the way, will 
raise energy prices even more. For some, I guess today's energy prices 
are not high enough. Some are willing to drive power and heating bills 
even higher in their fight against global warming. Some do not care 
that there are no technologies currently available to capture and store 
carbon dioxide. But they are working on finding those. We are not there 
yet.
  Some are willing to stop using cheap and abundant fuels, such as 
coal, and force ourselves to use only the expensive and very limited 
supply of natural gas. Every year, recently, we have had an opportunity 
to vote on the McCain-Lieberman proposal. Every year we hear about how 
it will deliver a $100 billion hit or more to the economy. Thankfully, 
every year the Senate kills this job killer.
  Last year, as part of the Energy bill debate, we passed a sense of 
the Senate stating support for climate change strategies that did not 
hurt the economy. I think we can all agree with that. It sounds simple, 
but as we consider the ``McCain-Lieberman lite'' proposals, we have to 
look at whether a second generation of proposals will actually spare 
our families and workers from more pain.
  Since we still do not have the technologies to capture and store 
carbon, they will present other dubious arguments. Some will pin their 
hopes on projections that future natural gas prices will fall from 
triple historic levels, where they are now, to only double historic 
levels, where they were a few years ago. This will somehow make carbon 
caps affordable.
  Not only do I doubt that natural gas prices will return to historic 
lows, States represented by Members advocating these proposals are 
actively trying to block actions necessary to increase natural gas 
supply and get prices down. Government natural gas projections, which 
we found very dubious, include a prediction that natural

[[Page S1377]]

gas prices will fall in the coming decades. However, that prediction 
depends upon liquefied natural gas imports rising by 600 percent by 
2030, a sixfold increase in LNG imports. I find such hopes mind-
boggling. How could we increase LNG imports by 600 percent at the same 
time we have coastal States from Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 
Connecticut, and Delaware opposing or blocking LNG terminals?
  By the way, these Northeastern States blocking natural gas imports 
through their States are the very ones proposing we punish Midwestern 
States using coal by forcing them to switch to natural gas to make 
electricity--the natural gas that they will not allow us to get through 
LNG.
  Others who claim carbon caps will be affordable, pin their hopes on 
rosy economic analyses that say we can buy our way out of the problem. 
They propose, instead of cutting carbon emissions, powerplants will be 
able to purchase, hopefully, cheap credits from others who, hopefully, 
cut their own carbon emissions elsewhere.
  They are running models from MIT, Stanford, and Harvard that say the 
price of buying carbon cuts in other countries will be cheaper than 
forcing U.S. powerplants to reduce their own carbon emissions. I can't 
dispute these are smart people, but I wonder if they are reading the 
newspaper. Their models show a ton of carbon cuts costing just over $1 
a ton. At that price, they say it would be affordable. Unfortunately, 
last week the price to purchase a ton of carbon reductions was $31. You 
do not have to be from Harvard to do that math. That is 31 times more 
expensive. Do we believe that the cost of carbon credits will drop by 
97 percent after we impose our own cap, when you see the increasing 
demand for energy from India and China? That I do not believe is 
likely.
  Europe's system to cap carbon is certainly in a shambles. European 
countries are failing miserably to meet their Kyoto carbon-cut 
requirements. Thirteen of the fifteen original EU signatories are on 
track to miss their 2010 emissions targets--by as much as 33 percent in 
Spain and 25 percent in Denmark. Talks to discuss further cuts beyond 
that, when Kyoto expires, have only produced agreement to talk further. 
It sounds similar to the Senate these days. We can talk well, but doing 
things is difficult.
  If Europe is, for all practical purposes, ignoring their Kyoto carbon 
commitments and there is no agreement to continue with carbon caps 
after Kyoto, how can we expect the creation of enough credits? In the 
alternative, if Europeans suddenly decide to rush and meet their 
commitments by buying up massive amounts of credits to meet their 
shortfalls, how will there be enough credits for a U.S. demand bigger 
than all of Europe combined?
  While these questions are complicated, their consequences are simple. 
A mistake on our part could add significantly to the misery of our 
manufacturing workers. A mistake on our part will add to the hardships 
families face paying their heating and power bills. And one more 
thought: Iran and Saudi Arabia are furiously busy expanding their 
petrochemical industry, based upon their vast supplies of natural gas.
  I ask unanimous consent an article on that subject be printed in the 
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BOND. This means that not only more cheap foreign chemicals, but 
it means potentially more closed U.S. plants. We must also ask whether 
we want to add to our oil addiction a new chemical dependency on Iraq, 
Iran, and the Middle East.
  Before we make any hasty decisions, I believe we must have answers to 
these questions, and we must answer these questions as we begin to 
debate further carbon cap proposals.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Exhibit 1

                   [From MEHRNEWS.com, Jan. 2, 2006]

           Iran Striving to Rank First in Ethylene Production

       Iran plans to be number one in producing ethylene in the 
     world--reaching 12 million tons output within the next 10 
     years--by allocating 17.5 billion dollars in investment for 
     development of petrochemical projects in the Fourth Five-Year 
     Development Plan (2005-2010).
       The figure stood around 12.5 billion dollars for the first 
     to third development plans (1990-2005) in total.
       Out of the 25 projects under implementation, the National 
     Petrochemical Company (NPC) have completed 17 and would 
     finish the rest soon, said Hassan Sadat, manager of plans in 
     the NPC.
       NPC plans to have an output of 25.6 million tons capacity 
     by March 2010 jumping up from 7.3 million tons in 1999, he 
     added.
       The investment in the sector is forecast to increase by 40 
     percent in the fourth plan.
       Sadat said that the output of polymers would reach 10 
     million tons within the next 10 years. The production of 
     chemical fertilizers, methanol, and aromatic materials would 
     increase to 8 million tons each. NPC has estimated that the 
     country earns some 20 billion dollars from export of 
     petrochemicals only by the date.
       At present, nearly 52,000 employees work in petrochemical 
     sector that enjoys modern technologies such as ABS, PET--PAT, 
     engineering polymers, isocyanides, DME, and acetic acid.

  Mr. BOND. 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. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I yield the remaining time in morning 
business on our side.

                          ____________________