[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 90 (Tuesday, June 3, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4910-S4920]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CLIMATE SECURITY ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO PROCEED
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3036,
which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to S. 3036, a bill to direct the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to
establish a program to decrease emissions of greenhouse
gases, and for other purposes.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order of
speakers after morning business, prior to the recess for caucus
luncheons, be as follows: Senator Feinstein for up to 20 minutes,
Isakson for up to 15 minutes, Corker for up to 20 minutes, Specter for
up to 15 minutes; Kerry for up to 20 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the
climate change legislation sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman and John
Warner and the managers' substitute amendment offered by my friend and
colleague, Senator Barbara Boxer.
I congratulate all three of them. This is not an easy road. I want
particularly to thank the chairman of the committee for her work. She
has been open, she has been consultative, she has asked to meet with
Members, she has asked for Members' participation in the work. She has
been both strong and solid in her leadership.
After years of debating about the science underlying the warming of
our planet, today marks a momentous step because for the first time we
are considering comprehensive legislation to address global warming in
a comprehensive manner. I believe the time has come for the Senate to
pass legislation to tackle this problem.
The bill represents the most comprehensive opportunity we have in
this Congress to help curb our carbon footprint and take meaningful
action to prevent catastrophic climate change--and nobody should
disbelieve that is coming. The fact is this: Global warming is
happening. It has already begun to inflict changes on the world as we
know it. If you read the newspapers, if you watch television, or if you
simply take a look around, it is undeniable. Just look at weather
patterns. More destructive and deadly storms, such as the cyclone that
hit Burma and the tornadoes that have devastated parts of the Midwest,
are happening. Species are beginning to disappear. The Fish and
Wildlife Service has just announced that the polar bear has been placed
on the endangered species list because of global warming.
Its habitat is literally melting away. Polar icecaps are melting. The
Northwest Passage was navigable for the first time last summer. The
Arctic Circle could be ice free by 2030. The West is running out of
water. Scientists at UC San Diego believe there is a 50-50 chance that
Lake Mead, a key source of water for 8 million people in the
Southwestern United States, will be dry by 2021, if the climate
changes, as expected, and its use is not curtailed. Projections suggest
that both Antarctica and Greenland could melt at the same time. If that
were to happen, the seas would rise by 20 feet. So we are feeling the
effects of warmer weather. Five out of the past 5 years and 19 out of
the last 20 have been the warmest on record.
The Western United States is receiving the brunt of warming. This is
because the West's average temperature is 70 percent greater than the
planet as a whole. So the Earth's temperature has warmed 1 degree over
the past century, but it has warmed 1.7 degrees in the 11-State Western
region, and it is only getting warmer. Take a look at this map.
Here is why. Carbon dioxide doesn't dissipate in the atmosphere. It
remains for 30, 40, 50, 100 years. The atmosphere is a shell around the
Earth, and carbon dioxide has been growing since the Industrial
Revolution in this atmosphere. So the question becomes, how much will
the Earth warm? This very question is at the heart of why we need
climate change legislation, because scientists tell us we can make a
difference to impact how much the Earth will warm. We can't stop
warming, but we can slow it down. But if we are to do even that, we
have to act soon and decisively. I truly don't believe there is a
minute to waste.
To stabilize the climate and to prevent catastrophic warming,
scientists say we need to begin by reducing emissions by 65 to 80
percent below 1990 levels--that is 65 to 80 percent below what we have
put into the atmosphere in 1990--and do all this by the middle of the
century. That translates into a goal of 1,450 parts per million of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Vice President Al Gore told me
recently there is some new science out that we actually may need to
limit carbon emissions to 350 parts per million, which is even
stronger. There is new science out that shows the Earth is warming even
faster than was originally predicted. We need to contain the warming to
1 to 2 degrees. We will still experience significant but manageable
changes, but if we fail to act, the Earth's temperature could rise 5 to
9 degrees or more. Those results are catastrophic and irreversible.
I tell constituent breakfasts about the Earth. Most people believe
the Earth can't change. But, in fact, planets do change. Look at Mars,
look at the Earth 250 million years ago, when there was one mass on
Earth only. The Earth is subject to change. That change can be
dramatic, and warming affects that change. This is a gamble we cannot
afford to take. The truth is, though, there is no silver bullet. There
is no one thing that will turn the tide. We need to go clean and green
in driving, in heating, in cooling, in building, and fueling. We need
to move away from fossil fuels. We need the Lieberman-Warner
legislation.
By 2050, this bill would reduce emissions by 63 percent below 2005
levels or 57 percent below 1990 levels. So the legislation sets us on
the path toward meaningful greenhouse gas reductions. It does so in a
way that encourages innovation and makes the investment in cleaner
energy and green practices across the entire economy. Importantly, it
also includes important provisions to keep our economy strong. The
bottom line: This legislation is a major step in the right direction.
It is the most significant thing we can do right now to help prevent
catastrophic climate change.
Let me take a few moments to talk about what the bill does. There are
two ways to deal with this. One is a carbon tax. Most scientists want
the carbon tax, but most people believe a new tax is not going to
happen. The other alternative is a cap-and-trade system, much as Europe
has been doing and much as the Northeastern States have been doing to
deal with acid rain. They have reversed acid rain by 45 percent through
their cap-and-trade system. This legislation establishes a cap-and-
trade system for roughly 86 percent of the economy. It includes the
electricity sector, manufacturing, transportation, and natural gas. It
would be
[[Page S4911]]
the world's most comprehensive effort to address global warming to
date. It controls emissions in more sectors of our economy than
Europe's carbon control program. It would restore American leadership
in the fight to protect our planet.
Here is how it works. In 2012, emissions are capped at 2005 levels.
They begin to ratchet down 2 percent per year. By 2020, emissions would
be 19 percent below current levels. By 2050, emissions would be cut to
approximately 63 percent below 2005 levels by 2050, or 57 percent below
1990 levels. That is the cap part. The trade part of the bill allows
for the trading of allowances, which are permits to release 1 metric
ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is a proven system. It is
working well right now in the United States to control acid rain and
smog pollution. It has given companies flexibility to innovate and
embrace new technologies.
Under the bill, the pollution permits are allocated in a way that
transitions our economy toward a low-carbon future. In the early years,
one-third of the allowances will be allocated to polluting industries
covered by the bill to assist with their transition to less carbon-
intensive technologies. So one-third goes to those who pollute to help
them convert. Revenue produced by selling allowances at auction will be
used to invest in low-carbon technology development and deployment.
The bill funds carbon capture and sequestration, renewable energy,
and other low-carbon technologies for producing electricity. That is a
good thing. It funds efforts to retool car factories, to produce more
efficient vehicles and ventures to develop cellulosic biofuels, two
steps essential to reducing vehicle emissions. It funds efforts to
increase the efficiency of buildings, homes, appliances, and it rewards
States that produce significant emission reductions.
In later years, this bill refocuses its assistance toward worker
training and financial relief for consumers. It is a good bill. It
assists those in coastal and arid States who will have to adapt to sea
level rise and rainfall loss. So it makes our world better off, but it
also helps those who may have to shoulder an undue burden.
Here is the bottom line: This cap-and-trade bill significantly
reduces emissions. It funds new technologies. It deploys existing low-
cost options. It contains costs. It mitigates negative impacts. It
effectively combats climate change, while protecting our quality of
life.
I wish to take a few moments to talk in detail about some of the key
provisions of the bill that are of particular note. First, the
legislation includes language to establish Federal oversight for the
new carbon market. This is something I learned, as a Californian in the
Western energy crisis, that we need to do. A $100 billion market for
the trading of carbon emissions is going to spring up as this cap-and-
trade system is established. We need to be prepared. Just as there are
those who manipulate the price of oil and the price of gas--and we in
California found that out to the tune of $40 billion--this new market
could attract Enron-like manipulation, fraud or excessive speculation,
unless we take preventive action. This month Congress finally passed
legislation in the farm bill to close the Enron loophole to protect
electronic energy markets. It took us 6 years after the Western energy
crisis to achieve that. It is time to learn from these mistakes. We
need to take steps now to ensure that the market functions with
transparency, as well as antifraud and antimanipulation provisions from
the get-go.
Specifically, this legislation requires the President to establish an
interagency working group, the carbon market working group. It is made
up of the heads of the following agencies: the EPA, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the
Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Treasury Department. Within
270 days of enactment of the bill, the working group would establish
the regulatory framework for the market and recommend necessary
regulations that ensure enforcement of core market oversight
principles. These principles would include ensuring market transparency
in price, volume, and other trading data--all of it made available to
the public--requirements for recordkeeping, an audit trail which, up to
this point, doesn't exist on the electronic marketplace--but thanks to
the Enron loophole closure bill, it will exist--and finally, preventing
fraud, manipulation, and excessive speculation.
I was pleased to hear the Commodities Futures Trading Commission is
now taking a look at excessive speculation in the oil market as a
reason for the drive up of prices of gasoline. I will bet anything
there is excessive speculation in that market today. These regulations
would be fully enforceable by existing market oversight agencies, and
violators would be subject to significant penalties. So it is critical
we protect these markets from the outset. We cannot afford to delay.
Secondly, the bill promotes green practices for farmers and
foresters. This is something I am very interested in. California is the
largest ag State. The legislation includes language I authored to fund
research on innovative and cost-effective methods for farmers and
foresters to store carbon in the soil.
It is believed that farming and forestry practices to sequester
carbon in the soil hold great potential to reduce our carbon footprint,
and this is particularly true in my State. But the fact is, we do not
yet know enough about the best ways to carry out carbon sequestration.
So this legislation would help shed light on a number of practices
farmers and foresters can take to sequester carbon. The research would
be funded through allowances for agriculture in the cap-and-trade
system established by the Lieberman-Warner legislation. Some of these
practices could include several methods popular in my State, including
row crop practices such as conservation tillage--this is a picture of
it--permanent crop practices, including planting cover crops during the
winter season, and using prunings for bioenergy production rather than
chipping, mulching, or burning the material, and practices to reduce
the digestion-related emissions of methane gas from cattle and
livestock. Once we understand which of these innovative methods is the
most cost effective, farmers could then sell low-cost offset credits to
companies that need to reduce their emissions. So this is a win-win.
Third, this bill promotes low-carbon fuels through a low-carbon fuels
standard. Similar to the Clean Fuels and Vehicles Act, which Senator
Snowe and I introduced last year, this would require each major oil
company selling gasoline in the United States to reduce the average
life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy in their
gasoline. The provision ensures that the car and truck emissions go
down as we increase the use of low-carbon renewable fuel, such as
cellulosic ethanol. By improving the renewable fuel standard, which
requires the use of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2020, it
assures that the climate benefits of this provision are realized.
My conclusion and my bottom line: Confronting global warming will
require action on a broad scale. To those in this body who are
dissenters, I say this: If we do not do it, when the science has
coalesced, when the science tells us the time is limited, when the
science tells us we cannot stop it because it does not dissipate--we
must move away from carbon, and we must move to other kinds of fuels,
and do so quickly, and we must take these steps to aid the conversion
of American industry. Also, most important, this bill will signal that
the United States, after a long period of doing nothing, is prepared to
stand up tall and to lead.
I thank Senator Warner and Senator Lieberman for this legislation. I
know the senior Senator from Virginia is on the floor. I know he is
going to retire at the end of the year. I want him to know very
personally from me how much I respect him.
I respect your leadership on this issue, Senator Warner. I think it
leaves you a great legacy. I only hope we will do justice to you by
passing this legislation here today. So thank you so much for your
leadership.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might just speak for 2 minutes.
I thank my colleague from California. I say to her, it has been a
pleasure to work with you and to continue
[[Page S4912]]
to work with you in the Senate. Our primary responsibilities are on the
Intelligence Committee, but you are a very diversified Senator and can
seize many subjects and provide your expertise for the benefit of this
Chamber. I thank you for your thoughtful, personal remarks and your
very informative speech given this morning.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to
speak for up to 15 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That order has already been
entered.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I wish to commend the Senate for
assessing what is the most important issue confronting the United
States of America today; that is, energy, its contribution to the
environment, its costs, its availability, its future, and its impact on
the economy.
I rise today to thank a number of people who have contributed to the
body of knowledge I want to try to recite as best I can today: Michael
Quiello, Caroline McLean, and Duncan Hill of my staff; Annie Caputo of
the staff of the EPW; and three individuals back in Georgia, two alive
today, one, unfortunately, who is deceased: Carl Knobloch, a
distinguished man in our State of Georgia, who is probably the most
ardent advocate for open and green space and the preservation of our
environment of any one I know; Mr. Chris Sawyer, who is a distinguished
lawyer, who represents many national organizations and many
conservation organizations; and Mr. Bob Shearer. Bob passed away last
year, but in the 1970s he had led the Georgia Power Company during the
time it built the Plant Vogtle, a nuclear energy plant in Georgia that
today provides affordable, reasonable, reliable, and inexpensive energy
without emitting any carbon into the atmosphere.
Mr. President, I could not agree more with Senator Feinstein's remark
that it is time for us to put all of the issues and all of the
solutions on the table. It is time for us to talk about everything we
need to do to improve our environment, make energy more affordable, and
protect our economy.
I think it is ironic that the legislation that will be before us is a
piece of legislation that leaves out two subjects that are critical to
being accomplished in what the bill portends. First, it basically
leaves out any provisions for nuclear energy or the expansion of
electricity through nuclear power. Second, it gives no attention to the
single way we know to sequester carbon today. It talks about carbon
sequestration in a prospective way but does not talk about the single
way we sequester carbon today, which happens to be through Mother
Nature.
So for just a second I wish to talk about nuclear power, and I wish
to talk about conservation and open and green space. Both are included
in two amendments that at some point in time in the debate I hope to be
able to offer.
First nuclear--and Senator Warner was kind enough to share with me an
amendment he plans to offer on nuclear, which is a recitation of a
number of facts that ironically I am going to recite in my remarks--and
I commend him for doing that--the most important of which is that today
in America, 73 percent of the noncarbon-emitting energy generated in
this country is generated by nuclear. That 73 percent saves 700 million
metric tons of carbon from going into the atmosphere.
You would think if you already know you are saving 700 million metric
tons of carbon from going into the atmosphere and you know that 73
percent of your noncarbon-emitting energy is coming from nuclear, it
would seem that if you want to reduce carbon emissions and carbon in
the atmosphere, you would empower nuclear energy.
I think we should do that because regardless of your philosophy on
global warming and climate change, carbon is making a difference, and
it is in our geopolitical interest and it is in our environment's
interest to reduce carbon--geopolitically because we buy less from
Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and Putin, where we get a majority of our oil
today. That is the geopolitical issue, and that is good for us to do.
Environmentally, they are not exactly sure at Greenland what all is
happening, but they are sure the carbon isotopes and the ice borings
are much higher today than they were 30 years ago, and that is the one
change.
So it is important to reduce carbon. But to leave out the single way
we know to do it best, to leave out the empowerment of nuclear energy,
to talk about it only in terms of reference and not in terms of action
is, to me, disappointing.
The amendment I will offer--which I offered in committee--does a
number of things.
First of all, it provides incentives for nuclear energy in terms of a
10-percent investment tax credit for the production of a new nuclear
powerplant. By the way, solar tax credits today are 30 percent. This is
one-third of the tax credit for solar. But 10 percent is a good
incentive, and these plants are huge investments. That is No. 1.
Second is accelerated depreciation or recovery of investment over 5
years. That is appropriate.
Third, loan guarantees--loan guarantees and standby help--for an
industry that in the 1970s, when Government stalled it and investment
dollars went away, absolutely almost went bankrupt trying to continue
to build the plants that today emit carbon-free energy in the United
States of America.
Those three provisions--the standby loan guarantee, the investment
tax credit of 10 percent, and the 30 percent in terms of depreciation
and the 5-year depreciation recovery--make perfectly good sense,
incentivize nuclear, and reduce the emission of carbon into the
atmosphere.
I have a chart I will put up. It is very interesting on these
subsidies, by the way. There are a lot of antinuclear people who talk
about how the Government should not subsidize nuclear. Well, we
subsidize almost every form of energy. Today in America, $24.34 of
every megawatt hour produced by solar is a tax incentive, a Federal
subsidy. On wind, $23.37 is a Federal subsidy on every megawatt hour.
For nuclear, it is $1.59. That is the level of subsidy. Ten times or
really twelve times the nuclear subsidy is what you pay for solar and
wind, which give you 27 percent of your carbon-free electric energy,
while nuclear gives you 73 percent.
The bill also deals with empowering the workforce. When we evacuated
nuclear energy generation in the 1970s, something else evacuated in
America, and that was the construction of nuclear equipment, and that
includes all the employees the industry would need in a revitalized
industry. So we focus on that and talk about trying to bring that back
to the United States of America and to empower our workforce so we can
build safe, reliable nuclear energy plants in the 21st century.
I have a number of quotes from the following members, in public
debate, when we debated this nuclear amendment in the EPW Committee.
Senator Lautenberg, Senator Baucus, Senator Cardin, Senator Carper,
Senator Warner, and Senator Lieberman all made comments endorsing and
embracing the fact that nuclear is a part of the solution. I would ask
today, if it is a part of the solution, why is it not a part of the
Lieberman-Warner climate change bill?
On conservation, for just a second. Carbon sequestration is something
we need to perfect, and we do not know how to do it yet. We think we
can find some caverns in the earth and we can sequester it there, but
we are not quite sure. The technology is not there yet, nor is the
cost, but we hope we can do it. But Mother Nature has been sequestering
carbon for all time because that is the way the balance in our
environment works. That is one of the issues.
So I have an amendment to propose which is a conservation easement
tax credit amendment to incentivize the United States of America over
the next 5 years through $25 billion in refundable tax credits to
generate a fund to buy conservation easements in open and green space
throughout the United States of America.
Since the founding of our country, 15 percent of our forest and open
space and green space is gone forever to an impervious surface known as
urban development. If that continues, then our own natural carbon
sequestration system will be broken. So it is important, while we still
have the open and green space, while we know where our wetlands are,
where our rivers and waterways are, where our important ecosystem lands
are, that we create a
[[Page S4913]]
mechanism for those lands to be protected, but not one where the
Government goes and buys it--it costs you a lot of money to buy all
this land--instead, to have a program where you create refundable tax
credits, very much like the low- and moderate-income housing tax
credits, $5 billion a year for 5 years, to be sold in the market, to
raise the money for which you, in turn, allow 501(c)-qualified
organizations, like the Trust for Public Land, the Conservancy, et
cetera, the capital to go to out and, according to a statewide plan,
buy conservation easements to protect in perpetuity those areas
critical to our ecosystem and our country and, in fact, our
environment.
It would seem to me that when you debate the most topical issue of
the day, the most controversial issue of the day--the thing everybody
wants to talk about--if you know there is only one way to sequester
carbon, and that is through the natural process of nature--and
protecting open and green space does that--and you know the only major
supplier of carbon-free energy is nuclear, that you would make an
investment in this act by seeing to it that you empower the future of
the country to focus on conservation and nuclear and all the other
sources available.
I am a Republican. I am not one who likes to throw partisanship out
in any debate. I think you ought to win something on merit. But I think
we and our party and the Democrats and their party need to look at this
issue in a different perspective. A lot of us have our biases. It is
time to put our biases aside. If there is a known solution out there
where we can reduce carbon, expand our energy availability, and reduce
costs, we ought to embrace it. Nothing should be off the table. Solar
shouldn't, wind shouldn't, nuclear shouldn't, renewable shouldn't,
biodiesel shouldn't; whatever it is, synthetic fuels, we should act
now, and we should act boldly to see to it that while we work for the
best interests of our environment, we work for the best interests of
our citizens.
Our citizens today are paying more for gas and energy than they have
ever paid before, and there is no end in sight. We have a debate today
that if this bill passed in its form, it would raise that cost even
more; by some estimates, $1.50 a gallon more. We are talking about
serious business here. We need to be serious as Members of the Senate,
as Members of the most deliberative body in the world, and make sure
every option is on the table. For this Senator, that means expanding
conservation easements for better sequestration of carbon naturally,
and it means by reempowering the nuclear energy business to see to it
that the one source of reliable, safe, carbonless energy that we know
today in the United States is empowered for the 21st century.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia is
recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to commend our distinguished
colleague from Georgia. I listened very carefully, and I appreciate his
reference to the fact that I will be offering at the earliest possible
time an amendment to lay some foundation in this proposed legislation
addressing nuclear power.
As I listened to what the Senator from Georgia said, I basically
agree. But as the Senator well knows, if we were to have included these
provisions, either during the course of the committee markup or indeed
now in the amendment process, we would get blue-slipped. This type of
legislation, which I support, I say to the Senator, must originate--as
he well knows having served--in the House of Representatives and then
come to the Senate.
So as colleagues follow this and say to themselves: This Senator
brings forth very constructive proposals, why didn't the managers put
that in the bill, I think you would have to agree with me we would be
faced with a blue-slip problem and our bill would come to a dead halt.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I appreciate the distinguished
Senator's--may I address the distinguished Senator through the Chair?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia is
recognized.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I appreciate the generous comments of the
Senator from Virginia and the work he has put into this, and I would
publicly acknowledge that in the committee and privately. The Senator
has stated eloquently to me his support for the concept of expanding
and empowering nuclear energy.
I also understand what our block is: the blue slip. I referred in my
closing remarks: We have to start putting our biases aside to allow the
full debate to take place on what we are going to do to lower energy
costs and reduce carbon. If we talk about nuclear being good but aren't
willing to address it and somebody is going to blue-slip or put a hold
or kill a bill simply because it has nuclear in it, then we are not
serious, in my judgment, about reducing the cost of energy, reducing
the amount of carbon or dealing with the problem ahead. I am not
speaking to the distinguished Senator from Virginia because I know
where his head and his heart are, and Senator Lieberman has expressed
the same thing. But there are others--there are biases on both sides.
We need to put our biases away and allow every viable alternative to be
debated on the floor of the Senate and voted on. Up until the time we
do that, we are wasting our time and, unfortunately, we are wasting a
lot of our taxpayers' money who are paying exorbitant prices for the
problem today.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. ISAKSON. I am delighted to yield.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator knows that Exelon
has given its support to this bill and also NRG and they are coal and
nuclear and Exelon is nuclear. So I wonder if my friend understands
that Senator Warner is going to do an amendment, as he has said from
day one, and I am sure you will help him with that amendment. The
amendment probably has a very excellent chance of passing.
I wish to make sure my friend knows companies that build nuclear
powerplants endorse this bill without any changes, although there are
going to be more changes. Under some of the modeling, I wonder if my
friend has looked at what the projections are for building nuclear
powerplants without one amendment on this bill. Does my friend know the
answer to my question? Has he looked at some of the modeling that we
have gotten from this administration on this point?
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman. I am
aware some of the companies that are in the nuclear business have
endorsed this, and let me say this--and if I stand to be corrected, I
would appreciate the Senator correcting me. But those who are heavily
invested in nuclear that are operating today are in support of this
because they are going to sell their carbon credits to those who are
not heavily invested in nuclear and are generating coal. That
motivation is a motivation that is economic as much as anything else.
What I would like to see is for us to get everybody on a level
playing field, where we have more nuclear and we have less coal and we
have less gas and we have less oil-generating electricity. Then we will
be better off. So this is a winners and losers game in terms of the
carbon tax or the carbon credits. Those who have a low-carbon footprint
are going to have credits to sell and those who have a high-carbon
footprint who use coal or oil are going to have to pay a lot of money
to buy it. That is why there are some biases in these industries that
are for and against.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has
expired.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if I might ask unanimous consent for 5
minutes so the three of us can engage because I think this is a very
important point.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. First of all, I think for my friend to say these two
companies have no future plans to build powerplants or expand the
plants, that makes no sense. I haven't read their annual report, but
for him to say the only reason is because they are going to make some
money off the allowances--I don't think he is looking at the plans for
these companies, No. 1, but they can speak for themselves.
[[Page S4914]]
The second part, which my friend didn't answer, is that in the
modeling we have seen, without one amendment, it looks as if there will
be built, over the period of the lifetime of this bill, 150 nuclear
plants. So without one amendment--and there are going to be
amendments--and I have never been a great fan of nuclear energy. For
one reason, I worry about the waste. I worry about the waste. I worry
about having all this waste. So that is my issue. I have said many
times there are a few of us who care about that, and there are others
who seem to feel comfortable it is totally safe. We will have that
debate.
But the fact is, when you pass legislation such as this, there is a
winner. The winner goes to those energy sources that don't produce
carbon just on its face. That is why we give so much for clean coal,
because we are trying to make sure we keep going with coal and that it
is clean coal.
So I would say to my friend, and then I will yield my time to Senator
Warner to go back and forth--I am pleased he came over here. I love
working with Senator Isakson. He is a friend. He is a pal. We don't see
eye to eye on this particular issue because I believe that to have
people who are nuclear powerplant proponents say this bill doesn't do
enough, means they haven't looked at what the projections are ipso
facto because it is a clean energy source, in terms of carbon. I wished
to make that point. But I wish to thank my friend for the tenor and
tone of his remarks.
I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Warner.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. I would say to my
good friend from Georgia, I have talked extensively with a wide range--
as you have--of the industrial individuals who represent nuclear plants
today and are forthcoming. The chairman is quite correct. A number of
these companies are planning to go ahead boldly and courageously and
build new plants. Given the uncertainties of where they are going to
get the parts, can they be manufactured in the United States; given the
uncertainties as to whether there are enough trained people to operate
these plants, they are going ahead. So I don't believe it is just a
profit motive.
But as I talk to these individuals, it is clear to me they are
watching the jurisdiction of the Energy Committee as having a great
proportion of the nuclear responsibility; the Tax Committee, and they
cautioned against trying to do too much in this bill for fear of
interrupting a process that is in place with the Energy Committee, the
Tax Committee, and such other committees as deal with nuclear power
because that responsibility does spread over quite a number of
committees within the Senate. So we could not simply put into our bill,
recommended by way of amendment at this time, such a comprehensive
amendment because we know it is disruptive to the work that apparently
is going on in other committees as it relates to nuclear power.
But perhaps I will reflect on this as to whether I could add in my
amendment, or the Senator from Georgia might wish to modify my
amendment and take those portions of his which do not impact blue
slip--I think that is something we don't want to get tangled up with--
and doesn't infringe on the jurisdictions of the other committees and
see if we can make it work.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Warner. To Chairman
Boxer, first of all, if I said--I very well could have--if I said I
knew they weren't going to build more powerplants in the future, I
didn't mean to say that. What I meant to say was those nuclear
companies that were the most supportive were the ones that were way
ahead in the building of nuclear plants already generated far more
carbonless energy because of that and were going to sell their
credits--and I am a business guy; I think making money is a great
deal--are going to sell their credits to those companies that are more
coal- and carbon-producing friendly.
You are right, I didn't talk about the modeling. The modeling does
project more plants in the first 42, 43 years of the life of the bill
to 2050. However, I would submit to you, a modernized nuclear title
would allow those plants to come on safely, more quickly, and could
more quickly address the carbon issue than the way we are currently
caught in this conundrum of the antinuclear versus the pronuclear, so
we do nothing to empower an industry that we know generates 73 percent
of our carbonless energy today.
But I thank the distinguished chairman for her patience, the
distinguished Senator from Virginia for his contribution. I look
forward to working with you in any way I can to hopefully move us
forward.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, again, I commend our colleague for a very
constructive contribution to the dialogue on this bill.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee is
recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Lieberman-Warner
Climate Act. I understand I have 20 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct.
Mr. CORKER. I ask that the Chair notify me when I have 5 minutes
remaining.
I wish to say I am very excited to be on the floor today. I have
tremendous respect for the sponsors of this bill and all those who have
been involved for some time. I think everybody knows by this point that
while there are a number of arguments regarding the bill that is on the
floor, I choose not to debate the science. I accept the fact that we as
a country and we as a world need to address this issue.
I came to the Senate to focus on the big issues our country has to
deal with. I saw this as one of those issues. For that reason, a year
ago, I accompanied Senator Bingaman to Brussels, to Paris, and to
London, where I sat down with carbon traders and with European
Commission members. I met with cement manufacturers, utility providers,
and all those involved, if you will, in this debate in Europe.
I also was fortunate enough to accompany the chairman, Senator Boxer,
to Greenland to see the poster child, if you will, of what this debate
in some ways is about. Ever since that time, I have been fixated, if
you will, on the goal of figuring out a way that we as a country can
put in place policies that allow our GDP growth, we can continue to
ensure a better standard of living for those coming after us, having
energy security as a country, and making sure we have climate security
all at the same time. That has been my goal. I have seen, actually,
this debate that is taking place this summer right now as a tremendous
opportunity for us to come together as a country and to focus on those
things.
Some of what I saw in Europe were unintended consequences, things
such as fuel-switching that took place, when people move from coal to
natural gas and all of a sudden found themselves very dependent on an
unfriendly government--Russia--to supply natural gas and using that
political clout, if you will, over some of those countries that were
dependent. So I have worked with Senator Warner and with others to try
to craft legislation that I think works for our country.
I see this as a tremendous opportunity; I do. A lot of people think
this is not a good time to be talking about climate change legislation.
They say that because we have $4 gasoline at the pumps, this is a
terrible time to be talking about legislation of this nature. I
actually think this is a perfect time to be talking about it. I think
there is a passion in our country, exhibited by the chairman, to
address the issue of climate change. I think there are many people in
our country who feel that same way. I think Americans throughout our
country, seeing the prices at the pump, are feeling very vulnerable as
it relates to their own energy security and realize that we as a
country need to have a comprehensive energy policy that we do not have
today. So I see this tremendous opportunity for these two groups who
have been at odds for so many years--actually generations--to actually
come together and to do something that is good for our country, both
from the standpoint of the environment but also making sure our country
is energy secure.
Now, I am going to say something I know that may not be that well
received, but I think this bill, unfortunately--and with all the
respect that I have for the sponsors--I think this bill unfortunately
squanders that opportunity.
[[Page S4915]]
The reason I say this bill squanders that opportunity, instead of
addressing those two things I mentioned in a pure fashion, we have
resorted to the old-time politics of making sure we support various
interest groups around our country and spread trillions of dollars
around the country to try to win support for this bill. I think that is
a shame.
I plan to offer some amendments I will discuss at the right time. Let
me make sure the American people understand what happens with cap-and-
trade legislation. Most Senators do. What this bill contemplates is
capping the amount of carbon emissions our country emits, and then
reducing that cap over time, from the year 2012 to the year 2050, and
establishing a price for that carbon by creating an auction. It would
be much like if Senator Domenici and I and Senator Warner decided we
were going to create a company, and what we did was allocated ourselves
shares of that company, and in order to make the company grow, we sold
public shares in the marketplace. Those shares would generate income
into our company and allow us to grow, if that is what we wanted to do.
But the day we went public, it would enrich us. Those allocations of
shares we allocated to ourselves would enrich us immediately because
they become marketable securities.
Obviously, what this bill does is, No. 1, takes trillions of dollars
into the Treasury beginning in 2012 through an auction process; in
other words, we sell carbon allowances on the public market. On the
very day that occurs, the allowances that are talked about as if they
mean nothing become marketable securities, and they enrich all of those
entities that receive those allocations. That is where I think this
bill misses the mark.
The auction proceeds that come in with this bill--let's be fair and I
will not use words that are demagogic--when we pass cap-and-trade
legislation, we all understand it increases the cost of energy that is
generated through fossil fuel. That is a fact. That is petroleum,
diesel, coal, ethanol, all of those things that, when they are
consumed, emit carbon and will cost more on day one. So the American
public is going to be paying for that.
Everything Americans buy--if this bill passes--that has something to
do with energy will increase. When they go to the gas pump, it will
cost more. When they pay their utility bills at the end of the month,
it will cost more. When they buy food and clothing, it will cost more.
What this bill, unfortunately, does is takes in trillions of
dollars--by the way, the EPA has modeled this based on a price of $22
per ton for carbon in the beginning. I want people to understand that
today, in essence, in London carbon is selling for $41 a ton. Based on
the modeling, this bill, over its life, transfers wealth of $6.7
trillion. But if it were, say, based on the prices of carbon today in
London, it might be as much as $13 trillion.
We all know if this bill passes, every American will pay more for
energy, and I understand that. By the way, I want everybody in this
body to know I am open to discussing cap-and-trade legislation that
takes our country in the right direction. What I am so opposed to--and
I am so saddened by the fact that this bill does this--is this bill
takes trillions into our Treasury and then, in a prescribed way, much
of it in nondiscretionary spending, spends that money from the year
2012 through the year 2050. We have talked a lot about earmarks in this
body. This is, in fact, the mother of all earmarks--to make sure I am
neutral, it is the mother and father of all earmarks. This, in essence,
creates an entitlement program from 2012 through 2050. I don't
understand, if proponents want to affect our climate, why they don't
take those trillions in and then immediately redistribute all of those
dollars back to the American citizens. The reason is--and I am sad to
say this--this bill attempts to win support of the American people and
interest groups throughout our country by the same old thing that has
gotten our country in trouble today, and that is spreading this money
around to the various interest groups throughout the country and
prescribing the spending in a way that I don't know of any bill since
Medicare or Social Security. I don't know of a bill that has done this
to this extent in modern times.
Another piece that goes unnoticed is the allocation process. This
bill allocates out to entities all across this country carbon
allowances. Those are marketable securities. It is the same as owning a
share in IBM. It is a tremendous transference of wealth. Twenty-seven
percent of the allocation in this bill goes to entities that have
nothing to do with emitting carbon. I have no idea why we would do that
in legislation of this nature. I think it is reprehensible. One of the
reasons we see so many people walking the halls of our Senate offices
in tailored suits, carrying nice briefcases, is that people who are in
the know--I know the Senator mentioned some of these companies--realize
this is a tremendous transference of wealth. If they sit at the table
and they have something to do with how these allowances are allocated,
that might be better for them even in operating their companies, as
well, because we are creating a situation that transfers trillions of
dollars of wealth.
I am going to be offering some amendments, and I am disturbed that
some of the sponsors have indicated these are poison pill amendments. I
have focused solely on the policies of this bill. I have never used
demagogic language to describe this bill--never. I have never tried to
debate the science. I am trying to focus on the policies of the
legislation.
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CORKER. I will yield when I finish. I know the Senator has spent
a tremendous amount of time on this, and I respect that.
The reason we have cap-and-trade legislation being discussed is the
fact that we want to limit the amount of carbon emissions that come out
of our country. So one of the other pieces of the bill that, to me, is
truly offensive is that this bill allows for something called
international offsets, which is nothing more--again, I will go into
this in detail when I offer an amendment--this is something that
encourages companies in our country to go through a loophole so they
don't have to pay the full price of carbon, and actually spend billions
of dollars in countries such as China, where we already have tremendous
trade deficits.
I absolutely have no understanding of why we would permit that in a
bill such as this, which is being designed to limit carbon emissions in
our country. These international offsets have been documented to be
fraudulent. We have had tremendous problems in working through the
United Nations to administer these programs. I have no idea why
international offsets, which have been so fraudulent and have nothing
whatsoever to do with lowering emissions in our country, would be part
of this bill.
Let me say, in general, I realize we are not going to pass a bill
this year, in all likelihood. I think that, in many ways, is
regrettable. I think we as a country, right now today, when the
American people are feeling very vulnerable--and right now we have many
Senators in the Chamber who have such a passion as it relates to
climate security--I think it is regrettable that we cannot come
together and, as a part of this legislation, add many components--for
instance, that one which Pete Domenici from New Mexico led us on--and
create a bill that doesn't just address climate but also addresses our
country's energy security.
The American people are looking to us right now to act like adults. I
have to say I am not sure that as a country, for the last several
years, for some period of time, we have owned up to our country's major
problems. We have not done that. We have a tremendous opportunity in
this body this week and next week to address our country's
environmental issues simultaneously with energy security. I think that
is what the American people are looking to us to do.
I regret the fact that this bill, instead of being about climate
security, instead of being about something that drives our country
toward using technology that would cause our country to be energy
secure, has ended up being about money. It has ended up setting up a
command-and-control economy.
Look at these various wedges on this pie chart. I could show many
more. It is an amazing thing that from the year 2012 through the year
2050, over a trillion dollars of this money is pre-prescribed. It is
amazing that, as it relates
[[Page S4916]]
to technology, there is a five-person board that has been set up to
decide where the trade of dollars will be spent. I cannot imagine this
body--I cannot imagine it--approving legislation of this type.
What I hope will occur is that the American people will become aware
of what this debate is about. I hope all of us will have a constructive
debate in this body. My goal and hope is that we as a body will come
together around climate change and energy security in an appropriate
way and in such a way so those generations coming after us will have a
better quality of life.
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?
(Several Senators addressed the Chair.)
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California is
recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. How much time does the Senator from Tennessee have
remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Three and a half minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, Senator Kerry wishes to question the
Senator, if it is OK with the Senator from Tennessee. After that, I
wish to be recognized for unanimous consent requests and perhaps an
additional minute or two, to be followed by Senator Warner for 2
minutes and Senator Domenici for 2 minutes. And then----
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want time.
Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania will
state his inquiry.
Mr. SPECTER. It is my understanding that I have 15 minutes at 12:15,
which I have been waiting for all morning.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes, following the Senator from
Tennessee.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
Mrs. BOXER. I wish to have 2 minutes to do unanimous consent requests
before my friend starts. I know Senator Warner wishes 2 minutes. The
remaining time would be between the Senator from Tennessee and the
Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am agreeable to defer my 15 minutes,
which is scheduled to start at 12:15, for 2 minutes for Senators Boxer
and Warner. I don't understand what followed that. So I wish to proceed
at that time with that.
Mrs. BOXER. Yes, that is exactly what I said.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, if I understand, the Senator from Tennessee
has some time left. I did rise to ask a question. The Senator said he
would be happy to answer the question.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the unanimous
consent request?
Mr. DOMENICI. I object.
Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object, I don't know what the
request is.
Mrs. BOXER. I will reiterate it. It is that Senator Corker finish his
3\1/2\ minutes and do a colloquy back and forth with Senator Kerry;
that immediately following that, I have some time to make some
unanimous consent requests and have a minute to comment on what has
transpired, and that be followed with 2 minutes for Senator Warner. So
far we are 3 minutes delaying Senator Specter. Senator Domenici said he
did want some time, or did not?
Mr. DOMENICI. Let me say, I am going to ask the Senator from
Tennessee to yield to me a minute of his time to answer a question, or
ask a question on his time.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do
intend to object, I have already said I would be willing to yield 2
minutes to Senator Boxer and 2 minutes to Senator Warner, where Senator
Boxer then added some amorphous language about an exchange between the
Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Massachusetts. I don't
understand what that is and how long.
If I may finish, Mr. President. If I may finish.
Mr. CORKER. I will take my time back.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania has
the floor.
Mr. SPECTER. I have been waiting a while. I would like to have my
time which has been locked in and for which I have been waiting. Beyond
the yielding to Senator Boxer for 2 minutes and Senator Warner for 2
minutes, I will object to anything further.
Mr. KERRY. Regular order, Mr. President.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator from
Tennessee, 3\1/2\ minutes, has expired. Is there objection to the
unanimous consent request?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, will you restate the unanimous consent
request?
Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry: How did his time expire?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Through this conversation.
Mr. DOMENICI. This conversation is automatically charged to him?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes, he had the floor.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, if I could, I think what they have asked
for is 3\1/2\ minutes plus 4 minutes, for 7\1/2\ minutes. The Senator
from Pennsylvania, whom I admire and respect--I have sat here many
times waiting for every Senator on this floor to speak. This is an
important topic, and I hope he will allow Senators on the other side of
the aisle to have a little discussion right now for 7\1/2\ minutes, and
then we will stop.
Mr. SPECTER. I will be glad to add to the 4 minutes 3\1/2\ additional
minutes which Senator Corker asked for on the condition that be the
extent of it.
Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the unanimous
consent request? Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts, I believe, is recognized for a
question for the Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I listened to the Senator from Tennessee
calling this bill a spending bill--in fact, an entitlement bill. I ask
the Senator from Tennessee--I believe the Senator from Tennessee voted
for farm subsidies. I believe the Senator from Tennessee voted for
capital gains tax reduction. I believe the Senator from Tennessee voted
for the oil and gas depreciation.
I would like to know from the Senator from Tennessee, if those are
not subsidies, how he distinguishes incentives that change behavior
that are market driven. You either take advantage of it or you don't.
Nobody commands and controls. It is up to the individual company. Why
is the effort to have a transfer of a payment that is an incentive for
different behavior any different from any of those things for which the
Senator from Tennessee has voted?
Mr. CORKER. Actually, I am glad the Senator from Massachusetts
brought that up. That is the portion of cap-and-trade legislation that
I believe is appropriate. Unfortunately, what this bill does is it
takes in trillions of dollars and then pre-prescribes how that money is
spent, going out into areas to people who have nothing whatsoever to do
with emitting carbons. Twenty-seven percent of the allocations go out
to entities in this country that have nothing whatsoever to do with
emitting carbon. That is a huge unnecessary transference of wealth.
I would like to yield some time to Senator Domenici. I answered the
question, and I would love to debate the Senator further on the floor.
I know we have the Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to say to everyone in the Senate,
in all honesty, they ought to have a chance to hear the Senator from
Tennessee. If they haven't, they ought to read what he said because
there is no question that I, as a rather informed Senator, had no idea
what this bill does until I listened to him and then looked at it.
It is absolutely incredible that we are thinking of a bill such as
this to solve climate change when, as a matter of fact, it is going to
be the biggest redistribution of wealth we have ever adopted in this
Senate, and we are not even sure it will accomplish anything very
significant toward the reduction of carbon dioxide as an impediment to
climate change.
I cannot understand why we would be doing this. One little piece is a
commission of five men who will distribute allocations pursuant to this
legislation, totally at their discretion, a trillion dollars or more.
Who on God's Earth would think that is in this bill?
[[Page S4917]]
But it is. I commend him. I hope he comes here two or three times and
explains again in more detail what this bill does.
I am not against legislation for climate change, but I am convinced
that we better do something for the American people on bridging crude
oil use, crude oil development, putting some of the things we need in
place for energy before we put this legislation in place. I think the
American people will soon understand that.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, how much time is left?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 15 seconds.
Mr. CORKER. Let me just say, I hope we have further debate. I respect
people on both sides of the aisle. Surely, we can come up with a way to
make sure our environment is appropriately dealt with and that we have
energy security----
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Time has expired.
Mr. CORKER.--and not cause this to be a burden on Americans as it is
by prespending trillions of dollars.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Time has expired. The Senator from
California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we all respect each other, but I have to
say, I don't think my friend from Tennessee understands this bill at
all. All I can say is, he couldn't understand it because the biggest
piece of this bill, OK, is funds for the American people, a big tax
cut. If my friend opposes a tax cut, he ought to say it. It is a huge
tax cut for the American people to help them deal with the increases in
gas prices.
Right now, under this President, we have seen a 250-percent increase
in the cost of a gallon of gas, just in 7 years. We have no resources.
This bill gives us the resources. It gives us consumer relief.
My friend from Tennessee used very harsh words, in my opinion, to
attack a bill that really does address the issue of global warming,
addresses the issue of energy independence. And for him to call it
command and control is rather a joke since we specifically rejected a
carbon tax and we allowed the free market to set a price on carbon.
As to Senator Domenici's statement, again, he says it will do
nothing. Read the modeling. We do what we have to do in this country to
exert the leadership to decrease these greenhouse gases, and we do it
in a way that has won the support of business, labor, and huge numbers
of people across this country, including the U.S. Conference of Mayors
and Republican and Democratic Governors.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when we resume after
lunch that I be recognized to speak for up to 30 minutes, followed by
Senator Inhofe to speak for up to 30 minutes.
Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object, it is my understanding,
there was an order in place----
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, I thought I had 2 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. The Senator does.
Mr. WARNER. Then at the appropriate time the Chair directs me, I will
use the 2 minutes.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I simply would like to ask we modify that
request because I was going to follow, but we have chewed up a lot of
time now and we have our caucuses. I am happy to go after Senator
Inhofe and Senator Boxer, or I am happy to go before, whatever they
prefer, but I think we ought to do it after the caucuses now at this
point. I ask the Chair what her pleasure is.
Mrs. BOXER. If my colleague agrees.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the understanding was that Senator Specter
would be next for 15 minutes, and after that, the Senator from
Massachusetts. If it is the Senator's preference to wait until
afterwards, I have no objection to that.
Mrs. BOXER. And Senator Warner has 2 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there an objection to the
request as modified?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, what is the pending unanimous consent
request?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. To allow the Senator from
California and the Senator from Oklahoma to each have 30 minutes after
we come back from the recess.
Mrs. BOXER. Followed by Senator Kerry.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. To be followed by the Senator from
Massachusetts. Is there objection?
Mr. INHOFE. I object.
Mrs. BOXER. I thought you said it was OK.
Mr. INHOFE. Let's just try a new one. I ask unanimous consent that
the Senator from Virginia be recognized for 3 minutes, followed by the
Senator from Pennsylvania for 15 minutes.
Mr. SPECTER. That is this morning, now.
Mr. INHOFE. All this takes place prior to the break for lunch.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, is there a request that we go past 12:30?
Mr. INHOFE. My unanimous consent request, I say to the distinguished
leader, would postpone the 12:30 recess for lunch for about 10 minutes.
Mr. REID. I will just say, I have no problem if the lunches don't
start until 20 till 1, but anything other than that, I respectfully
have to say I hope people can come after the Senate picture this
afternoon. I know comparing it to global warming, it is not a very
important issue. Staff has worked some 6 weeks to set up this place to
take the picture at 2:15. Both caucuses have a lot to talk about.
Senator Kerry has agreed to wait until after lunch. That will be fine.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. For the record, we have not
disposed of the unanimous consent request. But if my mathematics is
correct, that unanimous consent request will take us up to 15 before 1.
Is there objection to the unanimous consent request by the Senator from
Oklahoma? Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I say to my
good friend, this has been an excellent debate he engendered on this
floor. This is what we should have. This is the only way we are going
to resolve this issue of global warming. I urge the managers to
consider building in a little block of time after speakers, such as
there can be some colloquy taking place rather than just one speaker,
another speaker, reading a speech or delivering a speech. This is what
it is all about.
Mr. President, I say to my good friend, he and I have worked on this
issue over a period of about 2 or 3 months. I have worked on it for 8
months. I don't claim any special credit. But if the Senator feels so
badly about this bill, why haven't he and others brought to the floor a
companion bill to replace this and to solve the problems he has? It is
one thing to come in here and hail damnation on what we have done by
means of putting this bill together, but if it is going to be a
constructive process, show us--
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WARNER. Let me finish the statement, and I will yield the floor--
a comprehensive bill that will work to the satisfaction of a majority
of the people here. For example, you talk about this board, seven men.
Let's say there might be a woman or two on it.
Mr. CORKER. I didn't say ``men.'' I said five people.
Mr. WARNER. The point is, if we look at section 435 of the bill, it
says that chart the Senator has up there has to be approved by the
Congress.
Mr. CORKER. It can only be vetoed.
Mr. WARNER. Nevertheless, you omitted any reference to the fact that
Congress has a hand. If you look at the amendment I have thrown in, the
President of the United States, at any time he or she desires, can go
in and change that. So it is not as if we have unleashed this bill in
perpetuity. There are a number of checks and balances in this bill to
protect the very issues that the Senator states.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, if I may proceed, because my name has been
brought forth, for 60 seconds.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. First of all, this bill, in black and white, prespends
over $1 trillion with no congressional oversight. The Senator from
Virginia is right on the one portion to which he was referring. We can
either veto it or approve
[[Page S4918]]
it, but we have no say-so on how those technology moneys are spent.
I object to the comment about me being a Johnny-come-lately. I have
been very transparent about this legislation. I have authored three
very detailed amendments, sent them to every colleague in this Senate,
and have given the background to them. I have been totally transparent
throughout this process. I have made public presentations about the
three amendments that I think would make this bill far better--things
that people call poison pills. I think the Senator knows I certainly
have not come to this debate at a late time, and I plan to offer those
amendments.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Time has expired.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I agree with what the Senator has said.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Time has expired.
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. It has been a little tough getting
these 15 minutes, but I am glad to have them.
Mr. WARNER. The Senator showed courtesy in getting them.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I sought recognition to discuss a number
of amendments which I will be proposing to offer. I intend to offer an
amendment on emission caps because of my concern that the emission caps
which are set in the Lieberman-Warner bill cannot be obtained.
I believe the problem of global warming is a major problem and we
ought to deal with it, but I think we have to deal with it within the
realistic bounds as to what the technology would permit, and it is
going to be very difficult to get 60 votes to oppose cloture, and if a
legislative proposal is on the floor which is unattainable, we are
going to end up getting nothing. So it is my intention to take the
emission caps from the Bingaman-Specter bill and offer them as an
amendment to the Lieberman-Warner bill.
I intend to offer a second amendment--a cost-containment safety-valve
amendment. This amendment will include the so-called technology
accelerator mechanism which has been included in the Bingaman-Specter
bill, and will provide a very important safeguard on the legislation.
I intend to offer a third amendment on international competitiveness.
It is vital that we not structure legislation which will put United
States industry at a substantial disadvantage. On February 14, I
testified before the Senate Finance Committee on this subject, noting
that China wishes to have 30 years, and by that time there will be no
steel industry. So there have to be restrictions on steel
illustratively coming in the United States, and this amendment on
international competitiveness will deal with that subject.
I intend further to offer an amendment captioned ``Process Gas
Emissions,'' because there is no technological alternative to a
company's annual requirement to submit emissions allowances.
Finally, there is a potential fifth amendment, which I am not yet
certain about, and that would involve the pathway to the future for
coal amendment.
The statement was made earlier in the past half hour about Senators
not understanding this bill. I think that is a real problem. This is an
extraordinarily complex bill. We have had the Warner-Lieberman bill,
then we have had the Boxer bill, a second bill, and now I understand
there is going to be a third substitute. So as we are working through
the amendments which I have articulated, it is a difficult matter, with
the topography changing and with the underlying bill changing, and it
is my hope this bill will remain on the floor with procedures to give
Senators sufficient time to take up the very important matters which
are at hand.
The first and most fundamental one is to have enough debate so that
there is an understanding of the bill. I agree with my distinguished
colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, who a few moments ago asked
for time so there could be debate and an exchange. Too often speeches
are made on this floor without an opportunity for debate and
questioning and cross-questioning to get to the very important matters.
There has been some speculation that the procedure that will be
employed by the majority leader--so-called filling the tree--would
preclude further amendments. I hope that will not be done here.
Regrettably, it has become a commonplace practice, going back with
Republican majority leaders and Democratic majority leaders, so that
the filling of the tree has made a very fundamental change in Senate
procedure, which traditionally has been that a Senator could offer an
amendment on any subject at any time and get a vote.
When the tree is filled, obviously matters cannot be debated and
efforts for cloture cannot move forward. This is a matter which has
awaited a fair amount of time. It is complex. And if Senators are not
able to offer amendments, such as the amendments which I am proposing
to offer, there is no way to find out what the merits of the bill are
and what the merits of the amendments are.
On the subject of filling the tree, I have had for months now an
amendment on a rules change filed with the rules committee which would
alter the authority of the majority leader to employ the so-called
procedure of filling the tree.
Another concern which is related has been the shift in the practice
of the Senate on the filibusters. There had been a tradition in the
Senate that when somebody offered a bill, and there was opposition and
the opposition intended to conduct a filibuster--that is to deny a vote
unless 60 votes were obtained to cut off debate--that there would be
that kind of debate. Most recently, we have seen the practice employed
that if someone says there is an intent to have a filibuster, there is
a motion to proceed for cloture on a filibuster, there is a 20-minute
vote, and when cloture is not invoked, the matter is eliminated.
Recently, we had a very serious piece of legislation coming to the
floor which sought to change a ruling of the Supreme Court of the
United States on the rights of women to obtain relief, where the
Supreme Court had imposed a 6-month statute of limitations in a
situation where the woman who sought relief didn't even know she had a
cause of action within the 6 months. Well, that matter came and went so
fast on the Senate floor that nobody knew what it was about. Had the
proponents of that legislation debated it, brought it to public
attention, and had the opponents of the legislation, who wanted to
filibuster it, engaged in extended debate, the public would have
understood what was going on.
So the matter of having adequate time to debate this very complex
legislation is very important. And if there is to be any possibility of
finding 60 Senators to coalesce around a cloture petition, 60 Senators
to agree on legislation, Senators are going to have to have an
opportunity to offer their amendments. There is great therapy in being
able to offer an amendment, even if it is not accepted. But we can
hardly engage in a practice of filling the tree, where Senators are not
permitted to offer amendments, and expect to have this bill move
forward, people understand it, and find 60 Senators who are willing to
come together on the very important piece of legislation which is at
hand.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be included in the
Record at this time a summary of the sheet of the five potential
amendments I intend to offer, and an explanation of the amendment on
the cost-containment safety valve, an explanation on the amendment on
international competition, an explanation on the amendment on process
gas emissions, and the single sheet which explains the proposal on a
possible pathway to the future for the expanded use of coal amendment.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Potential Specter Amendments
Emissions Caps/Targets Amendment.--Substitute the Bingaman-
Specter (S. 1766) emissions limits in place of the Lieberman-
Warner limits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lieberman-Warner Bingaman-Specter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012--cap at 2005 level................... 2012--cap at 2012 level.
2020--15% below 2005 (1990 levels)........ 2020--cap at 2006 level.
2030--30% below 2005...................... 2030--cap at 1990 level.
2050--70% below 2005...................... 2050--60% below 2006
contingent on international
effort.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost-Containment Safety-Valve Amendment.--Include the so-
called ``safety valve'' or Technology Accelerator Mechanism
that was included in the Bingaman-Specter bill; that
provision states that if the price for an allowance for each
ton of greenhouse gas
[[Page S4919]]
(Carbon Dioxide equivalent) being traded on the open market
reaches a certain level, then regulated entities have the
option of purchasing additional allowances directly from the
government at a set price; specifically, we set the price at
$12 per ton, rising 5% over inflation annually.
International Competitiveness Amendment.--Address the
standard used to determine if our trading partners are taking
``comparable action''; restrict an Administration's ability
to simply waive requirements on importers; bring the
compliance date in line with the start of the program (i.e.
2012, rather than 2014 in the new version--changed from 2020
in the original); revise provisions added for ``downstream''
products that may ironically result in exempting the
``upstream'' inputs like steel; include all countries, not
just large emitters; and equalize the ability of U.S. and
foreign entities to purchase international allowances to meet
the requirements.
Process Gas Emissions Amendment.--Clarify that process
gases for which there is no technological alternative will
not be counted in a company's annual requirement to submit
emissions allowances.
Pathway to the Future for Coal Amendment.--Potentially
including provisions: Providing technology funding and
incentives; adding a carbon dioxide storage liability
framework; adding a safety-valve; aligning emissions caps/
targets with technology; improving allocations; addressing
duplicative State programs; and other issues.
Emissions Caps/Targets Amendment
As I stated yesterday, I have serious concerns about the
stringency of the emissions reductions in the Lieberman-
Warner ``Climate Security Act.'' There is great concern in
the industrial, electric, and general business sectors that
these emissions levels are unattainable without serious
demand destruction in the form of lost jobs and production in
the U.S. that would result from higher cost.
If we do not set the emissions caps at a reasonable level,
the supply and demand situation set up under a cap-and-trade
program will impose high costs by definition. I intend to
propose an amendment to substitute the Bingaman-Specter (S.
1766) emissions limits in place of the Lieberman-Warner
limits. This will more closely align technology development
with the emissions reduction targets.
In my view, the most important thing our nation can do is
start a mandatory climate change reduction program as soon as
possible. If we wait until there is consensus among important
stakeholders from both sides of the equation, we will lose
another year or two or three that we frankly do not have.
Emissions targets/caps
Bingaman-Specter 2012--cap at 2005 level.
2012--cap at 2012 level 2020--15% below 2005 (1990 levels).
2020--cap at 2006 level 2030--30% below 2005.
2030--cap at 1990 level 2050--70% below 2005.
2050--60 percent below 2006 contingent on international
effort.
cost-containment safety-valve amendment
Senator Bingaman and I worked very hard to find the right
balance between starting the U.S. on an emissions reduction
path, but protecting the economy;
We are talking about taking unilateral action on a global
problem reducing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere; we cannot solve this problem alone and until a
comprehensive international agreement is in place, the U.S.
remains at risk of competitive disadvantages.
If some proponents of climate change legislation are
correct in their predictions, the cost of domestic action on
the problem will not be high.
However, if costs are above what Congress determines in
unacceptable, there must be an adequate mechanism to keep the
program in line with what the U.S. economy can handle; I
intend to offer an amendment to include the so-called
``safety valve'' or Technology Accelerator Mechanism that was
included in the Bingaman-Specter bill; that provision states
that if the price for an allowance for each ton of greenhouse
gas (Carbon Dioxide equivalent) being traded on the open
market reaches a certain level, then regulated entities have
the option of purchasing additional allowances directly from
the government at a set price; specifically, we set the price
at $12 per ton, rising 5% over inflation annually; this
protects the economy, while still sending the necessary price
signal to industry that there is an escalating price to
carbon that must be factored in investment decisions; I am
open to a debate about the appropriate level at which to set
such a safety-valve;
Unfortunately, opponents of this provision have flatly
attacked it without addressing the question of what an
appropriate price trigger would be; I was very glad to hear
Chairman Boxer state on the Senate floor yesterday thanking
Senator Bingaman and me for our proposal on this subject. She
described it as ``what I thought was a very important off
ramp. The one thing I didn't agree with them on is the price
they picked for the price of carbon.''
I hope this is an indication that we can finally have a
legitimate debate about this important protection for the
U.S. economy and consumers.
While Senator Boxer inserted a new ``cost containment
auction,'' I believe the new cost containment provisions
require extensive review and a true safety-valve should be
added.
Senator Warner provided leadership in adding provisions to
empower the President to alter the program, but I fear this
still provides too much discretion and would potentially be
used after adverse effects have already happened.
international competitiveness amendment
Senator Bingaman and I included key international
provisions in our bill. These provisions were based on a
proposal from American Electric Power (AEP) and the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW).
Senators Lieberman and Warner included our provisions in
their legislation as well; The purpose of these provisions is
to ensure that greenhouse gas emissions occurring outside the
U.S. do not undermine our efforts to address global climate
change and we further want to encourage effective
international action.
As first introduced, if eight years after the enactment of
the U.S. program, it is determined that a given major
emitting nation has not taken comparable action, the
President at that time is authorized to require that
importers of greenhouse-gas-intensive manufactured products
(iron, steel, aluminum, cement, glass, or paper) from that
nation submit emissions credits of a value equivalent to that
of the credits that the U.S. system effectively requires of
domestic manufacturers.
I testified before the Senate Finance Committee on February
14th of this year on these provisions. It is my view that
since the provisions treat imports the same as domestic
products, I believe they are compliant with GATT and would
survive a WTO challenge. Now, I understand that modifications
of this proposal are found in the Boxer substitute.
As my staff and various industries review the language,
there remain concerns that the provisions may still require
changes to ensure their effectiveness; specifically, I am
considering offering an amendment to: Address the standard
used to determine if our trading partners are taking
``comparable action''; restrict an Administration's ability
to simply waive requirements on importers; bring the
compliance date in line with the start of the program (ie.
2012, rather than 2014 in the new version--changed from 2020
in the original); revise provisions added for ``downstream''
products that may ironically result in exempting the
``upstream'' inputs like steel; include all countries, not
just large emitters; and equalize the ability of U.S. and
foreign entities to purchase international allowances to meet
the requirements.
process gas emissions amendment
It is my understanding that some emissions resulting from
production of energy-intensive manufacturers like steel and
cement would be exempted because there is no feasible
technological alternative;
For example, the use of carbon is irreplaceable to the
processes and the metallurgical reactions necessary to
produce virgin steel. Carbon, in the form of coal or coke, is
used as a reducing agent to strip oxygen molecules from iron
ore, producing iron, the basic building block of steel, and
carbon dioxide. Without carbon there can be no steel.
Without this exemption, given current technology, the only
way to substantially reduce emissions in the integrated steel
industry is to reduce production and employment.
Cooperative efforts are underway between the steel industry
and the U.S. Department of Energy to find technologies to
produce steel with far less carbon emissions, but they are
far from commercial viability.
I intend to offer an amendment to clarify that process
gases for which there is no technological alternative will
not be counted in a company's annual requirement to submit
emissions allowances.
This exemption will only impact a very small percentage of
U.S. emissions, but will protect an essential industry that
will play a major role in the energy sector expansion that
would result upon passage of this bill or even in its absence
given rising energy demand.
pathway to the future for coal amendment
I am considering offering an amendment to address the
serious shortcomings in the Lieberman-Warner bill in terms of
providing a pathway to the future for coal;
I am concerned that the bill does not provide sufficient
funding or incentives for carbon capture and storage (CCS)
and advanced coal technologies; It is my understanding that
the Boxer substitute replaces the original Lieberman-Warner
advanced coal research program with a ``kick-start program''
that dramatically cuts carbon capture and storage technology
funding. According to the National Mining Association, the
substitute provides 85% less funding through 2030 for
advanced coal and sequestration development, and eliminates
all funding for carbon storage demonstration projects.
Without adequate funding for these priorities, the result
is likely to be severe reductions in U.S. coal use--America's
most abundant energy resource.
Further, the substitute dramatically reduces the number and
rate of bonus allowances for CCS deployment from the previous
Lieberman-Warner bill. The Bingaman-Specter bill was the
first to create this incentive for early deployment of carbon
capture and storage technologies. I am told the substitute
reduces CCS bonus allowances 19 percent through 2030 compared
to levels in Lieberman-Warner which were already
insufficient.
[[Page S4920]]
Broadly, the Boxer substitute fails to harmonize the
timeline for emission reductions with the availability of
commercially deployed technologies necessary to reduce
emissions.
I look forward to working with my colleagues and the coal
industry to find the right balance between imposing a
mandatory cap on carbon emissions while ensuring the future
of coal.
Some issues we need to consider are: Providing technology
funding and incentives;
Adding a carbon dioxide storage liability framework; adding
a safety-valve; aligning emissions caps/targets with
technology; improving allocations; address duplicative State
programs; and others.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I say that my friend from Pennsylvania has
been a great leader on this, and I am ready right now, as is Senator
Warner, as is Senator Lieberman, to start debating amendments.
Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has said we need to run out 30
hours, so we are not going to be able to begin the amendment process.
But it runs out tonight and, hopefully, first thing in the morning we
will start with the amendment process.
Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request, signed off on by
Senator Inhofe and myself, and I ask unanimous consent that the order
of speakers for this afternoon's debate on the motion to proceed to the
climate bill be as follows: Boxer, 20 minutes; Inhofe, 30 minutes;
Kerry, 20 minutes; Barrasso, 15 minutes; Whitehouse, 15 minutes;
Grassley, 15 minutes; Casey, 15 minutes; Enzi, 20 minutes; Carper, 30
minutes; Alexander, 20 minutes; Warner, 20 minutes; Bond, 20 minutes;
Lieberman, 30 minutes; Vitter, 15 minutes; Nelson of Florida, 15
minutes; and Craig, 15 minutes.
Further, I ask unanimous consent that following each speaker, the
bill manager or their designee from the opposite side of the previous
speaker have up to 5 minutes for a rebuttal statement prior to the next
speaker listed above being recognized.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. If the Senator would add me for 15 minutes on that list, I
would appreciate it.
Mrs. BOXER. Happy to do that. And, Senator, I will add a Democrat
before you, and you will be the next Republican after Senator Craig,
for 15 minutes.
Mr. GREGG. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask that my 20 minutes be made 30, for my
purposes.
Mrs. BOXER. That is fine.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________