[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 145 (Tuesday, December 2, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6254-S6260]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF P. DAVID LOPEZ TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE EQUAL
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
The assistant bill clerk read the nomination of P. David Lopez, of
Arizona, to be General Counsel of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. For the information of the Senate, with
respect to the votes to confirm the Coloretti and Adler nominations,
the motions to reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table,
and the President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The Senator from Texas.
THE ECONOMY
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, last week, before the Thanksgiving
holiday, our colleague from across the aisle, the senior Senator from
New York, gave a very significant speech at the National Press Club.
Senator Schumer is not just a senior Senator from New York; he is an
important Member of the Democratic leadership here in the Senate.
While giving the speech about the midterm elections, he said what
many Members on this side of the aisle have been saying for the last 4
years, and that is that the Democratic party, by making the passage of
ObamaCare their top priority after they won the election of 2008,
``blew the opportunity the American people gave them.'' He said they
did so by focusing ``on the wrong problem.''
What I think he meant and went on to say is that they should have
focused on the lack of jobs and the wage stagnation for hardworking,
middleclass families in America.
As he pointed out, that broader group of the middle class represented
a much larger segment of the electorate than just a small percentage of
the electorate represented by the uninsured. I would add,
parenthetically, that we know that even the best laid plans with the
Affordable Care Act has proven to be a terrible failure.
Today the Wall Street Journal reported that between 2007 and 2013
health insurance premiums for an average middleclass American family
have gone up by 24 percent. As we know, when the President said if you
like your doctor, you can keep him, that proved not to be true. When he
said the family of four would see their premiums go down by $2,500,
that ended up not to be true either.
Two weeks ago, despite the overwhelming rejection the President's
policies received at the polls, the President then decided to
circumvent Congress and take Executive action on immigration, far
exceeding any arguable authority that I believe most lawyers would
think he has. Certainly, while we recognize it is within the
President's discretion to prioritize the people against whom
enforcement action will be taken, there is no legal authorization for
doing other things he purports to have the authority to do, such as
issuing work permits.
Then there is this. Just when it seemed that the Senate was beginning
to work on avoiding a retroactive tax increase for millions of
Americans, the President threatened to veto an important tax relief
package, which, as I said, had bipartisan support, including the
support of the majority leader, Senator Reid, and Senator Schumer, the
senior Senator from New York. He did so because it did not include
every single provision he thought it should include.
If we have not learned before, we should now know that if you insist
on absolute perfection--in other words, you want everything you want,
and the alternative is nothing--then most of the time you are going to
get nothing. That is what taxpayers are getting when it comes to
aborting this retroactive tax provision in the so-called tax extenders
bill.
[[Page S6255]]
To again quote our good friend from New York, by threatening to veto
this job-creating tax relief, it appears that the President has once
again focused on the wrong problem and is certainly going about this in
a nonproductive and unconstructive way. It is unfortunate because the
President seems to be positively allergic to good-faith negotiations
and genuine compromise. Again, if your attitude is ``my way or the
highway,'' you are going to get the highway all the time because that
is not how our democratic institutions work. The only way things work
is for us to find common ground and to compromise. Yet the President's
attitude seems, unfortunately, out of touch. He seems more interested
in getting his way by any means necessary--hence, the Executive action
on immigration.
We increasingly know that actions are dividing the country and
hurting hard-working Texans and American families across the Nation--
and not just by not contributing to the solution but by being a
positive obstacle to bipartisan resolutions of so many of these
problems. I realize the President must think that it is much easier to
issue Executive orders and threaten to veto legislation from the White
House, but it was not helping to solve problems we were sent here by
our constituents to solve.
There is no real reason preventing us from getting to the tax relief
I mentioned earlier that the President said he would veto. For years
House and Senate Republicans--often with significant bipartisan
support--have focused on making progrowth provisions of the Tax Code
permanent, such as the research and development tax credit, accelerated
depreciation, for example, and the section 179 provision.
To show how counterproductive it is for us to do these on a short-
term basis or to try to jam them through a lameduck session, I had a
farmer from Texas come and see me. He said: I am prepared to spend and
invest $200,000 on my farm if I know this tax provision is going to be
the law. If it is not, I won't. To me, that is just another example of
how what we do here--or what we don't do here--has a negative impact on
our economy and on investment in job creation.
While I know the bipartisan package proposed last week was not
perfect, it certainly would have moved us in the right direction. It
would have provided some certainty--indeed permanency--for some tax
provisions and would have provided some temporary relief on others.
Perhaps most importantly, it would have sent a signal to our
constituents that we got the message that was delivered to us on
November 4, and that we are going to commit ourselves anew to try to
work together to provide certainty and protect millions of Americans
from tax hikes that are just right around the corner and work on other
constructive proposals to help solve problems that affect the middle
class.
Unfortunately, the President has persisted in his attitude of
refusing to negotiate with Congress, resulting in another missed
opportunity, and ultimately another short-term fix that will provide no
long-term certainty to taxpayers struggling in the Obama economy.
Come January, there will be a new majority in the Senate that will
make the priorities of the American people the priorities of Congress.
As for President Obama, we can only hope he will somehow have an
epiphany and decide to work with us to unite the country rather than
continue to divide the country with more Executive actions and his
harmful ``take it or leave it'' approach to governing.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. BEGICH. Madam President, I was not intending to come down here. I
was getting ready to leave to see my 12-year-old son who just got home
from school and make sure that he has dinner and do all the things that
a parent would do, but I heard a speech earlier today--and I just heard
another one--and it is like revisionist history. It is amazing to me to
hear them talk about information that they claim is information--and
really when you listen carefully, it is really more of the same.
I agree with my colleague who was just here that people want
something different as the new Congress comes in. I will not be here,
as the Presiding Officer knows, but that does not mean I will not be a
participant in my community and also making comments when I hear
things. But what I heard was they are going to finally get to economic
development and improve the economy.
The two Members who spoke today whom I heard were here when I came to
the Senate in 2009, and a few years later the Presiding Officer came to
the Senate. People may have forgotten where this economy was in 2009.
The stock market was in dismal shape. I believe it was around 6,500 or
6,800--somewhere in that range. Unemployment was at 10 percent, and the
pundits and economists all said it was growing. Approximately 700,000
jobs were lost per month. Two of the three largest U.S. automobile
companies were basically on their back and about to go bankrupt. New
housing starts didn't exist, and prices of homes across the country
were crashing. Consumer confidence was at the lowest point I have ever
seen in I don't know how many years. The deficit was--annually--about
$1.4 trillion.
I know what happens these days--because I have experienced it for the
last several years--is news by the minute. What happens today in this
moment of time are these one-liners and I can tell they are very
synchronized today. They said that the economy was bad, and is still
bad, and the bright spot is around the corner.
Actually, you have to look at where we are today, 6 years later. The
stock market is at 17,000-plus. What does that mean? It means that
people who have retirement accounts, such as 401(k)s or 529s--putting
money aside for their kids' education--have had their value come back.
For my home State, which receives a benefit called the permanent fund
check--we invest in the stock market with oil revenues we put aside
constitutionally, and it is put in the permanent fund and a check is
issued once a year. Guess what? This year the check is double from what
it was last year. Why is that? Because it works on a 5-year average.
Going backwards--I took the year 2009 off; it was a very bad year--what
happened to the permanent fund check? It doubled this year in Alaska,
which meant that people got that money in their pocket and spent it on
the economy and helped to grow the economy.
Where is unemployment today? It is at 5.8 percent nationally--a 50-
percent drop. GM, Ford, and Chrysler have added 500,000 jobs since mid-
2009.
I know that today was like revisionist history. Amnesia has set into
some people over there. They want to recreate the news because the good
news is hard to talk about because it is reality.
Now, there is still a challenge. The Presiding Officer has talked
about this a great deal, and that is that people are still working
harder and longer because the incomes have not gone up enough. They
have not seen it come down to them yet, but they have seen it in
certain elements. Housing prices are up. In the one single largest
investment an individual makes in a lifetime--their housing prices are
back up.
Gasoline prices--I have no idea if my colleagues fill up their cars
with gas. I do. I know what it costs to fill up my tank, and it costs
less now. The average price across the country now is about $2.77. In
my State, it is about $3.35. But we were up to $5 in the urban areas--
but not anymore.
I saw the statistic today, and I wrote it down. I think I have this
right. The price of oil has gone down and so has the price of gasoline.
What does that save consumers every day? It saves consumers $630
million a day in current prices. It means that consumers are benefiting
from that.
When you look at job growth--I believe we are in our 55th straight
month of private-sector job growth. Again, we don't have it fully
trickling down to the wages yet, but first we have to right the
economy. I know the voters have made a decision. Before I came in, the
economy was a disaster. Before the Presiding Officer came in, the
economy was barely recovering. But I will not sit here and listen to
revisionist history.
As a matter of fact, the consumer confidence level is the highest
this month since 2007. That means consumers are finally feeling it a
little bit. There is still more to go. But to pretend that nothing has
happened over
[[Page S6256]]
the last 6 years--I can't use the words on the floor here because it
would be disrespectful--is just not true. It has changed. We still have
more work to do.
As a matter of fact, the tax extender bill--the items they didn't
want to support permanently would have brought it to every single
family that is still struggling. But I know there are tax provisions
they want for the NASCAR owners, the horseracing owners. I get that.
Those are their issues. I understand that. But we have to be realistic.
Also, the deficit. Think about this. When I came to the Senate in
2009, the annual deficit in this country was $1.4 trillion. Today, it
is $480 billion. It has dropped by $1 trillion per year. Now do we want
it to be zero? Yes. Do we want to have a surplus so we can start paying
off the debt? Absolutely. But we have to get recovery first--get some
treatment, which is what we have been doing--and then reinvest in the
future. That means infrastructure, education, and objectives that
matter to everyday Americans and everyday Alaskans.
I sit here and listen to these comments. Today it happened a little
bit before 12:30 p.m., before our caucus break, because we usually
break at 12:30 p.m. and I was going to go home. I turned on--my
mistake. I turned on the station and I heard the commentary and I
thought, Jacob is going to have to wait a little bit for dinner and I
am going to come to the floor, because it is amazing to me. Exports--
businesses we create in this country we ship out, up 37 percent over
the last several years. I will give an example of a company in Alaska.
When I was campaigning, I ran into this company in Fairbanks. They had
their manufacturing plant in China. Do my colleagues know where they
have it now? It is in Fairbanks, AK. They moved it from China to
Fairbanks. I told them they should put a 4-by-8 sign out there and say,
We take jobs from China and bring them home. They are all good jobs. As
a matter of fact, they are union jobs. So when people talk about how
unions are destroying the country--they actually brought jobs back that
are union jobs, paying good wages, good benefits, and took it from
China and brought it to Fairbanks, AK. It is unbelievable what they do.
They do business not only in Alaska, but in Hawaii and other places.
I listened over and over again today, and I want to make sure
people--also I should mention housing prices are up, new housing starts
are up, which is important for the construction industry. It creates
jobs and makes sure we have competition so prices are stabilized over
time. Retail sales are strong. I have no idea if my colleague who spoke
earlier has ever been in business. He talked about the 179
depreciation. I have actually used it because I have been in small
business. I have no idea if he understands how it works, but for small
businesses, it is a big deal. It is why Democrats have supported that
time and time again.
As a matter of fact, we had it in the minimum wage bill we brought to
the floor, the 179 extension, which they voted against, they did not
support--raising the minimum wage, bringing people out of poverty and,
by the way, helping small businesses expand and invest so they can grow
more. As someone who used the 179 more than once--as a matter of fact,
my wife has small businesses and is now expanding and investing and is
using the 179 depreciation. I hear what they are saying, but I don't
know if they understand how it is used. When we had the minimum wage
bill, coupled with 179, it seemed to make a lot of sense, but they
didn't like that, either.
So I wanted to come to the floor because I think it is important that
we, No. 1, don't take things out of context. They mentioned Senator
Schumer's speech several times. They should read the whole speech,
because I think they selected verbiage. I don't agree 100 percent with
his comments, but I agree with the concept. We actually did two things.
We worked on health care and we worked on the economy. I see people
sometimes when they eat their food, they eat one piece at a time--their
carrots first, and then their potato, and then their steak. We actually
did a little bit of everything. We dealt with health care, because it
was crushing the economy, but we dealt with the economy overall. We had
to take votes on a regular basis that the other side would never do,
because we bet on America. And the result is 6 years later, here we
are. The economy is better. It is stronger. It needs more work, there
is no question about it. We need to get the deficit to zero and get a
surplus, and knock the debt down. That was driven up not just by this
administration but by past administrations as well. They forgot about
the two wars they didn't pay for. The extender bill is not paid for. We
didn't hear one word about how that tax extender bill is not going to
be paid for. It is going to be another part of the debt. But 4 or 5
months ago--my colleagues may remember this--we were on the floor
debating veterans care, and all they said is how are we going to pay
for it. Well, the veterans paid, but we had to find a way. But here we
are going to give more corporate tax relief without paying for it--
except actually we do pay for it. Everyday Americans will pay for it
with their taxes, and the debt, and interest on the debt. So we have to
be clear about that.
I think about where we were, what we did, and where we are. It is
significantly different than 6 years ago. It is better. I agree there
is more work to be done to make sure we get more of the revenue stream
and opportunities in the hands of individuals--hard-working Alaskans,
hard-working folks from Massachusetts, and hard-working folks across
this country. That is our next obligation. But to come to the floor and
say the economy is a disaster is irresponsible. It is not correct. The
numbers tell us differently. Actually, even the conservative Forbes,
Wall Street Journal, and all of these other magazines and newspapers
that I read are now talking about how the economy is moving because we
have had this consecutive pattern which really tells how the economy is
improving. That is important.
The last thing I will say from a purely Alaska perspective is not
only are exports important to us because we do a lot of business
overseas--we have seen exports increase. Our unemployment in Anchorage,
for example, the city I am from, is 4.9 percent--a pretty good economy.
Our fisheries industry, which I know the Presiding Officer and I
share--78,000 jobs are connected to that--a $5 billion, almost $6
billion industry. Our tourism industry is up, with 2 million overall
visitors to our State, again, generating income. There is more activity
happening around the country than ever before, and my State is seeing
it every single day.
But to come to the floor and continue to be naysayers and talk about
how bad things are is really not responsible. We have done a great job.
Can we do better? Absolutely. That is what we strive for every single
day. And I hope--and I say this to the Presiding Officer because I will
not be here after January--that they don't take the position where they
are mad at immigration so now they are not going to do these economic
development issues, or they are mad at something else and they take it
out on some other program. We are going to have--the Presiding Officer
will have differences with her colleagues, on immigration, maybe, on
health care, on the economy, but we have to find common ground. The
economy is a constant issue, and where investments should happen if we
really want to have an impact down the road is investing in
infrastructure, education, relieving--as the Presiding Officer has
tried to do--relieving debt from students and families. There is now a
$1.4 trillion debt, I think, on families for student loans. It is
outrageous. We should be lowering those rates.
Also, as tax reform issues come up, which they will next year, I hope
the Senate and the House look at objectives such as making a big impact
for individual families, lowering the rates for individual families,
hard-working families, if we want to put cash in their pockets, if we
want to change the dynamics, give them more of their money back, not
the top 1 percent or even the top 10 percent, but I am talking about
the folks we see every day--I see every day--out there working hard. We
need to make sure they can start putting money aside for college
education for their kids, putting money aside for retirement, spending
more in the economy, because maybe that car that is 15 years old isn't
running so well anymore. That is what I hope we do. Individual relief
is more important than corporate relief or the top 1 percent.
[[Page S6257]]
On top of that, when we talk about corporate tax relief, never forget
who really is driving the economy. It is the small business owners,
including the limited liability corporations, the subchapter S
corporations, the sole proprietor individuals. They all get taxed by
individual rates. We will hear about corporate rate relief, which is
important to be competitive, but that is for the big guys. But the guys
we see every day--when we go to the cleaners, a sole proprietor; go to
a restaurant, sole proprietor, maybe it is an LLC--they are not going
to see that benefit unless we lower the rates for them. That is what we
should be doing if we want to make a difference for them. Because they
will use the 179 depreciation. The 179 has a limit. The big boys use it
a little bit, but the limit is really designed for small businesses to
reinvest. But if their tax rates are still too high, they won't be able
to take advantage of that as much as they can. We want them to take
advantage.
I didn't mean to take time here at the end of the evening. I know
lots of times people want to get out. But, honestly, I couldn't sit
there and listen to the revisionist history that continues to go on.
The elections are over. I know now it is called the Obama economy. That
is a new phrase. It is really collectively all of our economy, because
we participated in trying to save it. They have objected to it for the
last 6 years, so by their objection, they get to be a part of not
having the result that maybe they wanted, but the result is the economy
is much better. We need to do more work to make sure it gets into the
hands of the individual out there. I know that is a priority to the
Presiding Officer. But if I continue to hear it, I will continue to
come to the floor and speak, because people can't get away with just
saying over and over again that they are stating the facts, because the
facts are very clear as I just stated. The stock market has gone up.
Unemployment has dropped. Housing is up. Housing starts are up. The two
largest automobile companies, all three of them now, over a half a
million new jobs. Fifty-five consecutive months of growth. That is all
good news and we should be proud of it. The Presiding Officer should be
proud of it and the Senate should be proud of it. But there is no room
for revisionist history when we talk about the fact of where we were 6
years ago and where we are today.
I appreciate the time and yield the floor and suggest the absence of
a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Climate Change
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I am here for my 81st ``Time To Wake
Up'' speech and to ask this body to wake up to the effects of climate
change and to say this: Acting on this issue will accelerate economic
growth, spur innovation, and create jobs.
We have settled any real argument about the leading cause of climate
change. It is carbon pollution. Measurements in the atmosphere and
oceans reveal dramatic, even unprecedented changes in the climate.
Our scientists know carbon pollution heats up the climate and
acidifies the ocean. That is beyond debate. They know this is already a
problem for Americans and the world.
We had wonderful testimony from a NASA scientist today in the
Environment and Public Works Committee who talked about what they
actually see when they look down from the satellites.
They take measurements. They are not hypothesizing. They actually
measure these things. The scientists know that continued, unchecked
emissions of carbon dioxide will push the climate and the oceans into
dangerous unchartered new territory.
In the face of overwhelming evidence of climate change, some of our
Republican colleagues--just a few--are beginning to move beyond denial
of basic measurements and basic classroom science and beginning to talk
about the costs of action. That is progress. When he was asked recently
about climate change, the junior Senator from South Dakota acknowledged
there are a number of factors that contribute to that, including human
activity. The question is, he went on to say, what are we going to do
about it and at what cost?
Across the building, over on the House side, Congressman Paul Ryan of
Wisconsin has also been talking about the costs of action. In his most
recent campaign for reelection, he said that when it comes to action to
reduce carbon emissions, ``the benefits don't outweigh the costs.''
Let's talk about that. When we get past the denial, which with a few
of our colleagues it seems we have--not all, maybe not even many, but a
few--and we talk about balancing costs and benefits, if we look at the
whole ledger, there is no doubt about it that the balance favors
action.
Climate change carries enormous costs to our economy and to our way
of life. Acting now can accelerate economic growth and create new jobs.
The costs of climate change are huge. We even hear this from our own
advisers at the Government Accountability Office. In its 2013 high-risk
list, our Government Accountability Office said that climate change
poses a significant risk to the U.S. Government and to our Nation's
budget. Why? The Federal Government owns and operates infrastructure
and property that is vulnerable to the effects of climate change. The
Federal Government provides aid and disaster response when State
agencies are overwhelmed. The Federal Government is an insurer of
property and crops vulnerable to climate disruption. These are major
line items in the Federal budget.
Our Treasury Secretary, Jack Lew, recently explained:
If the fiscal burden from climate change continues to rise,
it will create budgetary pressures that will force hard
trade-offs, larger deficits or higher taxes, and these
tradeoffs would make it more challenging to invest in growth.
One example--just one. Last month, in the GAO report on what climate
change means for private and Federal insurance for crops and for
floods, it warned of increased hurricane-related losses to the Federal
program. They estimated between a 14- and 47-percent increase by 2040
and a 50- to 110-percent increase over the next century due to climate
change. Remember, when you are doubling a number like that, you are
starting with a pretty big baseline.
Superstorm Sandy wrought $66 billion in damage in 2012. If we are
constantly replacing damaged roads and bridges, always adapting farming
and fishing practices to suit never-seen-before conditions, and
frequently paying out big disaster relief and flood insurance claims,
that will hit the Federal pocketbook hard.
We do not even have to look to the costs of the future to justify
reducing carbon pollution today. Increasingly, green energy makes
economic sense for utilities, for business, and for consumers. Since
2008, prices for solar photovoltaic have dropped 80 percent--80
percent. Austin Energy in Texas recently signed a power purchase
agreement for a 150-megawatt solar plant at 5 cents per kilowatt hour--
less expensive than comparable offers for natural gas at 7 cents, coal
at 10 cents, or nuclear power at 13 cents. The story is similar for
wind power. Since 2009, the cost of wind power has decreased by 64
percent. At the lowest end of the price range nationally, unsubsidized
wind power prices are just below 4 cents per kilowatt hour. This
compares favorably to new coal generation, priced between 6 and 7 cents
per kilowatt hour at the lowest end.
The World Resources Institute has just done a brief report called
``Seeing is Believing: Status of renewable energy in the United
States.'' It is headlined ``Wind & solar are cheaper than coal & gas in
a growing number of markets.'' It lists sales in Utah, Colorado, Texas,
Georgia, and Minnesota--not States that have a lot in common except
that renewables are beginning to outcompete fossil fuels in those
States.
Similarly, the New York Times just last week in its business section
highlighted this shift in an article: ``Solar and Wind Energy Start to
Win on Price vs. Conventional Fuels.''
I ask unanimous consent that the World Resources Institute report and
the New York Times story be printed in the Record at the conclusion of
my remarks.
Green energy jobs--they are out there. They are helping communities.
[[Page S6258]]
Indeed, they are helping communities recover from the great recession.
Let me use a Rhode Island example--TPI Composites. TPI has a
development and manufacturing facility in Warren, RI. It is also one of
our leading manufacturers of wind turbine blades. They make them in
Iowa. When the Maytag plant closed in Newton IA, leaving as many as
4,000 workers jobless, wind jobs helped the town get back on its feet.
In 10 years TPI has manufactured more than 10,000 wind turbine blades.
In Iowa, MidAmerican Energy pays farmers thousands of dollars each
year to site their turbines on their farms. The farmers love it. They
can farm right up to about 25 feet around the base of the turbine.
There is a little gravel road for the maintenance trucks, but they can
farm right up to that. They get paid for having the turbines on their
farms. So it is a win-win that has helped Iowa generate more than one-
quarter of its electricity from wind.
They are investing more. They have been reducing emissions and moving
the State's economy forward--step by step reducing emissions and moving
the economy forward. More and more companies, in their own planning,
are seeing the economic benefits from cleaning up their supply chains
and reducing carbon pollution from their operations. They see green
investments increasing profits. ``Too many people say it's this or
that,'' Apple CEO Tim Cook explained earlier this year. ``We've found
that if you set the bar high, then it's possible to do both.''
Outside these walls here in Congress, where the deniers rule and
polluter money reigns, State and local political leaders also see that
reducing carbon pollution and growing the economy go hand in hand.
Almost 10 years ago, the Presiding officer's State and my State and
others--bipartisan--nine northeastern Governors came together and
formed the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, called RGGI, which caps
carbon emissions and sells permits to powerplants to emit greenhouse
gasses. Since the program started, RGGI States that have cut emissions
from the power sector have cut them by 40 percent.
Here is the blue line. That is the emission chart from 2005 through
2012. Well, if cutting emissions was bad for the economy, you would
think that the State GDP would have followed downward in that curve,
but, in fact, you see that the regional economy across these States
actually grew by 7 percent--grew by 7 percent. Bear in mind, this is
2008, the great recession.
Here we are now. So you would think that during this period the GDP
numbers would have taken a pounding. The underlying numbers are
actually better than this once you adjust for the recession.
Early estimates show that in its first decade, RGGI will have saved
New England families and businesses in the participating States nearly
$1.3 billion on their electric bills. It will have added $1.6 billion
into local economies. Along the way, those RGGI States will have added
16,000 job years. Additional investments are coming online because it
is such a successful program. So those benefits also grow. Rhode Island
has put over 90 percent of the money generated through the RGGI
auctions into energy efficiency improvements, helping residents save
money on their utility bills and making small businesses more
competitive. This success led Tom Wolf, the Governor-elect of
Pennsylvania--a coal mining and natural gas State--to campaign for
office successfully on joining RGGI.
RGGI shows that improving the environment boosts the economy. Look
north to Canada. British Columbia has a revenue-neutral carbon fee that
has reduced the use of polluting fossil fuels by 16 percent. What has
happened to the economy? The BC economy has not missed a step. The
carbon fee revenue has been used to lower personal and corporate rate
income taxes. British Columbia now has the lowest personal tax rate in
Canada.
If our Republican colleagues would like to lower our American
corporate and individual taxes, then I have a revenue-neutral carbon
fee bill I am happy to discuss with them. Evidence from Rhode Island to
British Columbia shows that action on carbon pollution spurs
innovation, creates jobs, and economically boosts families and
businesses.
Today I discussed this larger report, again from the World Resources
Institute, which is a group that has, for instance, executives from
Alcoa and Caterpillar on its board. This is not some fringe group; it
is a very responsible organization with significant corporate and
international leadership.
Here is the lead sentence:
A growing body of evidence shows that economic growth is
not in conflict with efforts to reduce emissions of
greenhouse gasses.
It continues:
Policies are often necessary to unlock these opportunities,
however, because market barriers hamper investment in what
are otherwise beneficial activities.
That is what we are about here. Unlock those opportunities for our
economy. On the downside--here is the first chapter heading: ``Delaying
action will have significant economic impacts.''
Climate change itself constitutes a significant risk to the
nation's economy.
The downside is on doing nothing, according to this report. The
upside is on changing our policies to seize those opportunities. Why
are we here fighting about this? Well, again, to quote the report:
The persistence of pollution externalities--
``Pollution externalities'' means when the cost of your product--you
can ship off to somebody else and make them have to take care of it.
The persistence of pollution externalities gives an unfair
advantage to polluting activities. Externalities occur when a
product or activity affects people in ways that are not fully
captured in its price, such as the full health effects of air
pollution not being factored into the cost of electricity
generation. Thus, society rather than the company pays the
cost.
Why are we in this fight? Because there are a lot of companies that
folks on the other side are supporting and representing here that have
been the winners in that fight. They have had those polluting
externalities work in their favor. They have enjoying that unfair
advantage. They do not want to give it up. But as the report continues,
the well-designed policies can overcome those market barriers and
direct investment into beneficial technologies and practices. New
policies can enhance the transition to a low-carbon economy while
delivering net economic benefits and, in many cases, direct savings for
consumers and businesses. So that is pretty good news.
Equally important, taking action helps to reduce the worst effects of
climate change--what is coming at us. Do not just take my word for it.
Many conservative economists, writers, and officials see the benefits
of market-based climate action. ``A tax on carbon,'' wrote Hudson
Institute economist Irwin Stelzer, ``need not swell the government's
coffers--if we pursue a second, long-held conservative objective:
Reducing the tax on work.
He continues:
It would be a relatively simple matter to arrange a dollar-
for-dollar, simultaneous reduction in payroll taxes. . . .
Anyone interested in jobs, jobs, jobs should find this an
attractive proposition, with growth-minded conservatives
leading the applause.
That is the economics of it unless you are shilling for the folks who
have had the unfair advantage and want to keep it, but that is not
market based, that is not economics, that is just taking care of
special interests.
A recent joint report from economists at the Brookings Institution
and the conservative American Enterprise Institute described human-
induced greenhouse gas emissions as a textbook example of a negative
externality. The report proposed--guess what--a revenue-neutral carbon
fee program as the efficient and elegant approach to managing carbon
pollution.
According to the report's authors:
Taxing something we do not want (e.g. greenhouse gas
emissions) rather than something we want more of (e.g.,
productive labor and investment) could help lower the
economy-wide cost of the program and may even have economic
benefits in addition to its environmental benefits.
Today, in the Environment and Public Works Committee, I had a
conversation with a Heritage Foundation witness in which I read to the
witness a very similar quote from the economist Arthur Laffer, Reagan's
economist, saying: A carbon fee--where you tax the product in the
ground and relieve taxes on work and effort by people--is a net win for
the economy.
I asked the witness what he thought about that, and he couldn't
dispute it.
[[Page S6259]]
In fact, he considers himself to be something of an acolyte of Arthur
Laffer's, so there is actually a lot of economic support for it.
I will conclude by saying, if the topic is now not going to be denial
but it is going to be the cost and benefits of climate action, I am
ready to have that conversation all day long. Let's just make sure it
is the whole conversation, not just the half of the conversation that
looks at what losing their subsidy means for the big oil companies, the
big coal companies, the Koch brothers and the rest of the polluters.
A lot of my colleagues only look at one side of the ledger, how this
affects the fossil fuel lobby. If we look at the whole ledger, if we
look at both sides, when we look at all the evidence, it tells us one
thing; that is, that the costs of climate change are already here. They
are showing up in our lives in innumerable ways that carry real
economic costs and carry real costs in terms of quality of life and our
identity as a country, and in fact they may overwhelm us by century's
end. Looking at all the evidence shows us that significant reductions
in carbon pollution will actually support jobs and increase economic
growth.
Finally, a revenue-neutral carbon fee would spur innovative business
models and technological development in the United States. If we lose
this race to clean up our carbon mess, one of the collateral injuries
we will sustain is that we will not have developed a robust clean
energy economy and we will find ourselves buying products from the
Chinese, the Indians, the Europeans, and others.
We need to put our industry to the test. They will rise to it. They
always have. We can trust them. We can count on them, but giving them a
pass does not serve their interests or ours. This will drive market
forces to decrease our emissions and grow our economy.
We have the tools to do something big. It has been proven in British
Columbia. It has been proven with RGGI. All of the economists across
the economic spectrum seem to agree the time is right to put a national
price on carbon.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the World Resources Institute]
Seeing Is Believing: Status of Renewable Energy in the United States
WIND & SOLAR ARE CHEAPER THAN COAL & GAS IN A GROWING NUMBER OF MARKETS
For each region, the average wind power purchase agreement
(PPA) is cheaper than new coal plants, new coal and natural
gas plants, and new coal and natural gas plants, even without
federal tax incentives. Wind PPA data is unavailable in the
Southeast region.
Well Designed Policies & Technological improvements can continue these
trends
Prices for solar PV systems have dropped 80 percent since
2008; analysts expect a continued decline in the coming
years.
New, taller wind turbines with longer blades are able to
capture more energy and can open the U.S. up to new areas of
wind development.
Long-term regulatory certainty is needed through a price on
carbon (like a carbon tax or cap-and-trade), or greenhouse
gas standards for existing power plants.
Additional important policy signals include: States and
utilities should ensure that renewable energy providers have
access to long-term contracts, which could reduce the average
electricity costs of wind and solar projects by 10-15
percent. Major corporations are already taking advantage of
electricity price savings from these long-term contracts, and
are asking for access in more states through the Corporate
Renewable Energy Buyers' Principles.
Congress should address the design flaw of renewable tax
incentives so that more of the value of the credit flows to
project developers (as opposed to third party investors)
without increasing the cost to taxpayers, for example by
making the tax incentive ``refundable''.
Renewable projects can face high financing costs, so
financial regulators and lending institutions should work
together to develop new investment models that lower these
costs.
Bringing more renewables online can be challenging because
the supply varies. States and utilities should update
regulations and business models to promote a flexible power
grid that uses more storage, distributed generation, and
demand response.
Federal spending on research and development in the power
sector has fallen 77 percent since 1980, while the power
industry itself spends only .05 percent of its earnings on
R&D (compared to 11 percent for the pharmaceutical industry
and 8 percent for computers and electronics). Congress should
therefore increase federal funding for research, development
and commercialization of low-carbon and energy-saving
technologies, especially for those that could generate
baseload electricity like geothermal and concentrating solar
power.
In the absence of other tools to provide long-term
regulatory certainty, EPA has used its existing legal
authority under the Clean Air Act to propose greenhouse gas
standards for existing power plants. EPA should finalize
these standards.
____
[From the New York Times, Nov. 23, 2014]
Solar and Wind Energy Start To Win on Price vs. Conventional Fuels
(By Diane Cardwell)
For the solar and wind industries in the United States, it
has been a long-held dream: to produce energy at a cost equal
to conventional sources like coal and natural gas.
That day appears to be dawning.
The cost of providing electricity from wind and solar power
plants has plummeted over the last five years, so much so
that in some markets renewable generation is now cheaper than
coal or natural gas.
Utility executives say the trend has accelerated this year,
with several companies signing contracts, known as power
purchase agreements, for solar or wind at prices below that
of natural gas, especially in the Great Plains and Southwest,
where wind and sunlight are abundant.
Those prices were made possible by generous subsidies that
could soon diminish or expire, but recent analyses show that
even without those subsidies, alternative energies can often
compete with traditional sources.
In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20
years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a
kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in
Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy
power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next
year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers
roughly $50 million from the project.
And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up
tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought
after seeing how low the bids came in last year.
``Wind was on sale--it was a Blue Light Special,'' said Jay
Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the
company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not
require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.
``We were doing it because it made sense for our
ratepayers,'' he said.
According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard,
the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents
a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In
comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on
the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the
firm's analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a
kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.
``It is really quite notable, when compared to where we
were just five years ago, to see the decline in the cost of
these technologies,'' said Jonathan Mir, a managing director
at Lazard, which has been comparing the economics of power
generation technologies since 2008.
Mr. Mir noted there were hidden costs that needed to be
taken into account for both renewable energy and fossil
fuels. Solar and wind farms, for example, produce power
intermittently--when the sun is shining or the wind is
blowing--and that requires utilities to have power available
on call from other sources that can respond to fluctuations
in demand. Alternately, conventional power sources produce
pollution, like carbon emissions, which face increasing
restrictions and costs.
But in a straight comparison of the costs of generating
power, Mr. Mir said that the amount solar and wind developers
needed to earn from each kilowatt-hour they sell from new
projects was often ``essentially competitive with what would
otherwise be had from newly constructed conventional
generation.''
Experts and executives caution that the low prices do not
mean wind and solar farms can replace conventional power
plants anytime soon.
``You can't dispatch it when you want to,'' said Khalil
Shalabi, vice president for energy market operations and
resource planning at Austin Energy, which is why the utility,
like others, still sees value in combined-cycle gas plants,
even though they may cost more. Nonetheless, he said,
executives were surprised to see how far solar prices had
fallen. ``Renewables had two issues: One, they were too
expensive, and they weren't dispatchable. They're not too
expensive anymore.''
According to the Solar Energy Industries Association, the
main trade group, the price of electricity sold to utilities
under long-term contracts from large-scale solar projects has
fallen by more than 70 percent since 2008, especially in the
Southwest.
The average upfront price to install standard utility-scale
projects dropped by more than a third since 2009, with higher
levels of production.
The price drop extends to homeowners and small businesses
as well; last year, the prices for residential and commercial
projects fell by roughly 12 to 15 percent from the year
before.
The wind industry largely tells the same story, with prices
dropping by more than half in recent years. Emily Williams,
manager of industry data and analytics at the American Wind
Energy Association, a trade
[[Page S6260]]
group, said that in 2013 utilities signed ``a record number
of power purchase agreements and what ended up being
historically low prices.''
Especially in the interior region of the country, from
North Dakota down to Texas, where wind energy is particularly
robust, utilities were able to lock in long contracts at 2.1
cents a kilowatt-hour, on average, she said. That is down
from prices closer to 5 cents five years ago.
``We're finding that in certain regions with certain wind
projects that these are competing or coming in below the cost
of even existing generation sources,'' she said.
Both industries have managed to bring down costs through a
combination of new technologies and approaches to financing
and operations. Still, the industries are not ready to give
up on their government supports just yet.
Already, solar executives are looking to extend a 30
percent federal tax credit that is set to fall to 10 percent
at the end of 2016. Wind professionals are seeking renewal of
a production tax credit that Congress has allowed to lapse
and then reinstated several times over the last few decades.
Senator Ron Wyden, the Oregon Democrat, who for now leads
the Finance Committee, held a hearing in September over the
issue, hoping to push a process to make the tax treatment of
all energy forms more consistent.
``Congress has developed a familiar pattern of passing
temporary extensions of those incentives, shaking hands and
heading home,'' he said at the hearing. ``But short-term
extensions cannot put renewables on the same footing as the
other energy sources in America's competitive marketplace.''
Where that effort will go now is anybody's guess, though,
with Republicans in control of both houses starting in
January.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previous
order be modified so the votes originally scheduled for 3 p.m. tomorrow
now occur at 5:30 p.m. and that the time following the 10 a.m. cloture
votes and 5:30 p.m. be equally divided in the usual form; further, that
notwithstanding rule XXII, following the vote on cloture on Calendar
No. 555, the Senate proceed to vote on cloture on the nomination of
Calendar No. 660; that if cloture is invoked on either nomination, the
time under cloture run consecutively in the order in which cloture was
invoked, with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in
effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________