[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 93 (Friday, June 6, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5333-S5349]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LIEBERMAN-WARNER CLIMATE SECURITY ACT OF 2008
Pending:
Reid (for Boxer) amendment No. 4825, in the nature of a
substitute.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On Page S5333, June 6, 2008, under Pending the following
appears: REID amendment No. 4826 . . .
The online record has been corrected to read: REID (for Boxer)
amendment No. 4825, in the nature of a substitute.Reid amendment
No. 4826 . . .
========================= END NOTE =========================
Reid amendment No. 4826 (to amendment No. 4825), to express
the sense of the Senate that the United States should address
global climate change through the negotiation of fair and
effective international commitments.
Reid amendment No. 4827 (to amendment No. 4826), to express
the sense of the Senate that the United States should address
global climate change through the negotiation of fair and
effective international commitments.
Reid amendment No. 4828 (to the language proposed to be
stricken by Reid (for Boxer amendment No. 4825), to provide
for the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 4829 (to amendment No. 4828), to change
the enactment date.
Reid motion to commit the bill to the Committee on the
Environment and Public Works with instructions to report back
forthwith, with Reid amendment No. 4830, to provide for the
enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 4831 (the instructions of the Reid
motion to commit), to change the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 4832 (to amendment No. 4831), to change
the enactment date.
cloture motion
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order and
pursuant to rule XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke
cloture.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the substitute
amendment No. 4825 to S. 3036, the Lieberman-Warner Climate
Security Act.
Barbara Boxer, John Warner, Joseph Lieberman, Tom Harkin,
Robert Menendez, Bill Nelson, Thomas R. Carper, Sheldon
Whitehouse, Charles E. Schumer, Frank R. Lautenberg,
Dianne Feinstein, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., John F. Kerry,
Robert P. Casey, Jr., Patrick J. Leahy, Richard Durbin,
Harry Reid.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory
quorum call is waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on
amendment No. 4825 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, shall be brought
to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
[[Page S5334]]
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad), the Senator
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr.
Obama) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Delaware (Mr. Biden) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the
Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
DeMint), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from
New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the
Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Specter), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens).
Further, if present and voting the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
DeMint) and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted
``nay.''
The Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman) would have voted ``yea.''
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 36, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 145 Leg.]
YEAS--48
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bingaman
Boxer
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Dodd
Dole
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Martinez
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Stabenow
Sununu
Tester
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--36
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Crapo
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kyl
Landrieu
Lugar
McConnell
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Wicker
NOT VOTING--16
Biden
Byrd
Clinton
Coleman
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
DeMint
Graham
Gregg
Kennedy
McCain
Murkowski
Obama
Specter
Stevens
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the
nays are 36. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. For everybody here, this will be the last vote today. We
will have at least one vote in the morning on Tuesday, and perhaps
multiple votes. So everybody will have to be here Tuesday morning. The
votes will probably start at 10 o'clock in the morning.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia is
recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to put in the Record a statement by
Senator Coleman. He would have voted aye if he had been here today. I
ask to have his statement printed in the Record.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, we are in the middle of an energy
crisis, and the only way we're going to get out of it is to
dramatically transform how this country does energy.
That is what the Lieberman-Warner climate bill does--it takes on one
of the greatest economic and national security threats America faces
today: our energy insecurity.
Sometimes we must look around the mountain, we must look to our
future and recognize where our path must lead. We must recognize that
we need massive and speedy development of domestically produced clean
energy sources.
If we had committed to this bill 10 years ago, we wouldn't be in the
tight spot we find ourselves in right now. We needed carbon capture
technology for coal, increased nuclear power, cellulosic ethanol, and
widespread renewable energy use yesterday.
This year, nearly half a trillion of our dollars will be sent
overseas for energy we are capable of producing at home. The fact is,
we are being held hostage by a world oil market where much of the
supply is controlled by thugs and tyrants like Ahmadinejad and Chavez.
But, as we have found in Minnesota, we can grow our own fuel, and the
potential of cellulosic ethanol to replace foreign oil makes today's
renewable fuels production look small, but it still hasn't reached
commercialization.
Meanwhile, nuclear energy is an affordable, zero-emissions source of
energy, yet we have not built a nuclear plant in this country in 30
years.
And, due to environmental concerns, it is increasingly difficult to
utilize one of our greatest sources of energy in the country: coal. We
have a 250 year supply of coal that we must find a way to use for
energy production because one thing is certain--America's energy needs
are only increasing.
At the same time, we have abundant energy around us that has yet to
be tapped. When I am fishing on a beautiful morning up in Lake Ada back
home, the sunshine and steady breeze are a constant reminder of the
renewable resources that we can harness to power our homes and
businesses.
The solutions to our energy woes are at our fingertips; it's time we
grabbed hold of the great opportunity at hand and lead an energy
revolution that will be the source for future security and increased
opportunity for generations to come.
But, we can't wait for this revolution to come to us. I am skeptical
that we are just going to wake up one day and see cellulosic ethanol at
the pump or see a nuclear energy renaissance or clean coal with carbon
sequestration or widespread use of renewables, unless we take bold
action.
Mr. President, that's what this bill is about.
The Climate Security Act empowers Americans to do what we must do,
which is to transform our production of energy. It sets up a cap-and-
trade system, just as was done in the 1990 Clean Air Act to combat acid
rain, that gives greenhouse gas producers flexibility in meeting their
obligations through submission of allowances. Listening to some of the
debate over this last week, one might think this bill is a windfall for
the Federal Government, but what this bill really does is allocate
these allowances to help the folks regulated in their transition to
clean energy and to help energy consumers, both families and businesses
with their energy costs. Just look at what happens in 2012, when the
cap begins:
Over 38 percent of allowances are given out for free to fossil-fired
power plants, energy consumers, natural gas and petroleum facilities,
carbon intensive manufacturing facilities, agriculture and forestry,
and states that are manufacturing and coal reliant;
Another 36 percent of allowances go to states and emitters to
incentivize clean energy deployment and carbon sequestration; and
The 25 percent of the allowances that the Government does ``auction''
go to programs that invest in our energy future by doing things like
dramatically boosting clean coal technology, clean energy research and
development, and worker training assistance.
In particular, the bill provides record investment in clean coal,
renewables, and cellulosic ethanol, including: $17 billion of support
for carbon capture and storage technology for coal to kick start this
technology, $120 billion in incentives for carbon capture and storage,
and my CO2 pipeline study proposal; bonus allowances for
renewable energy that I have strongly supported; $150 billion for
renewable energy; $92 billion for low-carbon electricity technology;
and $26 billion for production of cellulosic ethanol.
But there is no doubt in revolutionizing our energy production, a
transition will be required that won't come easy. That's why, from the
time I cosponsored the first Lieberman-Warner proposal, I made clear
that as we work on this legislation, we have to keep in mind the single
mother in St. Paul working two jobs who can't afford higher energy
prices and we must protect the economy and American jobs.
[[Page S5335]]
I compliment Senators Lieberman and Warner for taking these concerns
to heart. This substitute makes several critical changes from earlier
drafts to assist poor and middle class families with energy prices and
to protect jobs.
First, this substitute dramatically increases the resources dedicated
to help consumers, both families and businesses, with energy costs--
bringing the total assistance to $1.7 trillion. $800 million of this
amount is targeted at a tax cut for low income Americans' energy costs.
Meanwhile, this substitute increases by 40 percent the funding that
will go to energy consumers through their utility bill, bringing this
provision's assistance total to $900 billion.
Secondly, this bill includes a new allowance trigger at between $22
and $30 per allowance that provides an important off-ramp should costs
become high. This trigger is critical because economic consequences
escalate when the price of an allowance increases.
Many of the high energy cost and GDP estimates cited on the floor
this week have been taken from an EPA study that assumes an allowance
price of at least $46 per allowance. Under this substitute, prices
won't be allowed to get anywhere near that level.
Finally, this bill places an allowance purchase requirement on
importers of products like steel, chemicals, and other energy intensive
products if a commission does not find that the country of origin is
taking comparable action to curb greenhouse gases.
There is a lot of concern that this bill will increase energy prices
and hurt the economy. You will hear many of my colleagues cite studies
with drastic cost increase numbers. While this substitute amendment,
with the protections I just outlined, has yet to be analyzed, I believe
much of the economic pain projected in some studies is overstated--even
without the off-ramp.
For instance, the independent Energy Information Agency found in
their High Cost scenario that there is a predicted electricity price
increase of 1.5 percent a year and a gas price increase of 2 cents per
year. Meanwhile, EIA has projected less than half of one percent effect
on GDP--again, this is before the off-ramp.
I do want to commend Senators Lieberman and Warner for their work on
this bill--they deserve much credit for taking this on, for pouring
themselves into this very difficult, complex task--taking on one of the
great challenges of our day.
That's why I am so disappointed that we won't have a chance to
consider this bill on the floor. Mr. President, the Clean Air Act took
5 weeks, we have been given less than 5 days on a much more
comprehensive piece of legislation. The process set up here robs us of
an opportunity to take our energy crisis head on.
I have supported the Lieberman-Warner effort as a cosponsor, and I
continue to support this bill, but I have always made clear that I
would work to improve the bill to protect Minnesota jobs. So, I have a
few amendments, some that I am introducing, some I am cosponsoring that
substantively improve this bill--many of these changes are very small,
but the consequences of not including them will be very large in my
state.
Because of this process, I won't have the chance to offer my
amendment to create a fuel assistance fund that will lower Federal fuel
taxes by an amount equal to fuel price increases those driving cars and
trucks and riding on airplanes have to pay as a result from this bill.
This is an amendment to protect American consumers, it's common-sense,
and it keeps the Highway Trust Fund and the Airport and Airways Trust
Fund whole.
I won't have a chance to amend the bill to ensure that my state's
many waste-to-energy facilities are considered renewable. This is a
small change, but without it, we could disadvantage an important clean
energy technology.
This bill needs a nuclear energy title. We need to boost tax
incentives for nuclear power plants and improve the existing loan
guarantee program. We need to train a workforce for the nuclear
renaissance that we'll need to meet our energy needs.
Meanwhile, we need to restore the transition assistance for rural
electric cooperatives that was included in earlier drafts of the bill,
and we need to exempt steel process emissions as there is no feasible
technological alternative to using carbon to produce iron ore. If these
process emissions aren't excluded, we're going to send steel jobs
overseas.
These amendments are designed to work within the structure of this
bill, to augment it, to remove negative impacts that could hit
Minnesotans--they deserve to be considered.
Mr. President, the challenge we face in solving our energy security
problems is great, but for the folks who don't think America can meet
this challenge, I would like to remind them of the fight we had over
the first Renewable Fuels Standard, RFS, just a few years ago. I worked
with a bipartisan cast of colleagues to pass the first RFS in 2005, and
at the time, it was criticized as onerous and too ambitious.
We thought we were aiming high by passing a 7.5 billion gallon
renewable fuels requirement by 2012. Today, in 2008, we have the
renewable fuel production capacity of 8.5 billion gallons--we have far
out surpassed expectations of production at the time.
Driving around Minnesota's countryside, I have witnessed the source
of this overwhelming success--local entrepreneurs, innovators, and
visionaries. And, the Minnesotans who have built our renewable fuels
industry, which contributes over $5 billion to the State's economy,
have transformed their local economies. The government sent the market
a strong signal, and the American people responded.
Mr. President, the time for an energy revolution is long overdue. We
cannot afford delay, and it is my hope that we will be provided the
time we need to consider and pass this critical bill in the near
future.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Lieberman-
Warner Climate Security Act. I am deeply grateful that we are at last
beginning to address an issue that goes to the heart of our security,
our economy, our ingenuity and our leadership in the world: Climate
change.
Over the course of this debate, I have no doubt that some will
continue to argue that the science of global warming remains
``inconclusive''--that there is simply too much uncertainty to take any
sort of action.
But before we even go into the science of global warming, let us
consider all that is quite certain today because of our dependence on
fossil fuels.
We can start with our national security, which is compromised because
we import oil to the tune of $300 billion every year, much of it from
the most unstable countries in the world, a great many of whom are no
friends to America.
We can then examine how this dependence puts our economy at risk, as
families and businesses struggle with ever-rising gas prices that now
top $4 per gallon, impacting our economic security and competitiveness
alike.
We can also look at the public health implications, as asthma rates
soar, disease spreads to new regions and the developing world
experiences increases in climate-sensitive diseases, such as malaria,
malnutrition--diseases that acutely threaten children.
There is also the rise in extreme weather incidents of Katrina-like
ferocity that have increasingly become not the exception but the rule.
And finally, we can reflect on our waning moral leadership in the
world, due at least in part because of this administration's stubborn
insistence on abandoning the Kyoto Protocol entirely.
They didn't propose ways for the United States to improve a flawed
but noble effort important to virtually every other nation in the
civilized world. Nor did they demonstrate any commitment whatsoever on
our part to leading the world in alternative energy production.
Instead, they simply let the problem fall to the next administration.
They picked up their chair and went home.
Whatever else you think about the science of climate change, surely
you must agree that American families have paid a price for our failure
to act on these many related issues.
But I would immediately add, on the fundamental question of whether
climate change is real and whether human actions are responsible, there
can be no debate.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming, an international panel
composed of hundreds of the
[[Page S5336]]
most respected scientists in the world, conducted a comprehensive study
of available climate change data.
And what they found was unequivocal. The IPCC concluded that, and I
quote, ``most of the observed increase in globally averaged
temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the
observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.''
In plain English, virtually the entire scientific community agrees on
two points--one, that temperatures are rising because of greenhouse gas
emissions, and two, that such increases are caused by human activity.
And so, let us be very clear: global warming is real, and we are
causing it. It is not in question. And it is a very big problem for all
of us.
Yet even still, some continue to push back. Some acknowledge the
science behind climate change but argue we cannot take action because
of the threat it poses to our economy.
They present us with what I believe is a false choice:
That we can choose environmental responsibility or economic
prosperity, but not both.
I completely and emphatically disagree.
Our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels may pose some of our
biggest problems. But breaking that dependence offers us the single
greatest opportunity for a brighter, more secure future.
How is that possible?
Because if so many problems can stem from a single source--and in the
case of energy, they surely do--then it is only logical that if we deal
with that problem, we can begin meeting those challenges as well.
We can begin creating a stronger, more prosperous America that relies
not on politically fragile corners of the globe for its security, but
on the ingenuity of America's small businesses and university
laboratories.
A stronger, more prosperous America that uses its abundant economic
resources not to perpetuate anti-American sentiment abroad but to
create jobs here at home--from the construction of energy efficient
buildings and renewable energy power plants to an auto industry that
builds cars that lead the world in fuel efficiency.
An America that charges not simply our cities with helping us achieve
these goals but also rural communities across the country. That is not
only a stronger, more prosperous America; it is one more Americans get
to be a part of.
As such, I believe we can no longer wait to move to quickly reduce
America's greenhouse gas emissions in a comprehensive way. That is why
I have supported cap-and-trade proposals in the past, and I will
continue to do so, because they offer a way for America to begin
tackling global warming.
But I believe there is a more promising solution that too often gets
lost in these debates: A carbon tax, a fee placed on each ton of carbon
dioxide emitted from fossil fuels.
Such a solution has been endorsed by everyone from NASA scientist
James Hansen and former Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence Summers to
conservative Harvard economist N. Gregory Mankiw, President George W.
Bush's former chief economic advisor.
Even Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State, George Schulze, has voiced
support for the idea. All agree it is the most efficient way to address
the climate problem.
The idea is simple. We already know how much carbon is emitted from
the burning of various fossil fuels, and we already collect the data we
need to figure out how much to tax each sale of fossil fuels. As such,
all that we would need to do to impose a carbon tax is set a price for
a ton of carbon. That price would increase over time, leading to
decreased carbon emissions as the cost of using dirty fossil fuels
overtakes the cost of investing in clean, renewable technologies.
I know ``new taxes'' have been anathema to American politics for
years. But a carbon tax eliminates the last incentive there is to
pollute because it is cheaper.
A carbon tax would reduce carbon emissions much more efficiently than
a cap-and-trade program. The Congressional Budget Office said as much,
finding that ``available research suggests that in the near term, the
net benefits . . . of a tax could be roughly five times greater than
the net benefits of an inflexible cap.
Put another way, a given long-term emission-reduction target could be
met by a tax at a fraction of the cost of an inflexible cap-and-trade
program.''
Why? Because a tax provides the kind of long-term predictability for
the price of emissions a carbon allowance would not. It allows
companies to more effectively plan over the long-term how they could
most cost-effectively reduce emissions.
Additionally, a carbon tax could be much more easily administered and
overseen than a cap-and-trade program because the administrative
infrastructure already exists to levy taxes on the upstream sources of
fossil fuels, with their carbon contents known quantities as well.
Unlike cap and trade, which would require a complex new
administrative structure to oversee and regulate the carbon market, we
don't have to start from scratch.
In my view, a carbon tax is a critical piece of the debate over
global warming, and I look forward to engaging with Chairwoman Boxer
and my other colleagues in making part of this discussion. If for no
other reason than the short window of time with which we have to
address this problem before it is too late, it must be.
Allow me also to briefly address some other issues raised by the
Lieberman-Warner bill.
I appreciate all that Chairwoman Boxer and her colleagues on the EPW
Committee have done to take care of low-income consumers who will
struggle with rising energy prices and the increased cost of consumer
goods. The steps taken in this bill are certainly a good start.
However, I am concerned that we could be delivering rebates to low-
income consumers more efficiently than we do in this legislation.
Already, nearly 3,000 of the 5,400 households in my State who qualify
for heating assistance are exhausting their benefits in the dead of
winter every year.
We cannot put seniors and low-income households in the position of
having to stretch tight household budgets to the breaking point simply
to heat their homes, drive to work and put food on the table.
I look forward to working with Chairwoman Boxer and others to make
sure our most vulnerable citizens are taken care of, which I know is as
high a priority for her as it is the rest of us.
Lastly, I want to say a word about public transportation which falls
within the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. Given that the
transportation sector is responsible for a third of all U.S. greenhouse
gas emissions, clearly we need to direct significant resources toward
public transit, which reduces the number of cars on the road.
While I thank Chairwoman Boxer as well as Senators Lieberman and
Warner for recognizing transit's importance in this bill, I do believe
more needs to be done, and I look forward to working with them to make
that possible.
Ultimately, I believe this bill represents an important first step
toward grappling with what may prove to be the defining challenge of
our age. And if we meet this challenge, it could mean the difference
between rural America being left behind by the 21st century economy or
becoming the engine that drives it.
It may be the difference between small businesses being burdened by
energy costs or finding innovative ways to drive them down.
It may well be our very best chance to give our children and
grandchildren the future of hope, prosperity, and optimism I know we
all want to give them.
I thank the Chair for this opportunity, yield the floor, and look
forward to this debate continuing in the coming weeks and months.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I share with my colleagues some
thoughts regarding how to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions and
a few key benchmarks I believe should be included in a national
strategy to address this environmental and economic security challenge.
The scientific evidence linking the effects of man-made releases of
carbon dioxide and the warming of the Earth's climate is clear. In
2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
[[Page S5337]]
Change analyzed the science on climate change and concluded with high
probability that the Earth is dramatically warming and that the
atmospheric concentration of CO2 is at the highest level in
400,000 years. To forestall the most significant effects of predicted
changes in the world's climate over the next 50 years, the United
States and other major emitting nations must begin to transition to a
low-carbon economy. Although South Dakota may avoid the direct
consequences of rising sea levels or more powerful storms caused by
climate change, in many other respects my State is vulnerable to
changes in the Earth's temperature. More frequent and severe droughts
would dramatically harm the State's economy. The loss of productive
farmland, denuded pastureland, and scarce ground and surface water
supplies are probable under the current scientific modeling on a
warming planet. The Prairie Pothole Region, which is partially located
in my State, and is the most important duck and geese habitat in North
America, is threatened by the effects of climate change. These changes,
if borne out in the next generation, would have significant and severe
economic consequences for my State.
Understanding clearly the probable environmental harm from taking no
action, I support a mandatory, nationwide program that limits
greenhouse gas emissions. I have voted in support of a nationwide plan
previously because it is important to reach agreement and understanding
on the complicated legislative, regulatory and economic choices from a
nationwide strategy.
With the strong, peer-reviewed scientific conclusions linking climate
change to human caused greenhouse gas emissions, the future uncertainty
and cost of a nationwide program to reduce these emissions challenge
our path to producing the optimal bill. We need to take strong steps
with an early no regrets policy of action. Over the longer-term,
addressing this problem will require changes in how we produce and use
energy. It is realistic to expect such a plan to have costs. Transiting
to lower carbon forms of energy production not yet commercially
deployable could increase the price of producing energy. Creating
policies and incentives that contain those costs over the next several
decades to lessen impacts to consumers is a key concern of mine.
A nationwide plan that caps greenhouse gas emissions must make room
for the expansion of traditional fossil fuel generation sources to meet
growing energy demand. I am a strong supporter of renewable energy--
biofuels, wind and solar energy can and should make up an increasingly
greater share of our country's energy mix. I support a mandatory,
nationwide renewable electricity standard to increase the amount of
renewable electricity produced from less than 5 percent currently to a
requirement of 15 percent in the next 10 years. However, we need the
full suite of energy resources and that includes natural gas and coal.
In my State, we have a diverse mix of energy resources, including
hydropower, wind, natural gas and coal-fired generation. To keep that
available and cost-competitive mix of fuels, a mandatory greenhouse gas
reduction program must be linked to an aggressive and dedicated source
of funding for reducing the emissions from conventional energy sources.
Carbon capture and sequester is a path forward to keep coal as a fuel
source, but reduce harmful CO2 emissions. Commercially
deployable CCS technology is not yet available. It will take several
more years and billions of dollars in research and testing to develop
the right types of CCS processes that separate CO2 from the
emissions stream. Accordingly, it is important to try to link
reductions from existing sources with the likely path of technology
development. Is it possible to completely match up reduction targets
with technology development? Probably not. Technology develops at an
inconsistently timed pace. Nonetheless, a plan that includes an
unrealistically optimistic emissions reduction schedule that does not
meet up with the resources for next-generation emission reduction
technologies will break the program and hamper our efforts to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
Part of the solution to this challenge resides in ensuring that
incumbent as well as new entrant fossil fuel generators can manage
price and emission reductions and have the resources to invest in new,
low-emitting technologies. Allowance distribution should, as one
factor, take into consideration historic emissions in allocating
emission allowances. A limited and tightly controlled auction and other
distribution calculations can be incorporated into this framework, but
if we don't get this part of the program right it could swamp our
efforts in other parts of the economy to wring carbon from the
production process.
The good news is that South Dakotans can bring our strengths to
contributing to the solution of a low carbon and economically strong
America. Farmers, ranchers and forestland owners can play an important
role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Agriculture practices and
land management decisions that sequester carbon dioxide are cheap and
efficient ways to comply with the requirements of a nationwide and
mandatory program. The use of limited offsets and the flexibility of
producers and landowners to get credit for past, current and future
action target an incentive that eases costs for other sectors of the
economy while at the same time creating an income stream for rural
America. A ton of carbon sequestered, verified, and accounted is as
powerful as reducing a ton of carbon from the smokestack of an electric
utility or the smelter from a manufacturing facility. There is a strong
coalition of Senators who believe that a vigorous offset program should
be part of a comprehensive climate bill. Properly administered, offsets
lower costs and improve compliance which is why I am confident that
such a plan strengthens the objectives of a low carbon economy.
Mr. President, I feel confident the Congress can come together and
address these challenges. Those deniers of the problem who throw up
obstacles and simply say no to any and all avenues for action will find
themselves increasingly marginalized and ineffective as the American
people demand a serious response to a serious problem. My objectives
and concerns should be viewed as a way to make an eventual policy more
equitable and efficient. The consequences of taking no action are dire
and simply unacceptable. Although the Congress will not find consensus
this year on tackling the problem, I am glad that the Senate has
started a much needed debate on this issue and count myself in the vast
majority of citizens who feel we have the capability to curtail the
effects of climate change.
(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to
be printed in the Record.)
Mr. Byrd. Mr. President, the Constitution places the power of
the purse squarely in the hands of Congress. The Lieberman-Warner
climate security bill and the Boxer substitute to it, however, thwart
the Constitution and longstanding tradition by shifting much spending
power to the executive branch. In order to protect Congress's
constitutional role to make spending decisions, I have introduced an
amendment, cosponsored by Senators Murray, Dorgan, Leahy, Durbin,
Feinstein, and Mikulski.
Enacting this climate change legislation in its current form would
vest unelected executive branch boards and agencies with unprecedented
discretion on Federal spending in excess of more than $1.4 trillion in
new and existing Federal programs over a span of 38 years.
Rather than Congress making decisions on funding and conducting
oversight of Federal programs as intended by the Constitution, much of
these responsibilities would be in the hands of the executive branch
agencies.
In one specific case, the burden would be on Congress to stop
executive branch decisions on Federal spending related to climate
change initiatives. The Climate Change Technology Board would simply
have to notify congressional committees 60 days in advance of a funding
distribution for a range of energy technology programs. The money would
be spent unless Congress could pass a law, signed by the President, to
stop it. Effectively, the Senate could only stop the spending if it
could muster 67 votes.
The legislation would not expire until 2050, meaning that the
executive branch would go unchecked on spending decisions related to
climate change
[[Page S5338]]
initiatives for 38 years. Our Founding Fathers clearly did not intend
for Congress to relinquish the power of the purse to any President for
any issue--and certainly not for nearly four decades on such a crucial
and timely issue.
The clock is certainly ticking for America to take more responsible
action on the global climate security challenge. Congress should retain
its active role in funding and oversight of climate security programs,
as it does for every other Federal program. It would be irresponsible
to concentrate such power in the executive branch and then sit on the
side lines watching as Federal agencies take action without a
congressional check.
There is concern that the new funds raised in this bill through the
auctioning of emissions allowances should be spent on the measures
authorized in this bill to address climate change. Some may worry that
our amendment would allow these new receipts to just sit in the
Treasury and not get spent on their intended purpose. That is simply
not the case.
Our amendment, No. 4920, addresses that concern head-on by granting
these receipts special budget treatment and requiring that they be
allocated only to the specified purposes and programs authorized in
this climate change bill. The Committee on Appropriations would
continue its rightful role in allocating these funds.
Under this approach--known as ``offsetting collections''--the amounts
are appropriated annually in appropriations acts for the specific
purposes allowed under the authorization act, but those appropriations
are paid for by the auction receipts collected pursuant to the Boxer
substitute. The receipts serve to offset the cost of the appropriation.
The ``offsetting collections'' model has worked successfully in the
past. It has given the authorizing committees that have raised new fees
the comfort that their new revenues would be spent on their intended
purpose. At the same time, it has given the Committee on Appropriations
the ability to continually oversee the spending of these funds and
ensure that they are spent responsibly.
For example, the Appropriations Committee has successfully
coordinated this approach with the Commerce Committee for new receipts
that were established after the September 11 tragedy for the costs of
the Transportation Security Administration. Every penny of the security
fees that were newly established in the Aviation and Transportation
Security Act have been appropriated annually by my Homeland Security
Appropriations Subcommittee Act and only for the purposes specified in
the authorizing law.
The purpose of our amendment is not to put a roadblock to these funds
being spent. To the contrary, it is to keep honor with the intent of
Chairman Boxer and her legislation while simultaneously keeping honor
with the Constitution of the United States and the role of the
legislative branch.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, there have been several companies,
organizations, unions, and environmental groups that have come out
against this bill by sending letters urging Senators to vote no on the
legislation. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
these letters signed by the following groups:
Duke Energy, National Association of Manufacturers, U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, United Auto Workers, Farm Bureau, and
the United Mine Workers of America.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Farm Bureau,
May 30, 2008.
Dear Senator: The full Senate is expected to debate climate
change legislation, S.2191, the Lieberman-Warner Climate
Security Act, during the week of June 2. We also expect that
there will be a Boxer substitute amendment that will be the
focus of the debate. The American Farm Bureau Federation
urges you to oppose the substitute.
Agriculture can play a significant role in addressing
climate change by reducing and sequestering carbon through
tillage practices, manure and soil management, and other
practices. These practices can also help to offset the
emissions reductions imposed by cap and trade legislation,
thereby reducing the costs of the bill to regulated
industries and to consumers. The Boxer amendment fails to
recognize these benefits that agriculture can provide.
While establishing a domestic offset market, the bill fails
to assure that domestic offsets will be available. It leaves
the decision whether to allow any agricultural offsets at
all, and which to allow, at the sole discretion of the
Environmental Protection Agency. The bill establishes an
artificial cap of 15 percent on the number of domestic
offsets available, and further provides that any unfilled
portion of that amount may be filled by international
offsets. The cap on agricultural offsets stifles efforts of
producers to reduce or sequester carbon, and the cap on
offsets also increases the economic impacts of the
legislation on businesses and consumers.
The bill also stifles development of agricultural reduction
or sequestration projects by creating uncertainty as to
whether projects will even be approved for the offset market.
The bill requires any project to be completed first and the
carbon reduction or sequestration benefits be verified before
a decision to approve is made. This uncertainty creates a
disincentive for project managers and buyers of offsets to
enter into carbon reduction projects if they might not be
approved as offsets.
Many agricultural practices that reduce or sequester carbon
also have other environmental benefits. For example, reduced
tillage practices have soil erosion control and water quality
benefits in addition to sequestering carbon. By requiring
that projects may not be approved as offsets unless their
sole purpose is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG), the bill
disqualifies many otherwise worthwhile projects that have
collateral environmental benefits, and may discourage the
development of these multi-benefit projects.
Finally, unilateral carbon mandates by the United States
that impose cost increases on American producers without a
corresponding and similar commitment from other countries
such as China, India or Brazil, among others, puts American
producers at a significant competitive trade disadvantage.
Any benefits from reduced GHG emissions by the United States
will be minimal if other countries continue to emit as usual.
Agriculture can play an important role in reducing and
sequestering carbon, and thereby ease the costs to industry
and to society of compliance with emission reductions. Its
role must be fully recognized in any climate change
legislation. The Boxer substitute fails to recognize this and
provides no assurances that agriculture will have any
opportunity to mitigate the obvious increased costs of this
legislation. We urge you to oppose it.
Sincerely,
Bob Stallman,
President.
____
Duke Energy Corporation,
Charlotte, NC, June 2, 2008.
Dear Senator: I appreciate the tough decisions you may be
called on to make in the next several days as climate change
legislation comes to the Senate floor for, what I hope will
be, a healthy debate. I am grateful for the courtesy you've
extended Duke Energy and me personally in allowing us to make
our case for a fair climate bill that benefits the
environment without penalizing the customer.
As you are well aware, Duke Energy has been a strong
supporter of enacting a mandatory, economy-wide greenhouse
gas cap-and-trade program. As this issue has continued to
develop over the last several years we have taken a
leadership role in working with a wide group of affected
stakeholders on both sides of the debate to try and find
common ground and move this issue forward. I think we have
made progress in that regard, and I am confident more will be
made in the months ahead.
But we have said from the beginning that, as important as
it is for Congress to act on climate change, it is just as
important that Congress get it right. In our view, the
legislation Senator Boxer plans to offer on the Senate floor
does not meet that test. Its provisions, as written, would
impose excessive and unfair costs on our customers which, in
our view, would unnecessarily disrupt the regional and
national economies.
While costs cannot be a reason for inaction, they must be
part of the decision making process. Our country will require
time as we transition to a low-carbon economy and Congress
must find effective ways to cushion that transition, which is
particularly important for customers in states that depend
heavily on fossil fuel generation. Senator Boxer's amendment
makes some progress in trying to mitigate these economic
concerns, but it does not go far enough to ensure against
substantial electricity price increases on Day 1 of the
program. Customers in the 25 states whose generation is more
than 50 percent coal-fired will pay a disproportionate share
of these higher costs.
As previous successful cap-and-trade programs have shown,
there are more effective ways to achieve our environmental
goals, while keeping costs low. Providing transitional
allowances to fossil generators based on and equal to
historic emissions proved to be a win-win for customers and
the environment under the Acid Rain Program and Duke believes
this approach would have the same results under carbon
legislation.
If the measure to be debated were enacted into law, costs
to the average household, especially in those 25 coal-based
states, would increase rather quickly because a significant
number of emission allowances would have to be purchased
through an auction at a fluctuating price. These costs to
consumers would be in addition to increased costs for the
capital investments required for actually
[[Page S5339]]
lowering carbon emissions. The additional charges paid by
these customers to buy allowances will not lower carbon
emissions by one ounce, but will have a profound economic
impact on their everyday lives.
In 2007 Duke Energy provided electricity to more than 3.7
million homes in South Carolina, North Carolina, Ohio,
Indiana, and Kentucky. More than 20 percent of these homes
had a combined income of less than $25,000 a year, with 7
percent earning less than $10,000 a year. These families are
already struggling due to higher prices for other goods and
commodities and it is unfair and unnecessary to require them
to fund a substantial portion of the climate program through
increased energy bills. And while there are provisions
contained within the bill to assist low-income families with
their energy bills, it is somewhat disingenuous to tell them
they will get a rebate when they get back only a fraction of
what they put in.
As I have stated before, addressing climate change should
be a transition from where we are today to where we need to
be tomorrow. The program will not work if it is based on the
premise that there needs to be an immediate upheaval of our
current infrastructure base. Instead, legislation will work
if its intent is to build the foundation to transition our
economy to a low-carbon environment.
Even without a national climate change policy Duke Energy
is implementing steps to lower its carbon footprint. We
continue to invest in energy efficiency and over the next
five years plan to invest approximately $23 billion (almost
equal to our current market cap) to make our entire system
more efficient, retire inefficient plants and increase our
renewable energy portfolio. These investments show Duke
Energy's commitment to addressing climate change. But, this
transition will take time and cannot be accomplished
overnight.
While it is unfortunate that Duke Energy cannot support the
current climate change measure, we remain committed to being
a constructive part of the debate as this issue moves
forward. Strong leadership will be required to pass
legislation that protects our environment, protects our
economy and protects our customers and I look forward to
working with you to make this a reality.
Sincerely,
James E. Rogers,
Chairman, President and CEO.
____
National Association of Manufacturers,
Washington, DC, June 3, 2008.
Hon. James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senate, Senate Russell Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Inhofe: On behalf of the National Association
of Manufacturers (NAM), the nation's largest industrial trade
association representing manufacturers in every industrial
sector and in all 50 states, I urge you to oppose S. 3036,
the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, as introduced.
The NAM understands the importance of environmental
stewardship. Our member companies are committed to pursuing
reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, provided that
any commitments made by the United States are mirrored by
comparable commitments by our trading partners, are based on
sound science and cost-effectiveness, and are applied equally
throughout the economy.
The NAM opposes S. 3036's nationwide cap-and-trade program
because it:
Does not pre-empt conflicting state and local climate
change laws and/or regulations;
Imposes major new requirements on businesses without
sufficiently protecting U.S. competitiveness or funding the
research, development and commercial deployment of essential
new technologies;
Omits ``safety valve'' provisions that are key to ensuring
cost containment;
Is limited in scope and does not include all sectors of the
economy;
Unnecessarily increases demand on natural gas, driving up
energy costs and job losses;
Does not adequately promote global participation; and
Creates a multitude of conflicting and duplicative
regulations for manufacturers.
The NAM, in cooperation with the American Council for
Capital Formation, commissioned a study earlier this year to
assess the potential economic impacts of the Lieberman-Warner
legislation. The study concluded that, if adopted, the
legislation by 2030 could lead to net national employment
losses of up to 4 million jobs, electricity price increases
of up to 129 percent, gasoline price increases of up to 145
percent and a loss of household income of up to $6,752 per
year.
Manufacturers are committed to working with Congress to
establish sensible and responsible federal climate change
policies that reduce GHG emissions, but these policies must
maintain a competitive playing field for American companies.
S. 3036 fails this test, and we oppose its passage. We will
be closely evaluating amendments that affect U.S.
manufacturers and workers and will be communicating our views
on these amendments prior to their final consideration.
The NAM's Key Vote Advisory Committee has indicated that
votes on S. 3036, including votes on related amendments or
procedural motions, merit designation as Key Manufacturing
Votes.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jay Timmons,
Executive Vice President.
____
United Mine Workers of America,
Fairfax, VA, May 27, 2008.
Re: S. 2191
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
Chair, Environment and Public Works Committee, Senate Dirksen
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. James Inhofe,
Ranking Minority Member, Environment and Public Works
Committee, Senate Dirksen Office Building, Washington,
DC.
Dear Senators Boxer and Inhofe: As President of the United
Mine Workers of America (UMWA), I am writing to explain why
we do not support S. 2191, the Lieberman-Warner Climate
Security Act of 2008.
The UMWA has participated in the global climate change
debate for more than 15 years, both domestically and abroad
as an NGO at all major negotiating sessions of the U.N.
Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). Last July, we
were pleased to join the AFL-CIO and many of our labor
colleagues in endorsing the bipartisan Bingaman-Specter bill,
S. 1766.
Our support for S. 1766 reflected our agreement with its
emission reduction targets and timetables provisions to
accelerate the commercialization of carbon capture and
sequestration (CCS) technology, and projected moderate
impacts on the U.S. economy overall, and on coal utilization
in the electric utility sector. Recent analyses by EPA and
EIA confirm our judgment in this regard.
We met with Committee staff during the development of S.
2191, expressing our deep concerns about the Bill's overly
aggressive targets and timetables for near-term reductions,
particularly the magnitude of reductions required by 2020, It
is not feasible to deploy CCS technology on a large-scale
basis by that time. With the economy-wide emission trading
system employed by S. 2191, the electric utility and coal
industries would bear the brunt of the adverse economic and
job impacts associated with compliance. EIA's recent analysis
shows that over time, these adverse impacts will spread
across our manufacturing and industrial base.
The severity of these impacts cannot be justified on
environmental grounds in light of EPA's analysis of the
comparative global CO2 concentrations resulting
from alternative climate change bills before the Senate. In
essence, there is no significant difference among these bills
measured in terms of future atmospheric concentrations of
CO2.
The world's ability to stabilize future global
CO2 concentrations--the long-term goal of the U.N.
FCCC--depends overwhelmingly upon the willingness of major
developing economies like India, China, Brazil and Mexico to
accept meaningful commitments to reduce their future rate of
emissions. The magnitude of their commitments will not be
evident until the conclusion of the Copenhagen negotiations
scheduled for December 2009.
We appreciate the efforts that you and the Committee have
made to accommodate labor's interests in the initial bill,
the Committee mark-up, and the Manager's Amendment. CCS bonus
allowances, provision for Davis-Bacon compliance, inclusion
of the IBEW-AEP trade provisions from S. 1766, a limited
cost-containment ``off-ramp'' and additional technology
incentives are welcome additions. However, these measures do
not mitigate the severe adverse impacts that S. 2191 would
have on American workers, primarily due to the unrealistic
schedule of emissions reductions required by 2020, just 12
years from now.
Impact on Coal Utilization
Both EPA and EIA's analyses of S. 2191 indicate that U.S.
coal production for electric generation would be sharply
reduced due to the concentration of emission reductions in
the utility sector, in turn reflecting the low availability
of CCS technology when the 2020 reductions are required.
Emission reductions in the transport sector are minimal in
comparison.
The table below summarizes EIA's findings for electricity
generated by coal and natural gas under its business-as-usual
Reference Case, Core S. 2191 case, and ``Limited
Alternatives'' case for 2020 and 2030. ElA's core case
assumes that nuclear generation will triple by 2030. The
limited alternatives case constrains coal-based CCS, new
nuclear power, and renewables generation to reference case
levels.
EIA S. 2191 PROJECTIONS OF COAL AND NATURAL GAS ELECTRIC GENERATION, 2020 AND 2030
[Billions of kilowatt-hours and pct. chg. from 2006]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 2020 Ref. Case 2020 Core Case 2020 Ltd. Alter. 2030 Ref. Case 2030 Core Case 2030 Ltd. Alter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal....................................................... 1,988 2,357 1,890 1,606 2,838 703 703
................. +19% -5% -19% +20% -65% -65%
N. Gas..................................................... 806 833 761 1,094 741 427 1,558
[[Page S5340]]
................. +3% -6% +36% -8% -47% +93%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: DOE/EIA, n.2, Table ES2.
These findings, showing a 65% reduction in coal use in both
the core and limited alternatives cases from 2006 levels,
underscore our concerns about the lopsided impacts of S. 2191
on our members. We also note the potential for huge increases
in the demand for natural gas in the limited alternatives
case, with adverse implications for other industries and
consumers dependent on scarce gas resources. If EIA's core
case assumptions about the robust growth of nuclear power
proved optimistic, utilities would have little choice but to
switch from coal to natural gas on a massive, unprecedented
scale.
EPA's results are consistent with EIA's findings. EPA
projects that coal production for electric generation would
decline from 1.1 billion tons in 2010 to less than 800
million tons in 2020, and to less than 700 million tons by
2025--a reduction of nearly 40% from 2010 production.
Electricity prices are forecast to increase 44% by 2030,
assuming that allowance cost can be partially passed through
to consumers.
EPA attributes the disproportionate concentration of
emission reductions in S. 2191 within the utility sector to
the ``relatively modest indirect price signal an upstream cap
and trade program sends to the transportation sector.'' EIA's
analysis of the distribution of CO2 emissions
expected in 2020 and 2030 under its core case and five
alternative cases shows a similar disproportionate impact on
the electric power sector.
Manufacturing and Other Industrial Sectors
Higher electricity and other fuel costs would depress
demand for industrial output and result in job losses across
of the economy. EIA's analysis compares the reduction of the
value of industrial shipments (excluding services) for S.
2191 and S. 1766, as summarized below for the S. 2191 core
and limited alternatives cases:
IMPACTS OF S. 2191 AND S. 1766 ON INDUSTRIAL SHIPMENTS, 2020 and 2030
[In billions of 2000 dollars and pct. change from reference case]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 Core Case 2020 Ltd. Alter. 2030 Core Case 2030 Ltd. Alter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. 2191............................. -$100 -$153 -$233 -$354
-1.4% -2.1% -2.9% -4.4%
S. 1766 Update...................... -$55 n.a. -$139 n.a.
-0.8% ................. -1.7% .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: DOE/EIA, n. 2, Table 4.
The adverse impacts of the Bingaman-Specter bill on
industrial shipments (and by implication, on industrial
employment) are roughly one-half those projected for the S.
2191 core case, and one-third those for the limited
alternatives case.
At 2002 productivity rates, each U.S. manufacturing worker
produced shipments or sales receipts of some $266,000
annually. At this rate, one billion dollars of reduced
manufacturing output translates to approximately 3,750 direct
job losses. A loss of $354 billion of industrial shipments
could represent the loss of 1.3 million jobs. Multiplier
effects for indirect job losses are typically a factor of 2
to 3 times direct job losses, implying total potential job
losses of 2.7 to 3.9 million American workers.
Given the rising uncertainties about our future economic
growth, sacrificing an additional hundred billion dollars or
more of annual industrial output relative to other policy
measures is difficult to justify without a compelling
demonstration of offsetting environmental benefits. We do
not believe such a demonstration is possible for
differences of a few parts per million of global
CO2 concentrations 50 to 100 years from today.
Looking Ahead
The global climate debate has progressed rapidly in the
past few years due to the commitment and sincere efforts of
leaders on both sides of the aisle in seeking balanced
solutions that can protect the American economy and jobs
while achieving significant reductions of greenhouse gases.
This is the basic objective that has guided our involvement
in this issue from the outset.
Legitimate debate remains about measures such as cost
containment, preemption of duplicative state and regional
cap-and-trade programs, emission offsets, international
trading, technology incentives and other provisions of S.
2191. We remain persuaded, however, that the key to striking
an appropriate balance must involve adjustment of unrealistic
targets and timetables that do not provide sufficient time
for the widescale commercial deployment of CCS technology.
Neither advance allowance auction reserves, as proposed by
the Manager's Amendment, nor additional CCS incentives will
allow CCS to play a major role in compliance plans by 2020.
It requires a decade or more to site, permit and construct a
single baseload facility.
We look forward to working with you and your colleagues in
the Senate as you seek to further improve S. 2191.
Sincerely,
Cecil E. Roberts.
____
Washington, DC, June 2, 2008.
Dear Senator: This week the Senate is scheduled to consider
legislation to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, the
Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 (S. 2191). At
that time, we understand that Chairwoman Boxer and Senators
Lieberman and Warner intend to offer a manager's amendment
making a number of important changes in the bill that was
reported by the Committee on the Environment and Public
Works. Unfortunately, even with these changes the legislation
still contains serious defects that would undermine the
environmental benefits, while posing a threat to economic
growth and jobs. Accordingly, the UAW opposes this bill in
its current form. We urge you to insist that the legislation
must be modified to correct these defects.
The UAW agrees that climate change is a serious problem
that urgently needs to be addressed through the establishment
of an economy-wide cap-and-trade program. We commend
Chairwoman Boxer and Senators Lieberman and Warner for
crafting legislation that would establish this type of
program and achieve very significant reductions in greenhouse
gases. The UAW is pleased that this bill covers the electric
power, industrial and transportation sectors, which account
for the overwhelming percentage of greenhouse gas emissions.
We are also pleased that the transportation sector is covered
on an ``up-stream'' basis through the regulation of fuels,
which is the most economically efficient mechanism. The UAW
applauds the inclusion of transition assistance for workers.
And we welcome the provisions allocating allowances to states
whose economies rely heavily on manufacturing.
The UAW would especially like to commend the chief sponsors
of this legislation for including provisions (Sections 1111-
1115) establishing a Climate Change Transportation Technology
Fund that would use revenues from the auction of 1 percent of
the allowances each year to finance a manufacturer facility
conversion program. This critically important initiative
would provide grants to manufacturers to pay for up to 30
percent of the costs to retool facilities in the United
States to produce advanced technology vehicles (hybrids,
clean diesels, fuel cells) and their key components. This
will help to speed up the introduction of these advanced
technology vehicles, thereby reducing oil consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, it will provide a
significant incentive for auto and parts manufacturers to
retool facilities in this country to produce these vehicles
of the future and their key components. This can create tens
of thousands of jobs for American workers.
While recognizing these very positive provisions in S.
2191, the UAW still is very troubled by a number of
provisions and omissions.
1. Even though S. 2191 establishes an economy-wide cap-and-
trade program to reduce greenhouse gases, Section 1751 makes
it clear that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would
retain residual authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate
CO2 emissions. This effectively means that EPA
would be free to disregard key decisions that Congress will
make in considering S. 2191 concerning the timetable for
reductions in CO2 emissions, the appropriate point
of regulation, and the distribution of economic burdens.
Instead, EPA would be free to regulate CO2
emissions from the electric power, industrial and
transportation sectors in ways that differ fundamentally from
S. 2191. The UAW believes it is inappropriate and untenable
to allow a federal agency to supersede decisions by Congress
in this manner.
2. Section 1731 of S. 2191 does not simply preserve
existing state authority to regulate greenhouse gas
emissions. Instead, as the Committee report makes clear, this
provision is drafted in a manner that would trump
[[Page S5341]]
pending litigation concerning the scope of existing state
authority--specifically whether state auto CO2
tailpipe standards are preempted by federal law. The UAW
believes the courts should be allowed to resolve this
contentious issue. Thus, Section 1731 should be redrafted to
indicate that it is just preserving existing state authority,
not deciding what the scope of that authority is.
3. S. 2191 fails to deal with the important issue of how
state climate change measures will interface with the federal
cap-and-trade program. Instead, it simply calls for a study
on this issue (Section 1761). Because of this critical
omission, the unfortunate reality is that state climate
change measures would result in ZERO additional reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions beyond the level already mandated by
the federal cap-and-trade program established by S. 2191.
Although state measures could reduce emissions from a
particular sector, this would simply relax the pressure from
the federal cap on other sectors, without providing any net
environmental benefit. The UAW submits that this is a
nonsensical result. If the states are going to be allowed to
implement climate change measures that impose significant
economic burdens on particular industries, a mechanism should
be established to ensure that these state measures can
interface with the federal cap-and-trade program in an
appropriate manner, and thereby provide additional reductions
in greenhouse emissions.
The UAW believes this can easily be accomplished by
allowing entities regulated by state climate change measures
to purchase and retire allowances from the federal program to
satisfy the state standards (to the extent they are more
stringent than comparable federal standards). This would
guarantee that the state measures actually provide an
environmental benefit through additional reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions, while also allowing this to be
accomplished in the most economically efficient manner in
keeping with the fundamental premise of the federal cap-and-
trade program.
4. In our judgment, S. 2191 still does not deal adequately
with the problem of international competition. We recognize
that the manager's amendment includes a number of changes
that strengthen the provisions of the bill that are intended
to encourage other nations--especially India and China--to
adopt comparable climate change programs, and to prevent
American businesses and workers from being placed at an
unfair competitive disadvantage. However, the UAW is still
concerned that the definition of ``manufactured item for
consumption'' (Section 1301(13)) grants too much discretion
to the International Climate Change Commission and the EPA in
determining whether finished products (such as automobiles or
auto parts) are subject to the international reserve
allowance requirements. If these products are not covered,
this could pose a major threat to the jobs of American
workers. Thus, we believe this section of the legislation
needs to be redrafted to make it clear that these products
are in fact covered.
The UAW strongly urges the Senate to correct the foregoing
deficiencies in S. 2191. We believe all of these concerns can
be addressed in a manner that is consistent with the
essential thrust of S. 2191. If these problems are not
corrected, we urge you to oppose this legislation.
The UAW also urges you to reject amendments that may be
offered by various industries such as steel and airlines--to
exempt the coal or oil that they use from the requirements of
the cap-and-trade program. We firmly believe that a cap-and-
trade program covering most of the economy is the only fair
and effective way to meet the challenge posed by climate
change. To the extent any industries obtain special ``carve
outs'' for themselves, this will only serve to increase the
pressure on the rest of the industries and sectors that are
still covered under the cap-and-trade program. In the end,
this could unravel the prospects for enacting any meaningful
federal program to combat climate change.
The UAW recognizes that Senate consideration of S. 2191
represents the beginning of a long process to determine
federal policy to address the serious threat posed by climate
change. The UAW looks forward to working with Congress and a
new administration to pass legislation establishing a federal
cap-and-trade program that resolves the concerns discussed
above, achieves major reductions in greenhouse gases, and
enhances prospects for economic growth and the creation of
jobs for American workers.
Thank you for considering our views on this critically
important issue.
Sincerely,
Alan Reuther,
Legislative Director.
____
U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
Washington, DC, June 5, 2008.
To the Members of the United States Senate: The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation
representing more than three million businesses and
organizations of every size, sector, and region, strongly
urges you to oppose cloture on the Boxer manager's amendment
to S. 3036, the ``Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of
2008.'' This week's truncated debate left many serious
questions unanswered as to how to control domestic and
international greenhouse gas emissions while keeping costs in
check and assuring a reliable energy supply. As the debate
vividly demonstrated, S. 3036 is not the proper vehicle to
answer those questions.
First, and foremost, S. 3036 will be very expensive. Its
predecessor, S. 2191, was forecast by a range of analyses to
result in two to four million lost jobs, as high as 60 to 80
percent increases in household energy prices, as much as a
3.4 percent decrease in GDP, and an annual household cost of
compliance, ranging from $1,000 to $6,700. Although S. 3036
was brought to the floor too rapidly for similar studies to
be completed, it is clear that the cost of purchasing
allocations under the bill would result in a $3.2 trillion
tax. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office recently
estimated that S. 3036 would result in tens of billions of
dollars annually in private sector mandates.
S. 3036 also creates a massive federal bureaucracy, via
more than 300 mandates, that must be translated into rules,
regulations and reports by the Executive Branch. The result:
a cavalcade of new bureaucrats, decades of costly
implementation and prolonged litigation. The Chamber's chart
summarizing this regulatory nightmare is available at: http:/
/www.uschamber.com/issues/index/environment/
080603climatechange.
Finally, although S. 3036 earmarks a tremendous amount of
money to provide support for the families impacted by the
legislation, it fails to support the research and development
of the technologies necessary to continue powering our
economy as fossil fuels are restricted by the cap. S. 3036
also fails to address the problem of deployment, specifically
the streamlining of permits for low- and zero-carbon energy
technologies.
The Chamber strongly urges you to protect American jobs and
the economy by voting no on cloture on the manager's
amendment to S. 3036, and will include this vote in our
annual How They Voted scorecard.
Sincerely,
R. Bruce Josten.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I invoke cloture in order to move forward
with the debate and break the Republican filibuster so that we can
amend and improve the bill in order to begin to address the problem of
global climate change. I oppose it in its current form and would have
voted no if the vote were on whether to pass the bill. For this reason,
I joined with other Senate colleagues in a letter identifying many of
my concerns and outlining a way to move forward. A copy of this letter
is printed at the end of this statement.
Chairman Boxer and Senators Lieberman and Warner have taken on a
matter of global significance, which will impact both present and
future generations.
We are in agreement on the fundamentals: Global warming is occurring,
and human activity is causing it. Scientists tell us that we need to
act with urgency to attain the levels of global greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere that will prevent catastrophic impacts
from occurring.
The impacts of global climate change are being realized already. We
have already been experiencing more heat waves, shorter winters, and
more frequent severe weather events.
In the future, the EPA estimates that an acceleration in heavy
rainfall events will cause more runoff, stressing the sewer
infrastructure and harming water quality. Other projected future
impacts are even more alarming: Portions of countries and entire
islands could be lost to rising sea levels, crop yields could
significantly decline, water shortages are expected, and droughts,
hurricanes, and floods will likely increase.
Most experts agree that these phenomena will have a huge impact on
people living in less developed countries and could result in the mass
dislocation of millions throughout the world. Along with dire
environmental and economic consequences, climate change could also
impact our national security. Heightened domestic and international
tensions caused by competition for scarce resources such as fresh water
or agricultural land may result in armed conflict in and between
nations.
While we agree on the fundamentals of the problem, I have some
differences with the approach of this bill regarding how to confront
the immense and complex problem of global climate change. I have
consistently argued that the best way of addressing global warming is
through an effective and enforceable international agreement that binds
all nations to reductions in greenhouse gases, including developing
nations such as China and India. Proponents of this bill have argued
that U.S. action through this cap-and-trade bill will prompt action by
other countries to reduce their emissions. The international provision
in this bill that attempts to level the playing field may put some
pressure on other countries to act, but it will not automatically get
these
[[Page S5342]]
countries on board with us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at levels
comparable to ours. Unfortunately, if we do not get these other
countries on board, what we do in the United States as a result of this
bill will only have a marginal impact on controlling global greenhouse
gas emissions and could create a severe economic disadvantage to us.
This bill does not adequately assure American manufacturing a level
playing field. A recent Energy Information Administration analysis,
EIA, projected manufacturing job losses in the hundreds of thousands
each year if the Lieberman-Warner bill were signed into law. Cumulative
job impacts in the manufacturing sector through 2030 are estimated at
between 2 to 14 million manufacturing jobs. We have already lost 3.3
million manufacturing jobs since 2001, about 250,000 in Michigan alone.
We cannot afford to lose any more because of an unlevel playing field.
Significantly, EIA's projected manufacturing job losses can be
attributed to manufacturers moving to countries with less stringent
environmental standards. Without the proper protections, our actions
may ship manufacturing facilities and the greenhouse gas emissions that
go with them overseas, providing no environmental benefit while
needlessly hurting our economy.
The substitute amendment offered by Senator Boxer makes few
improvements to the Lieberman-Warner bill that was reported from the
Environment and Public Works Committee. The cost containment auction
will help to moderate emission allowance prices and help contain
compliance costs, which will ultimately help control prices that hard-
working consumers face. More assistance is provided to energy-intensive
manufacturers to transition to a carbon-constrained world, and more
allowances are provided to reward early action. The substitute
amendment provides additional flexibility for covered sources to use
EPA-verified offsets, which will also help control the costs of this
bill. The substitute also includes some carbon market oversight
mechanisms that will help monitor the new emission allowance trading
market created by this bill. However, one of the changes in the
substitute could have damaging impacts to our domestic auto industry
because it could lead to potentially conflicting State regulations for
greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources and potentially highly
unfair discriminatory impacts on U.S. manufacturers as a result of
those state regulations.
I have filed a number of amendments and have cosponsored others that
will strengthen the bill to protect American jobs, reduce the burdens
on working families and consumers, and also protect the environment.
One of my amendments would provide Americans with protection from
economic disruptions in case the costs of the bill exceed a certain
level. Specifically, my amendment would suspend the compliance
requirements of the cap-and-trade program if the emission allowance
price reaches a prohibitively expensive amount. This amendment would
provide an effective backstop if the various cost containment
mechanisms included in the bill turn out to be less effective than
expected and would prevent harm to the US economy.
Another amendment I filed would protect the competitiveness of U.S.
manufacturers in international markets. While I am pleased that the
bill sponsors included an important provision that would help level the
international playing field between U.S. manufacturers and
international competitors not facing similar greenhouse gas limits, if
this provision does not survive a WTO challenge, the bill provides no
recourse to correct the situation. My amendment would suspend this
program and compliance obligations of manufacturers that face global
competition if a foreign country retaliates against the international
allowance requirement that would be imposed by this bill. Also,
additional allowances would be provided to these manufacturers to
compensate for their higher production costs that would result from
this bill. This amendment would help keep manufacturers and jobs in the
United States if the international reserve allowance program in title
XIII results in retaliation by other countries.
I also joined Senators Specter and Brown in filing an amendment that
would strengthen the international reserve allowance program to ensure
that importers bear the same responsibility as American manufacturers
with respect to limiting greenhouse gas emissions. The bill attempts to
do this by requiring certain importers to submit emissions allowances
to account for the greenhouse gas emissions of their products if the
product comes from a foreign country that has not taken comparable
action to limit greenhouse gas emissions. However, the bill defines
``comparable action'' in such broad terms that it would likely exclude
many countries that in fact have not taken similar actions. The bill
gives discretion to the International Climate Change Commission that
would be established by the bill to determine that a foreign country
has taken comparable action if they are using state-of-the-art
technologies to limit greenhouse gas emissions, without considering the
magnitude of the reductions achieved by these technologies.
The Specter-Brown amendment would determine that a foreign country is
taking comparable action only if actual greenhouse gas reductions are
comparable to those achieved in the United States. The amendment would
also broaden the types of imports that would be required to submit
emission allowances by including both direct and indirect emissions
generated in the course of manufacturing the product. The substitute
amendment only includes direct emissions and emissions associated with
the electricity used to manufacture the product, which fails to account
for emissions associated with other inputs used to make downstream
products. The Brown-Specter amendment corrects the competitive problem
that would be faced by U.S. manufacturers.
I also filed an amendment that would provide more allowances to
fossil fuel-fired electric utilities whose prices are regulated. A
coal-fired powerplant is limited in its ability to reduce its
greenhouse gas emissions because this depends entirely on the
efficiency of the generating plant. A Congressional Research Service
analysis found that efficiency improvements on the order of 4-to-6
percent could be achieved by improving an existing unit, which would in
turn have a 4-to-6 percent reduction in carbon emissions. The only way
to further reduce emissions from a powerplant would be to install
carbon capture and sequestration technology, which is not expected to
be commercially available until sometime after 2030. Because the
electric utilities can do very little to address greenhouse gas
emissions at existing plants, it is only fair to provide emission
allowances to these facilities that power homes, retail establishments,
and industry with vital electric power. Limiting additional allowances
to utilities whose prices are regulated will prevent companies from
realizing windfall profits, which occurred in the European Union.
I continue to be concerned about provisions of this bill that could
result in both conflicting cap-and-trade systems and conflicting
underlying regulations for greenhouse gas emissions. I believe that
Congress should adopt a mandatory Federal economywide cap-and-trade
program that will be the single regulatory regime for overall control
of greenhouse gas emissions. Existing State laws and initiatives should
be integrated into the Federal cap-and-trade program where the policies
do not conflict, but in areas where the regulations or programs
conflict or overlap, there must be a single clear national authority.
Federal authority in this area should be made clear in the statutory
language to prevent conflicts in regulation, preserve overall
efficiency, and ensure harmonization of regulations.
I am also concerned about other provisions of the Boxer substitute.
These provisions, taken together, seek to preserve state authority and
to reward States that have been leaders in the effort to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy efficiency. I applaud
efforts to encourage energy efficiency, and I have no concerns about
that aspect of these provisions. I am very concerned, however, that
rewarding States for leadership in greenhouse gas emission reduction
efforts in the way laid out in this bill may have the effect of setting
up an unworkable system that will result in confusion, at best, and
regulatory chaos, at worst.
[[Page S5343]]
Section 614 would provide additional allowances to States that are
``leaders'' in the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
increase energy efficiency. A leader is not defined by the act,
however, and the EPA Administrator is given the task to establish a
system, by regulation, for ``scoring historical State investments and
achievements in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing energy
efficiency.'' To qualify as a leader under the terms of the bill, it
appears that a State must have set more stringent standards than the
Federal Government. To receive the reward of additional allowances,
however, a State must either have never established a cap-and-trade
system or have terminated its cap-and-trade program. In other words, on
the one hand, the bill is encouraging States to set their own standards
in order to qualify for additional allowances, but then, on the other
hand, the States are told to terminate their programs in order to
receive the additional allowances. That sounds to me like regulatory
chaos. Worse still, the bill does not actually require States to
terminate separate cap-and-trade programs it simply provides a
financial incentive to do so. Therefore, if the financial incentive is
not sufficient for the State to decide to terminate its program, there
is too great a likelihood there will be conflicting and confusing
Federal and State cap-and-trade systems.
It simply does not make sense to have competing Federal and State
cap-and-trade programs. It simply will not work. If a State were to
implement a more stringent cap-and-trade program that allowed regulated
entities to purchase Federal emissions allowances to satisfy State
compliance requirements, this would in turn increase demand for the
Federal allowances, which would increase the price of Federal
allowances. Thus, such an action by a State would affect entities in
other States because the Federal allowance trading market is
nationwide.
Another provision of this bill that gives me cause for concern is
section 1731, entitled ``Retention of State Authority'', which purports
to be a savings clause that simply preserves authority under existing
provisions of law. I am concerned, however, about language in Senate
Report 110-337, the report accompanying S. 2191, which states in part,
``The purpose of this section is to make it absolutely clear that this
bill does not affect the validity of these State and local greenhouse
gas emissions laws and regulations (and any related laws or
regulations), so long as these laws require state and local reductions
of greenhouse gas emissions at least as stringent as those required by
federal law. There will be no express, implied, field, or conflict
preemption of these regional, state, or local efforts.'' The report
language concludes by saying, ``In interpreting the scope of this
savings clause, the courts should follow the applicable precedent that
calls for a narrow reading of federal preemption of state and local
authority and a broad reading of this savings clause.'' Because of that
concern, I have filed an amendment that would make clear that nothing
in this act confers authority on either the Federal Government or State
government to establish new standards in this area.
Lastly, I want to speak to why I am so concerned about the potential
for conflicting State and Federal regulations in this area,
particularly as it relates to greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.
The State of California has already issued regulations to limit
greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles by establishing fuel economy
standards that would apply to vehicles sold in that State. A number of
other States have either adopted similar regulations or indicated that
they intend to do so. The net effect of these regulations adopted in
many States across the country--if allowed to go into force--would be a
patchwork of potentially conflicting regulations because the average
fuel economy standard required in each State would be driven by the
sales mix of vehicles in that particular State.
Moreover, the regulations adopted by the State of California--the
model regulations that other States would adopt--include a provision
that is highly discriminatory against our domestic manufacturers. The
California regulations have an exemption for manufacturers who sell
less than 60,000 vehicles in the State. The effect of this exemption is
that the California law would only regulate vehicles made by Ford, GM,
Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. Other manufactures, such as
Volkswagen, which is the fourth largest automaker in the world, would
be exempt from the California law. In addition, automakers from Korea,
India, and China and their vehicles would be exempt from the California
constraints. Surely, we do not want to perpetuate such a discriminatory
State law around the country. However, if the provisions of this bill
confer new authority on State governments to set separate standards, we
may do just that.
In response to questions I posed to Senator Boxer, the manager of the
bill for the majority, concerning the scope of State and Federal
authority in this bill, I have obtained from Senator Boxer answers to
my questions to her, which clarify her intent as the author of the
language in question. I will ask that the text of the questions and her
answers be printed at the end of my statement.
I have highlighted a number of ways this legislation could be
repaired. I filed amendments and cosponsored other filed amendments,
which would do that. I agree with many provisions in this bill. The
bill attempts to provide the necessary funding and technical resources
so that we can successfully transition to a low carbon economy and
recognizes at least in part the burdens of this transition. I am
pleased that the substitute amendment provides more funding for
manufacturing States to implement a variety of programs and measures
that would help mitigate any negative impacts from global warming or
the regulatory requirements of this bill. I am also pleased that the
bill funds advancements in technology that could provide jobs and also
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The bill establishes a national wildlife adaptation fund with
mandatory funding that could be used for a very broad range of
activities including Great Lakes restoration projects. In developing a
plan for wildlife adaptation, the bill specifically requires the
President to consider the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy
which was developed with extensive public involvement. I have long
supported the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy, but the lack
of funding has presented a serious impediment to implementing it. The
President's plan must include measures to protect, maintain, and
restore coastal ecosystems to ensure that the ecosystems are more
resilient to withstand the additional stresses associated with climate
change, including water level and temperature changes in Great Lakes.
The National Wildlife Adaptation Fund would be distributed to federal
agencies for a series of wildlife programs, and the Great Lakes are
eligible to receive funds through many of these programs. Each agency
has the discretion to allocate funds to its various programs so it is
unknown how much money the Great Lakes would receive.
To be sure, far-ranging action is needed to confront the daunting
challenges of global climate change. While we are just now beginning to
see the preliminary impacts of global warming, most scientists agree
that the problems of climate change will only worsen in the future. I
am hopeful that this debate has laid a foundation for us to move
forward and for the United States to lead in what may be the defining
issue of our planet's future environment. The potential costs of global
climate change are tremendous, and these costs will only mount if we
wait too long to address this critical problem. Clearly, we need to act
to avert a global catastrophe. However, this action must be taken in a
way that does not needlessly sacrifice additional American
manufacturing jobs and further burden the working men and women of our
country with higher gas, food, and energy prices. We need to invest in
advanced technology that will help create jobs and spur our economy as
well. With significant investment in research and development, public-
private partnerships and incentives for manufacturers to invest in new
technologies, we can make great technological leaps to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions not only here but around the world.
[[Page S5344]]
I ask unanimous consent that the materials to which I referred be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
June 6, 2008.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, United States Senate, S-221, the Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Leader and Chairman Boxer: As Democrats from
regions of the country that will be most immediately affected
by climate legislation, we want to share our concerns with
the bill that is currently before the Senate. We commend your
leadership in attempting to address one of the most
significant threats to this and future generations; however,
we cannot support final passage of the Boxer Substitute in
its current form.
We believe a federal cap and trade program must not only
significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also ensure
that consumers and workers in all regions of the U.S. are
protected from undue hardship. A federal cap and trade
program is perhaps the most significant endeavor undertaken
by Congress in over 70 years and must be done with great
care. To that point we have laid out the following principles
and concerns that must be considered and fully addressed in
any final legislation.
Contain Costs and Prevent Harm to the U.S. Economy: We hope
that you recognize, as we do, the inherent uncertainty in
predicting the costs of achieving the emission caps set forth
in this or any climate legislation. While placing a cost on
carbon is important, we believe that there must be a balance
and a short-term cushion when new technologies may not be
available as hoped for or are more expensive than assumed.
There are many options to deal with the issue and all should
be up for discussion in order to meet our environmental and
economic goals. Ultimately, we must strive to form a
partnership with regulated industries to help them reduce
emissions as they transition from an old energy economy to a
new energy economy which will protect both our environment
and our economy.''
Invest Aggressively in New Technologies and Deployment of
Existing Technologies: There is no doubt that we need a
technological revolution to enter into a low carbon economy.
It is critical that we design effective mechanisms to augment
and accelerate government-sponsored technology R&D programs
and incentives that will motivate rapid deployment of those
technologies without picking winners and losers. We also want
to include proposals to provide funding for carbon capture
and storage and other critical low carbon technologies in
advance of resources being available through the auction of
emission allowances. We also need to aggressively deploy
existing energy efficiency technologies now to retrofit
millions of homes, buildings and manufacturing facilities to
reduce electricity costs for everyone.
Treat States Equitably: Just as some groups of consumers
will be more severely affected by the cost of compliance, so
too will our states. The allocation structure of a cap-and-
trade bill must be designed to balance these burdens across
states and regions and be sufficiently transparent to be
understood.
Protect America's Working Families: Any legislation must
recognize that working families are going to be affected most
significantly by any cap and trade legislation. Price relief
for these families must be included in any federal cap and
trade program. For instance, one way to provide some relief
would be to provide additional allowances to utilities whose
electricity prices are regulated, which would help to keep
electricity prices low.
Protect U.S. Manufacturing Jobs and Strengthen
International Competitiveness: The Lieberman-Warner bill
contains a mechanism to protect U.S. manufacturers from
international competitors that do not face the same carbon
constraints. If this mechanism does not work, or is found to
be noncompliant with the World Trade Organization, then the
program needs to be modified or suspended. The final bill
must include adequate safeguards to ensure a truly equitable
and effective global effort that minimizes harm to the U.S.
economy and protects American jobs. Furthermore, we must
adequately help manufacturers transition to a low carbon
economy to maintain domestic jobs and production.
Fully Recognize Agriculture and Forestry's Role:
Agriculture and forestry are not regulated under the bill but
they can contribute to reducing emissions by over 20%
domestically. Furthermore, international deforestation
contributes to 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Strong, aggressive and verifiable offset policies can fully
utilize the capabilities of our farmers and forests. A strong
offset policy can also reduce the costs of a cap and trade
program while maintaining our strong environmental goals.
Clarify Federal/State Authority: Congress should adopt a
mandatory federal cap-and-trade program that will be the
single regulatory regime for controlling greenhouse gas
emissions. Existing state laws and initiatives should be
integrated into the federal cap-and-trade program where the
policies do not conflict. Federal uniformity in this area
should be made clear in the statutory language to prevent
conflict in regulation, preserve overall efficiency, and
ensure harmonization of regulations. Where a conflict exists,
federal law needs to clearly prevail.
Provide Accountability for Consumer Dollars: The cap and
trade program developed in the Lieberman-Warner bill has the
potential to raise over $7 trillion. Much of these funds will
be indirectly paid for by consumers through increased energy
prices. The federal government has a fundamental obligation
to ensure these funds are being spent in a responsible and
wise manner. The development of any cap and trade program
must recognize the sensitivity of this obligation and
eliminate all possibility of waste, fraud or abuse.
We look forward to working with you to ensure that any
final bill will address the problems of climate change
without imposing undue hardship on our states, key industrial
sectors and consumers.
Sincerely,
Debbie Stabenow, John D. Rockefeller, Carl Levin, Blanche
Lincoln, Mark Pryor, Jim Webb, Evan Bayh, Claire
McCaskill, Sherrod Brown, Ben Nelson.
____
Questions of Senator Levin to Senator Boxer
Would you be able to provide answers to these questions
prior to the cloture vote on the Boxer Substitute to S. 3036?
Relative to the pending substitute,
1. Does the substitute (or underlying bill) directly or
indirectly establish or provide federal or state authority to
set standards relative to greenhouse gas emissions from
mobile sources?
2. Does the substitute (or underlying bill) provide
authority for states or regions to establish their own cap
and trade programs for greenhouse gas emissions?
Concerning the language in Senate Report 110-337 relative
to Section 9003, Retention of State Authority, in S. 2191, as
reported, which states in part, as follows: ``The purpose of
this section is to make it absolutely clear that this bill
does not affect the validity of these state and local
greenhouse gas emissions laws and regulations (and any
related laws or regulations), so long as these laws require
state and local reductions of greenhouse gas emissions at
least as stringent as those required by federal law. There
will be no express, implied, field, or conflict preemption of
these regional, state, or local efforts.''
3. Does this mean ``There will be no express, implied,
field, or conflict preemption of these regional, state, or
local efforts'' by this Act, referring to S. 2191, as
reported?
The report language concludes, ``In interpreting the scope
of this savings clause, the courts should follow the
applicable precedent that calls for a narrow reading of
federal preemption of state and local authority and a broad
reading of this savings clause.''
4. Does this mean ``federal preemption of state and local
authority'' by this Act, referring to S. 2191, as reported?
Finally, with respect to existing law,
5. Does this bill in any way amend, change, or modify the
other statutes relating to the authority of the Federal and
State governments to adopt vehicle emissions standards?
____
Response to Senator Carl Levin's June 5, 2008 Questions From Senator
Barbara Boxer
You have asked several questions about the Boxer-Lieberman-
Warner substitute to S. 3036, the Climate Security Act. My
response follows. Relative to the pending substitute:
1. Question: Does the substitute (or underlying bill)
directly or indirectly establish or provide federal or state
authority to set standards relative to greenhouse gas
emissions from mobile sources? Answer: No.
2. Question: Does the substitute (or underlying bill)
provide authority for states or regions to establish their
own cap and trade programs for greenhouse gas emissions?
Answer: No.
3. Question: [Concerning language in Senate Report 110-337
relative to Section 9003, Retention of State Authority, in S.
2191 as reported] Does this mean ``There will be no express,
implied, field, or conflict preemption of these state or
local efforts'' by this Act, referring to S. 2191, as
reported? Answer: Yes.
4. Question: [Concerning report language regarding
interpretation of the scope of the savings clause]: Does this
mean ``federal preemption of state and local authority'' by
this Act, referring to S. 2191 as reported? Answer: Yes.
5. Question: Does this bill in any way amend, change, or
modify the other statutes relating to the authority of the
Federal and State governments to adopt vehicle emissions
standards? Answer: No.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the cloture vote on
the climate change legislation pending before the Senate.
Global warming is a problem that we must address and the sooner the
better. We must meet it with a strong and mandatory regulatory system.
Of all the possible options, a cap-and-trade system makes the most
sense. Turning that concept into legislative language is not easy, and
turning it into legislative language that can become law is far harder
still.
[[Page S5345]]
The substitute amendment before us is the product of a lot of hard
work and passion to do the right thing. I applaud that and thank the
sponsors for their sincere efforts. There are many ideas in this
amendment that I support, but, as the sponsors know, I also have many
concerns about the substance of their proposal. I am sorry that we will
not have a chance to debate the many complex and far-reaching issues
they present.
I have been in the Senate for 25 years. I have learned, and firmly
believe, that the only way to write legislation that stands a good
chance of becoming law is to ensure that all sides have a legitimate
opportunity to comment on and contribute to legislation as it is being
written. I know very well from my own experience that in bills as
complicated as this one, many Senators will have concerns that they
would like to see resolved. It is the prerogative of the authors to
include these issues or not. But it is important to assure all Senators
that their concerns have been carefully and openly considered and that
even if the sponsors don't share those concerns, the right of Senators
to have them considered by the full Senate will be protected. Without
these assurances, it is much harder to ask Senators to support the
final product and work for its passage. I hope that when we return to
this issue, we can use such a process to produce a bill that will be
signed into law.
I am especially disappointed by the tactics we have seen in recent
days from the other side of the aisle to slow this bill's progress and
frustrate the amendment process. While Senators certainly have the
right to use all 30 hours of postcloture debate time following cloture
on the motion to proceed and to make the Senate clerks spend 9 hours
reading the text of a long substitute amendment, it is hard to square
those actions with any sense of real concern about this critical issue
we should be working on.
We will be turning to the Defense bill later this month. I have a
hard time imagining that the same tactics will be applied. That would
be totally inconsistent with our responsibilities for national
security. Similarly, the tactics of the past few days have been totally
inconsistent with our responsibility to deal seriously with this
important issue.
I have struggled with this cloture vote. A vote for cloture can be
seen as a message vote that rejects the tactical maneuvering we have
seen to prevent consideration of this bill. At the same time, if
cloture is invoked it will mean that only a tightly prescribed set of
amendments would be in order. I do not believe that the problems in the
legislation before us can be adequately corrected under postcloture
procedural constraints. Ultimately, though, we must send a message
about how important this issue is and how it should not be hamstrung by
obstructionist parliamentary tactics. That is why I voted for the
cloture motion laid down by the majority leader.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, the Climate Change Act of 2008 wisely
recognizes that chemicals such as hydrofluorocarbons, HFCs, and
hydrochlorofluorocarbons, HCFCs, are valuable commercial products that
are used in refrigeration equipment, home and automobile air
conditioners, aerosols, insulating foams, and other products and should
be treated differently than other greenhouse gases. These important
gases are essential to the energy efficient operation of many of the
appliances and refrigeration equipment American consumers and
businesses rely upon. Having a separate market for HFCs is designed to
reduce emissions of these gases over time, while safeguarding the
business model of the producers and users of these gases in energy
efficient equipment and products.
The Montreal Protocol treaty has been widely praised as a model of
international cooperation to phase out the production of many ozone
depleting substances including Freon and other CFC-based gases.
Accordingly, the industry substituted HFCs for these substances, but
now these gases are thought to contribute to anthropogenic global
warming. The Montreal Protocol currently calls for a complete phaseout
of HCFCs by 2030, but does not place any restriction on HFCs.
The regulation of hydrofluorcarbon refrigerants represents a major
component of the Climate Security Act of 2008, and will have a
significant impact on jobs, taxpayers, businesses that manufacture and
import these chemicals, and the millions of users of these chemicals in
refrigeration and air conditioning equipment as well as other
applications. The businesses in this industry sector have a commendable
track record of protecting the environment, and are successfully making
the transition from ozone-depleting refrigerants to HFCs. Now, as there
is a call to phase down the production and consumption of HFCs to
address global warming, we must recognize the need for a regulatory
regime that reflects the industry's complex marketplace dynamics, cost
to the economy, and ensures fair and equitable treatment for producers,
importers, and end users.
It takes about 10 years for industry to develop a new class of
refrigeration gases with the required thermodynamic properties, low
flammability and toxicity, and reduced global warming potential than
what is currently in use. At this time, there is no known commercially
available replacement for HFCs. The gas providers and equipment
manufacturers will have to invest a significant amount of time and
money to develop these new, safe refrigeration gases and the compatible
equipment that can use them.
I believe that we can come to a reasonable and balanced approach on
this issue. The fact is that we need a realistic baseline. The baseline
for 2012 should be set at an amount necessary to avoid a supply
shortage, the cost of which will be borne by small businesses and
consumers. One study suggests that 365 million metric tons is an
appropriate baseline. Such a baseline will provide for a smoother
transition in subsequent years, which also will result in less cost to
small businesses and taxpayers without any adverse effect on the
environment.
I encourage Congress, the EPA, the gas producers, and the end-use
equipment manufacturers to work closely together to establish a more
reasonable emission cap and timeline for the transition from HFCs to a
cost-effective, low greenhouse gas potential, alternative substitute.
Through cooperation, I am sure we can establish a program that will
guarantee the future development of economically sound and
environmentally friendly alternatives for these important chemicals.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is disappointing that a minority of
Senators has chosen to delay and stall rather than allowing us to
consider the serious matter before the Senate--climate change. In order
to have the opportunity to debate and vote on amendments, I support
cloture on the Climate Security Act of 2008, S. 3036. The Climate
Security Act is far from perfect, but it represents a serious effort to
reduce greenhouse gas pollution, lessen our dependence on foreign oil,
and spur new technologies and green job opportunities. By supporting
cloture, we can begin to do the hard work of improving this legislation
so that we can enact a workable, effective cap-and-trade program.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week the Senate has undertaken the
beginning of a historic debate on global warming. For the past week we
have attempted to pass this important legislation that will reduce the
carbon dioxide pollution that causes global warming, while using market
incentives to create American jobs. Unfortunately it appears the other
side of aisle has no interest in enacting this important global warming
legislation. I am disappointed a minority in the Senate are blocking
our efforts to move forward on this important bill.
The time for debate about the existence of global warming has ended.
We are staring down the barrel of global crisis if we do not
aggressively address this problem now, and not 5 years from now or when
the oil companies decide the time is right.
The most recent assessment of global climate change published by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, in November found that
the Earth's climate indisputably has warmed over the past century. Most
of this increase is very likely due to the increase in greenhouse gas
concentrations created by humans--primarily from the use of fossil
fuels. As we look around us every day and see all of the exhaust gases
emanating from factories, buildings, and vehicles, it only
[[Page S5346]]
stands to reason that human activity now, and for much of the last
century, increasingly has become a factor in the quality of the air we
breathe and in the natural processes of our environment.
The U.S. Climate Change Science Program, CCSP, recently released the
first of several climate change reports, and their assessment was
stark. They report that even under the most optimistic carbon dioxide
emission scenarios, we can expect a host of profound impacts that range
from changes in sea level and regional and super-regional temperature
hikes, to increased incidence of disturbances such as forest fires,
insect outbreaks, severe storms, and drought.
If we do not take aggressive action now to curb emissions, our
environmental and economic future is bleak. Even as we speak, our world
is experiencing alarming and detrimental changes from manmade
greenhouse gases. The Arctic Sea ice melted in 2007 to the smallest
coverage since satellite measurements began in 1979--perhaps 50 percent
below sea ice levels of the 1950s. The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data
Center at the University of Colorado projects that the Arctic Ocean
could be ice-free in summer as early as 2030.
As if to highlight the urgency, while the EPA was recently delaying a
decision over whether to add polar bears to the threatened species list
due to a decrease in their habitat, more than 160 square miles of
arctic ice collapsed away from the Wilkins Ice Shelf. If we needed any
clearer signal that now is the time to address this problem, the
partial collapse of an arctic shelf formed more than 1500 years ago
should leave no doubt.
How do we responsibly and aggressively address this problem?
According to the Bush administration, we should talk about curbing
global climate change on the one hand, while quietly eroding the safety
net that had been designed to better protect our environment with the
other.
We need only to look at the recent unprecedented intervention by this
administration in the EPA's decision to override the institutional
advice of the EPA's own experts--not to mention the Clean Air Act--and
stop California, Vermont, and 15 other States from setting their own
tailpipe emission standards. Even the release of CCSP research on
climate change last week had to be mandated by court order--and during
the course of this research, scientists left the CCSP alleging the
administration was rewriting the science for political purposes.
Add to all of this the auctioning of environmentally sensitive public
lands for oil development, the weakening of air quality regulations for
corporate polluters, and the billions of dollars of handouts in the
form of subsidies to oil companies at the expense of renewable energy,
and it adds up to 8 years of an administration that cares more about
corporate profits than the public's health and our environment's
protection.
This legislation is not a perfect solution, but its goals are
positive and its solutions are constructive. The annual reductions in
emissions, funding for renewable energy technologies, and a cap-and-
trade system designed to reward companies that invest in cleaner energy
are innovative solutions to a problem that won't just go away on its
own.
Failure to address global warming is a failure to address weather
catastrophes that can destroy entire Nations, a failure to address the
loss of species that will never return, and a failure to pass along to
future generations--our children, our grandchildren, and beyond--the
kind of world we want for them.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the consensus among scientists, whose
expertise I respect, is that there's something happening to the climate
of this planet that we need to be concerned about. As a result, I
believe that the Congress needs to enact climate change legislation to
address global warming It is one of the significant challenges of our
time. Addressing the issue of climate change will require a national
commitment of all the resources that are available to us to change
course and protect our planet.
I voted no on the motion to invoke cloture today, but this should not
be seen as a statement of my opposition to enact mandatory, climate
change legislation in the future. The specific proposal that has been
brought to the floor of the U.S. Congress by Senators Boxer, Lieberman,
Warner, Kerry, and others is a legitimate and thoughtful piece of
legislation.
The Senate has voted on climate change legislation in 2003, 2005, and
now in 2008. In all three cases, many Members have expressed their
opposition to any mandatory legislation. Yet, during this 5-year
period, there has been a significant shift in public awareness, the
certainty of the science, and the demand for legislative action. I hope
that industry in this country will understand what we are required to
do and start preparing for it.
When there is a new President and a new Congress in 2009, I predict
that there will be another debate, and there will be passage of
landmark U.S. climate change legislation. Major pieces of landmark
legislation such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, Superfund,
and others took several Congresses to be refined and enacted. I believe
that time for climate change legislation will be in the 111th Congress.
In order for our country to dramatically shift our energy use to a
lower greenhouse gas emitting blend, a strong commitment from all
sectors of the economy is needed. We need a ``moon shot'' approach to
increasing energy efficiency and conservation, renewable energy
production and technologies that allow us to capture and sequester
carbon emissions from fossil fuel energy generation.
I am a big fan of renewable energy, including wind, solar and
geothermal energy as well as biofuels. In order for these energy
sources to become a larger portion of the energy used in this country,
however, we need to demonstrate a robust commitment to funding research
and development to increase the efficiency of renewable energy and
drive the costs down so they are competitive with fossil energy
sources. Until they are cost-competitive, we need to provide long-term
incentives that signal certainty to potential investors. Even as we
strongly support our renewable energy research, development and
deployment, we also need to understand that in order to meet our energy
needs we will need to continue to use fossil fuels--but use them in a
different way.
For example, we use coal to produce about 50 percent of the
electricity we now use in this country. Coal is going to continue to be
a significant part of our energy future, so that means we must make a
major research push to find ways to the capture the carbon and
sequester the carbon.
The climate change bill that is now on the floor includes what is
called ``kick start'' funding and ``bonus'' funding that its authors
say addresses the needs of the industry to get carbon capture and
storage. However, the bill does not provide any funding for the
substantial research and development that will be necessary to find
ways to capture the carbon and safely sequester it.
Similarly, advancing renewable energy will require substantial
funding, of which there is not enough in the underlying bill. There is
money in the underlying bill for demonstration and commercialization of
technologies, both in the renewable area and carbon capture and
storage. But there is not the kind of funding that will be necessary to
fund the research and development at the front end of the process for
both carbon capture and renewables.
I prepared and filed amendments to address those two deficiencies.
Together, my amendments would add $30 billion in the first 12 years to
carbon capture and storage and renewable energy. The amendments provide
a full commitment by our country to fund the necessary research and
provide the opportunity to succeed in both areas on the front end. We
will not succeed in our quest to address global warming unless we
invest in these areas of research. The product of research for the
environmentally safe use of coal and the expanded use of renewables is
what will allow us to meet the targets in the global warming bill.
Today, however, we find a tangled procedure in the United States
Senate by which we are asked to vote to shut off debate and vote
cloture on the Boxer substitute. This means that my amendment and
others designed to improve the bill will not be allowed to
[[Page S5347]]
even be offered. That is because the minority blocked the process when
the bill came to the floor, so no amendments have been allowed to be
offered. Therefore, none are pending, and post cloture, only pending
amendments can be voted upon.
In short, voting for cloture means I would be voting to deny myself
the opportunity to offer the important amendments I have just
described. I am not prepared to do that. I am prepared to seriously
address global warming. I will count myself as someone who is going to
vote to advance appropriate legislation to address global warming. But
I am not going to vote this morning to prevent myself from offering the
amendments that I think are necessary to make this legislation work.
Let me state again, I think my colleagues that have brought the
Warner-Lieberman-Boxer bill to the floor today have done some good
work, and I am appreciative of their effort. The bill in its current
state is not ready to become the law of the land. We need to have a
serious debate about this legislation, amendments need to be
considered, the bill needs to be modified in significant ways before it
should be passed by this Congress.
Let me repeat, a piece of legislation that will have some of the most
significant consequences for the environment, for the economy, and for
a way of life than anything we have done in many decades in this
Congress has been brought to the floor and will now be subject to a
cloture vote without any opportunity to offer an amendment. That is not
a process that I can support.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of
amendment No. 4950, which I have offered to the Climate Security Act,
S. 3036, along with Senators Snowe, Wyden, and Cantwell.
This amendment is intended to improve section 412, the market
oversight and enforcement provisions. I helped author section 412 of
the Climate Security Act with Senator Dodd and Senator Whitehouse, and
I believe this amendment will improve the underlying provision by even
more clearly prohibiting speculation, fraud, and false reporting by
traders in carbon markets.
Specifically, this amendment would add a ``prohibitions'' subsection
to section 412, to establish that it is illegal:
No. 1, to knowingly provide to the President, or his
designee, any false information relating to the price or
quantity of emission allowances sold, purchased, transferred,
banked, or borrowed by the individual or entity, with the
intent to fraudulently affect the data being compiled;
No. 2, to use in connection with the purchase or sale of an
emission allowance any manipulative or deceptive device or
contrivance--within the meaning of section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78j(b))--or;
No. 3, to otherwise cheat or defraud another market
participant.
Including these prohibitions, which were part of the Emission
Allowance Market Transparency Act that I introduced with Senator Snowe,
clearly establishes the legal framework under which market manipulation
in these markets will be pursued. But unlike our legislation, the
amendment does not instruct the Environmental Protection Agency to
enforce these prohibitions. Instead, the amendment instructs the
President to decide which agency must conduct enforcement within 270
days of enactment.
I believe this amendment is necessary because it will establish that
the full legal history of the Securities Exchange Act's
antimanipulation provision forms the foundation upon which the carbon
market's principles-based regulation must stand. It gives guidance to
future regulators on the intent and meaning of the core principle that
``the market shall be designed to prevent fraud and manipulation.'' And
it adds teeth to that principle by making manipulation and fraud in
this market a defined crime subject to severe penalty.
With this amendment, authority to prevent fraud and manipulation in
carbon markets will mirror the authority over natural gas and
electricity markets that Congress granted to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission in 2005, as well as the authority over crude oil
that Congress granted to the Federal Trade Commission in 2007. By
mirroring proven market oversight mechanisms that protect market
participants and consumers, this amendment allows us to slip already
broken-in regulatory concepts onto a new market.
I believe this amendment will strongly discourage traders from
seeking to manipulate the market. If we don't set up a framework for
oversight, the greenhouse gas market could turn into a Wild West. The
market--estimated to be worth as much as $100 billion annually--would
invite the worst kind of manipulation, fraud, and abuse. The resulting
volatility would affect consumer energy costs.
This is not a hypothetical. In 2000 and 2001, newly created
California energy markets lacked the basic protections in this bill.
The electricity and related natural gas markets emerged before the law
caught up, and much of the manipulation that resulted, shockingly, was
legal.
Enron, for instance, ran a market where only they knew the prices.
Without market transparency laws, this one-sided market was legal.
Enron manipulated natural gas and electricity prices--but nothing in
the Natural Gas Act or the Federal Power Act made this manipulation
unlawful.
Only years later, after millions of consumers had been harmed, after
billions of dollars had been lost, and after the entire West had
endured an energy crisis largely fabricated by traders, did Congress
act.
In 2005, Congress succeeded in prohibiting manipulation in natural
gas and electricity markets. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
has put this authority to good use. It has performed aggressive natural
gas market oversight, and has brought its first manipulation case,
against Amaranth--a notorious hedge fund that allegedly manipulated
natural gas prices month after month.
This Nation needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and most
economists agree that a cap-and-trade system with a greenhouse gas
market would be the most cost efficient way to guarantee emissions
reductions.
Economists also tell us that markets are most efficient when buyers
and sellers have complete information, no market participant can cheat
another, and prices result from supply and demand, not manipulation.
Bottom line: this amendment improves a provision designed to protect
the integrity of greenhouse gas emissions markets, and it should be
included as part of any cap-and-trade legislation approved by Congress.
FURTHER CHANGES TO S. CON. RES. 21
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, pursuant to section 308(a) of S. Con. Res.
21, the 2008 budget resolution, I previously filed revisions to S. Con.
Res. 21, the 2008 budget resolution. Those revisions were made for
Senate amendment 4825, a complete substitute for S. 3036, the
Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008.
The Senate did not adopt Senate amendment 4825. As a consequence, I
am further revising the 2008 budget resolution and reversing the
adjustments made pursuant to section 308(a) to the aggregates and the
allocation provided to the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee for Senate amendment 4825.
Mr. President, this will be the final revision to the 2008 budget
resolution. This week, Congress passed S. Con. Res. 70, the 2009 budget
resolution. The 2009 budget resolution now replaces the 2008 budget
resolution for purposes of budget enforcement in the Senate.
I ask unanimous consent to have the following revisions to S. Con.
Res. 21 printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008--S. CON. RES.
21; FURTHER REVISIONS TO THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION
308(a) DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ENERGY LEGISLATION
[In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 101
(1)(A) Federal Revenues:
FY 2007................................................ 1,900.340
FY 2008................................................ 2,016.793
FY 2009................................................ 2,114.754
FY 2010................................................ 2,170.343
FY 2011................................................ 2,351.046
FY 2012................................................ 2,493.878
(1)(B) Change in Federal Revenues:
FY 2007................................................ -4.366
FY 2008................................................ -34.003
FY 2009................................................ 7.826
[[Page S5348]]
FY 2010................................................ 6.622
FY 2011................................................ -43.504
FY 2012................................................ -103.218
(2) New Budget Authority:
FY 2007................................................ 2,371.470
FY 2008................................................ 2,501.726
FY 2009................................................ 2,520.890
FY 2010................................................ 2,573.040
FY 2011................................................ 2,688.764
FY 2012................................................ 2,720.897
(3) Budget Outlays:
FY 2007................................................ 2,294.862
FY 2008................................................ 2,473.063
FY 2009................................................ 2,569.024
FY 2010................................................ 2,601.423
FY 2011................................................ 2,695.166
FY 2012................................................ 2,702.695
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008--S. CON. RES.
21; FURTHER REVISIONS TO THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION
308(a) DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ENERGY LEGISLATION
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Allocation to Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee:
FY 2007 Budget Authority............................... 42,426
FY 2007 Outlays........................................ 1,687
FY 2008 Budget Authority............................... 43,535
FY 2008 Outlays........................................ 1,753
FY 2008-2012 Budget Authority.......................... 316,183
FY 2008-2012 Outlays................................... 124,070
Adjustments:
FY 2007 Budget Authority............................... 0
FY 2007 Outlays........................................ 0
FY 2008 Budget Authority............................... 0
FY 2008 Outlays........................................ 0
FY 2008-2012 Budget Authority.......................... -134,696
FY 2008-2012 Outlays................................... -114,402
Revised Allocation to Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee:
FY 2007 Budget Authority............................... 42,426
FY 2007 Outlays........................................ 1,687
FY 2008 Budget Authority............................... 43,535
FY 2008 Outlays........................................ 1,753
FY 2008-2012 Budget Authority.......................... 181,487
FY 2008-2012 Outlays................................... 9,668
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to share my views on the
preeminent environmental challenge facing our generation--climate
change. I believe we must urgently address this looming issue--in
partnership with the rest of the world--and I commend the bill's
authors for finally getting this dialogue started after years of White
House and congressional inaction.
Scientists have determined conclusively that an ongoing buildup of
greenhouse gas emissions is causing the Earth's climate to warm and
will likely lead to drought, flooding, and other catastrophic natural
disasters.
The most recent United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change report found that about 1 billion people will be affected by
water shortages because of declining snow cover on land currently used
by one-sixth of the world's population.
The report also predicts global warming will parch large swaths of
the Earth, threatening the existence of up to 30 percent of its animals
and plants.
Global warming's impact on the Pacific Northwest could be
particularly harmful because our temperatures are rising faster than
the global average. In Washington, climate change is expected to alter
the region's historic water cycle, threatening drinking water supplies,
wildlife and salmon habitat, and the availability of emissions-free
hydropower. We are also already seeing the ominous beginning of ocean
acidification off our coastline.
According to a University of Washington analysis, temperatures in the
Puget Sound region will rise about 2 degrees by 2050. Cascade mountain
temperatures could rise 10 degrees or more, causing snowpacks to be
reduced to just 20 percent of their current levels by 2090.
In the eastern half of my State, temperatures are expected to rise
even faster. By 2050, parts of the Columbia Basin could be up to 5
degrees hotter. In 2090, much of the basin will be up to 8 degrees
warmer, very harmful to eastern Washington agriculture.
There has been a great deal of discussion of what the accumulation of
greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide is doing to change the Earth's
atmosphere. I am very concerned about that. But today I would like to
help my colleagues appreciate carbon dioxide is also slowly, silently,
but surely devastating our oceans and the marine life that depend on
them.
I would like to share with you the silent devastation of ocean
acidification.
Since the start of the Industrial Revolution 130 years ago, humans
have released more than 1.5 trillion tons of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere, increasing the global atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentration by 35 percent. But while carbon dioxide is accumulating
in our atmosphere, it is also being rapidly absorbed by our oceans. At
least one-third of our carbon dioxide emissions end up in the oceans--
more than half a trillion tons since the start of the Industrial
Revolution.
For decades, we assumed that the oceans absorbed these greenhouse
gases to the benefit of our atmosphere, with no side-effect for the
seas.
Science now shows that we were wrong. Today, ocean acidification is
actually changing the very chemistry of the oceans. As carbon dioxide
is absorbed, seawater becomes more acidic and begins to withhold the
basic chemical building blocks needed by many marine organisms.
According to National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration
scientists, humans have increased the oceans' acidity by 30 percent
since the start of the Industrial Revolution. In such acidic waters,
coral reefs--the rainforests of the sea--cannot build their skeletons.
In colder waters like the waters of Washington State, scientists
predict a more acidic ocean could dissolve the shells of the tiny
organisms that make up the base of the ocean's food chain.
A recent article in last month's journal Science detailed how acidic
seawater is already moving closer to shallow waters off of Washington
State, the habitat for most of my State's marine life.
These frightening findings were a surprise to researchers who didn't
expect finding acidic water for several more decades. Because ocean
acidification has the capacity to lead to a total collapse of ocean
food chains, it will have major impacts on coastal communities that
rely on the ocean's bounty.
And when we add ocean acidification to the effects of carbon dioxide
coming from a warming atmosphere--increasing ocean temperatures,
changing winds and currents, and rising sea levels, it is clear that
our carbon emissions will impact our ocean environments in ways far too
devastating to ignore.
Not many people think of orca whales, salmon, coral reefs, or oysters
when they drive their cars to work each day, but as ocean acidification
begins to take its toll, there is definitely a connection between the
carbon emissions we emit and the ocean environments we enjoy and depend
on.
Last week, I held a Commerce Committee field hearing in Seattle to
examine how climate change and ocean acidification are impacting the
marine environments of my State. What I heard from my constituents was
nothing short of frightening.
Brett Bishop, a fifth-generation shellfish farmer in Mason County,
WA, told me how his business is being devastated by the impacts of
climate change and ocean acidification. His story can be summed up by
two words he said to me: ``I'm scared.''
Climate change is killing his business, and threatens to destroy
everything his family has worked for over the past 150 years. If things
continue on their current path and Mr. Bishop can't grow his shellfish,
then the bank will foreclose on the mortgage, his 27 employees will be
left jobless, and his family will lose their farm, their homes, and
generations of hard work.
This is not some obscure scientific theory pieced together by
academic scientists. This is real, and it is happening now. Today it is
shellfish farmers in Mason County, WA. but who will fall victim
tomorrow? Commercial fishermen? Coastal tourism from dead coral reefs?
Recreational fisheries?
These are frightening possibilities--but very real ones that our
Nation will face in the coming years. And unfortunately, if we don't
act, Brett Bishop will be one of the millions of Americans with similar
stories. And, unfortunately, these dangers are largely under the radar
because they occur beneath the surface of the ocean.
That is why one of the amendments to the Climate Security Act I am
pleased to be part of includes a bill I introduced with Senator
Lautenberg of New Jersey called the Federal Ocean Acidification
Research and Monitoring Act. Our bill, which passed the Senate Commerce
Committee unanimously last December, would establish a much-needed
Federal research program on ocean acidification.
This amendment also incorporates my Climate Change Adaptation Act
[[Page S5349]]
which was also approved unanimously by the Senate Commerce Committee.
This important legislation ensures that our Government plans for the
changes that global warming will inevitably bring. Because the reality
is that even if we were somehow able to stop using fossil fuels today,
a certain degree of warming and ocean acidification will still occur
over the next two or three decades. Planning for the future isn't just
common sense--it is responsible Government.
That brings me back to the Climate Security Act the Senate is
debating today. This is the first comprehensive effort to legislate on
climate change that has come through the committee process. It is a
historic feat, and in many ways it reflects the complexity of this
issue and the varied views and stakeholder interests that accompany any
effort to cap and trade climate change emissions.
I commend Senators Boxer, Lieberman, and Warner for their leadership
in beginning this process and starting us on the path we know we must
take soon. As Sun Tzu said in the ``Art of War,'' ``the journey of a
thousand miles begins with a single step.''
Unfortunately, it looks like our debate may end up being largely
confined to floor statements because opponents of the bill will succeed
in blocking the consideration of any amendments. The minority even
forced our hard-working Senate clerks to read the entire text of the
bill, word for word, for almost 9 hours on Wednesday. Unfortunately,
that is about as fitting an example of how opponents want to stall,
delay, and preserve the status quo as one can imagine.
While I do believe we must act urgently and decisively to control our
Nation's and planet's greenhouse gas emissions, I do have a number of
concerns about the pending legislation.
Ironically, many of my concerns stem from the fact that Washington
State is blessed with abundant, affordable, and emissions-free
hydropower. Unfortunately, this bill fails to recognize that Washington
State has significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions than other parts
of the country and how that dynamic poses unique energy challenges
going forward.
Some of these challenges are that Washington's hydropower system is
largely tapped out, so any future electricity generation will largely
come from relatively more polluting sources for which we will not
receive any emission allocations under the pending legislation.
Similarly, the bill does not provide Washington with any allocations we
will need to provide electricity to the 1.5 million people moving to
the Puget Sound region by 2020, unlike other parts of the country that
rely primarily on fossil fuel generation.
As currently drafted, the bill also effectively penalizes the Pacific
Northwest for its years of aggressive energy efficiency measures, which
have avoided the construction of 3,400 megawatts of additional
capacity. In other words, if we would have built fossil fuel plants
instead of conserving, we would be getting emission allocations for it
today. In addition, since we have already taken advantage of many of
the low-hanging efficiency ``fruit,'' additional efficiency savings
would be relatively more costly than in other parts of the country.
I also believe the legislation needs to more carefully consider how
Federal climate legislation might preempt or overturn the
groundbreaking efforts in Washington State, such as the Western Climate
Initiative.
As a scarred veteran of the Western energy crisis, I also have strong
concerns that there are not enough safeguards in the bill to prevent
excessive speculation and manipulation of emission allocation trading
markets. Even today we see what happens when there is not enough
transparency and clear rules of conduct in energy markets. Excessive
speculation and possibly market manipulation artificially elevate
prices and hurt consumers.
And finally, we need to make sure that anything we do is actually
going to do the job. Unfortunately, I understand that the emission-
reduction caps proposed by this legislation are actually not strong
enough to slow or stop global warming according to the latest science.
While I am disappointed that there probably won't be an opportunity
to improve the historic legislation before us today, I am proud that
after Congress came under new management last year we were able to
craft and pass the greenest, most important energy bill in our Nation's
history.
The Energy Independence and Security Act, which became law last
December, will create cleaner, more diverse sources of energy supply,
build new growth industries that support high-wage ``green-collar''
jobs, give consumers and businesses more affordable energy choices, and
protect our environment. For instance, this landmark energy legislation
aggressively boosts energy efficiency efforts by making our lighting
and appliances more efficient and reducing the Federal Government's
energy use.
Under the new law, fuel economy standards will increase for the first
time in over two decades to a nationwide average of 35 miles per
gallon, up from 25 miles per gallon today, by 2020 for all vehicles,
including SUV's and light trucks. By 2030, these measures will displace
the equivalent of one-third of our foreign oil needs and save American
consumers at least half a trillion dollars in energy costs.
And the new energy law includes mandates and incentives that biofuels
from nonfood feedstocks such as agriculture and wood waste become a
much more significant part of our Nation's effort to end our dependence
on fossil fuels and imported oil.
All together, these measures and others will reduce our Nation's
carbon dioxide emissions by the same amount as all of our vehicles on
the road produce today.
I think it is important to note that while tackling climate change
will not be easy or free, moving to a clean energy system, which is a
prerequisite to any serious effort to reduced greenhouse gases, has
many benefits beyond reducing greenhouse gases and the costs of
inaction will be far more significant.
According to a study by the Natural Resources Defense Council and
Tufts University, if the United States doesn't do something soon to
dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it could cost the country
$3.8 trillion annually from higher energy and water costs, real estate
losses from hurricanes, rising sea levels, and other problems.
According to the Apollo Alliance, a labor-environmental partnership,
investing $30 billion per year over 10 years would create 3.3 million
jobs and boost the Nation's GDP by $1.4 trillion. The Apollo Alliance
estimates that dollars invested in clean energy create more jobs than
those invested in traditional energy sources because renewable energy
is more labor intensive. It is possible for a Nation to grow while
being environmentally conscious. For example, the British economy grew
by about 40 percent since 1990 while their greenhouse gas emissions
decreased by 14 percent.
The science is undeniable that human activities are changing the
world we know and love and depend on for our well being. We are already
seeing the effects on our oceans, our forests, our crops, and our
wildlife--and unless we act, I am afraid the worst is yet to come.
We will only succeed in combating climate change if we work together,
across the aisle here in Congress, across our States with their very
different greenhouse gas profiles, and across the world. By working
together we can find a path forward to solve this greatest of
challenges. And if we do it right, the solutions we create will also
help address other pressing needs such as providing more clean and
renewable energy sources, high-wage manufacturing jobs, and new export
markets.
Our Nation and the world is waiting for us to take action--and the
lead in preventing and mitigating the catastrophic effects of global
climate change. Our children and their children and all of the world's
citizens' future depends on it. I look forward to continuing this
dialog with my friends on both sides of the aisle.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia is
recognized.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 5 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. I object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
____________________