[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5390-5396]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Collins, and I would

[[Page 5391]]

like to engage in a colloquy regarding the Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program, or LIHEAP.
  The Northeast-Midwest Senate Coalition, which I chair with Senator 
Collins, is a bipartisan coalition of Senators from the Northeast, 
Midwest and Mid-Atlantic dedicated to improving the environmental 
quality and economic vitality of the region. The Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program is a vital program to our region. LIHEAP provides 
home energy assistance to some of our Nation's most vulnerable 
citizens, including families with children, the elderly, and disabled 
individuals.
  People in our region know that cold weather kills. Mr. President, the 
facts speak for themselves. According to the Centers for Disease 
Control, between 1979 and 1998, hypothermia claimed the lives of over 
13,000 Americans, twice as many Americans than died due to excessive 
heat. Residential energy costs in the Northeast and Midwest are more 
expensive which means that families in the region spend a greater 
amount of their incomes on home heating. It also requires more energy 
to heat a home than to cool one. LIHEAP households in our region spend 
over twice as much to heat their homes in the winter than it costs to 
cool a home in the south in the summer. According to the Department of 
Health and Human Services, during the peak winter heating season, 
energy bills can frequently reach up to 30 percent of a low-income 
family's income, especially if they live in substandard housing.
  This winter, the average temperature in Rhode Island was in the low-
30s. Without heat, these temperatures are life-threatening. In my 
State, sweaters and blankets are not enough to keep you warm. If 
heating assistance is not available, low-income families, senior 
citizens and disable individuals living on fixed incomes make drastic 
choices, they go without food, prescription drugs and other basic 
necessities in order to maintain heat in their homes. On average, it 
cost $1,200 to heat a home in Rhode Island last year. Low-income 
families cannot afford these costs. LIHEAP provides vital assistance to 
keep the heat on for these households.
  In February, my home State of Rhode Island ran out of LIHEAP funding 
and had to close its program. I received phone calls from a number of 
senior citizens who were unable to heat their homes because they ran 
out of heating oil. To help low-income families address the runaway 
costs of home energy bills, we need greater funding for this program. 
This year, Senator Collins and I lead a bi-partisan letter supported by 
37 Senators that requested $3 billion for the LIHEAP program in fiscal 
2003. I will ask unanimous consent to print a copy of the letter in the 
Record, and I want to thank Senators Harkin and Specter for their 
strong and consistent support of this program.
  Senators Harkin and Specter increased LIHEAP funding by $300 million 
in fiscal year 2002. Unfortunately this was not enough to help States 
address the unmet need. During the winter of 2000/2001, the Nation 
experienced extraordinarily and unprecedented levels in energy costs 
along with colder winter temperatures. Many low-income families and 
senior citizens are still trying to pay off from the energy debt they 
incurred last winter. While energy prices are lower this year, they are 
not low by historic standards and the prices for natural gas and home 
heating oil remain at significant costs for many Americans. The 
recession is also an increasing need for assistance.
  There is something that President Bush can do immediately to help 
low-income households meet their energy needs. Congress appropriated 
$300 million in the FY2001 Supplemental Appropriations bill for 
emergency LIHEAP assistance. For incomprehensible reasons, the 
President has chosen not to release the emergency LIHEAP funding. And, 
the President's budget inexplicably requests $300 million less for this 
program in 2003. Leadership and action are urgently needed to help low-
income working families and senior citizens, and I hope the President 
will take action to release the emergency funds.
  Next year, the Health, Education and Labor and Pensions Committee 
will begin reauthorizing the LIHEAP program. I want to thank Senator 
Kennedy for his support of this program. I look forward to working with 
him and my colleagues to improve the LIHEAP program and increase 
funding.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Reed for 
his comments. LIHEAP is a vital heating assistance program for low-
income families with children, senior citizens and disabled 
individuals. My colleagues in the Northeast-Midwest Senate Coalition 
work tirelessly every year to increase funding for this program and to 
ensure that these resources get to those most in need.
  There is a terrible reality some low-income households must face each 
winter, to heat or to eat. Imagine a hard working low-income family 
that cannot cover the costs of basic necessities in the winter having 
to ask: Do I heat my home or provide enough food for my children? Or, 
imagine being an elderly couple and living on a fixed income who has to 
decide: Do we pay the heating bill or do we buy medicine? In Maine, a 
majority of our low-income families use heating oil to stay warm. When 
there is no oil, there is no heat. LIHEAP is the program that keeps the 
heat on for these families.
  My State of Maine had to lower this year's benefit by $100 in order 
to serve the 48,000 households that needed assistance. Over 60 percent 
of the recipient in my State are elderly living on a fixed income of 
only $10,000 a year. This year, 4,500 additional households applied for 
assistance. Many of these families needed help because they are 
unemployed and have exhausted unemployment benefits. While energy 
prices are lower this year, they are high for low-income Mainers. The 
average LIHEAP benefit of $338 per household pays for only a little 
more then one tank of fuel for these families. In Maine, the average 
annual cost to heat a home with oil is $1,200.
  The LIHEAP program was enacted to respond to the higher fuel prices 
and severe winters in cold weather States. Its primary focus is to 
alleviate winter heating crises. Heating homes is expensive. According 
to the National Fuel Funds Network, at the end of the 2000/2001 winter 
heating season, at least 4.3 million low-income households were at risk 
of having their utility service cutoff because of an inability to pay 
their winter home energy bills. In the Northeast and Midwest, the cost 
to heat a home is more expensive than to cool a home in the south, and 
families have to spend a greater amount of their incomes on home 
heating. LIHEAP households in the Northeast and Midwest spend over 
$1,200 on residential energy. This is 14 percent of their household 
income in the Northeast and 18 percent in the Midwest. LIHEAP 
households spend over twice as much to heat their homes in the winter 
than it costs to cool a home in the south.
  The current allocation formula acknowledges the important public 
health role this program serves in cold weather States. Since its 
enactment, Congress reaffirmed the commitment of this goal. The program 
has been reauthorized a number of times and Congress maintained its 
commitment to low-income families faced with high heating bills. It did 
this by ensuring that no State would receive less than it did when the 
program was enacted.
  Low-income households will take drastic, and unsafe, measures to try 
to stay warm in winter when they are in jeopardy of losing heat. When 
home energy bills are unaffordable in winter, low-income households 
rely on alternative heating sources such as ovens or space heaters. The 
National Fire Protection Association reports that house fires show a 
sharp increase in the cold-weather months. Half of the home heating 
fires and three-fourths of the home heating fires deaths occurred in 
the months of December, January, and February. Not being able to afford 
utilities place low-income households at increased risk to house fires 
and illness or death.
  We need to increase funding for this vital program. Thirty-seven of 
my colleagues joined Senator Reed and I in seeking increased 
appropriations for

[[Page 5392]]

this program for fiscal year 2003. I look forward to working with 
Chairman Kennedy and Ranking Member Gregg on the HELP Committee on 
reauthorization of this important program.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letter to which 
I referred be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to printed in the 
Record, as follows:


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, April 2, 2002.
     Hon. Tom Harkin, Chairman
     Hon. Arlen Specter, Ranking Member
     Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
         Education Appropriations, Senate Committee on 
         Appropriations, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Specter: We are 
     writing to express our strong support for the Low Income Home 
     Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). We appreciate your 
     consistent support for this critical program to help low-
     income families and senior citizens address high energy 
     burdens. We recognize the difficult choices that you face 
     this fiscal year, however, we believe that the strong and 
     continued growth in households requesting LIHEAP assistance 
     demonstrates that the funding needed for this program has 
     never been greater. We respectfully request that you consider 
     appropriating $3 billion in regular LIHEAP funds for FY2003 
     and provide advanced appropriations for FY2004.
       LIHEAP is a vital safety net for our nation's low-income 
     households. For many low-income families, disabled 
     individuals and senior citizens living on fixed incomes, home 
     energy costs are unaffordable. Without LIHEAP assistance, 
     low-income families and senior citizens face the impossible 
     choice between paying their home energy bills or affording 
     other basic necessities such as prescription drugs, housing 
     and food. In FY2001, states received $2.25 billion in regular 
     and contingency LIHEAP funding. Despite this historic level 
     of funding, it is estimated that states were only able to 
     serve 17 percent of the 29 million eligible households. 
     Currently, states only have $1.7 billion available in LIHEAP 
     funds for FY2002. Sixteen states estimate that they will be 
     out of funding by the end of March.
       We also request advanced appropriations for the program for 
     FY2004. Advance funding allows states to plan more 
     efficiently, and therefore, more economically. State LIHEAP 
     directors begin planning in spring and early summer for the 
     upcoming year. Without advanced funding, state directors are 
     unable to plan program outreach or leverage resources as 
     effectively. Advanced funding will also ensure that states 
     have the necessary funding to open their programs at the 
     beginning of the fiscal year in order to provide timely 
     assistance to low-income families who cannot afford to wait.
       We look forward to working with you to secure the necessary 
     LIHEAP funding to meet the needs of millions of low-income 
     families. Thank you for your consideration of our request.
           Sincerely,
         Jack Reed, Susan M. Collins, Olympia Snowe, Carl Levin, 
           Joseph Biden, Paul D. Wellstone, Debbie Stabenow, 
           Joseph Lieberman, Paul Sarbanes, Charles Schumer, 
           George V. Voinovich, Dick Lugar, James M. Jeffords, Bob 
           Smith, Mark Dayton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John F. 
           Kerry, Lincoln Chafee, Patrick Leahy, Herb Kohl, 
           Barbara A. Mikulski, Edward Kennedy, Max Baucus, Kent 
           Conrad, Jay Rockefeller, Dick Durbin, Robert 
           Torricelli, Conrad Burns, Christopher Dodd, Mike 
           DeWine, Patty Murray, Gordon Smith, Blanche Lincoln, 
           Byron L. Dorgan, Jeff Bingaman, Ron Wyden, Jean 
           Carnahan, Maria Cantwell, Jon S. Corzine,


                   Ethanol and the Highway Trust Fund

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, ensuring necessary and affordable energy 
supplies, including ethanol-blended motor fuels and other initiatives, 
is important to the quality of life and economic prosperity of all 
Americans. Policies to achieve these objectives, however, should not 
come at the expense of transportation infrastructure improvements.
  By directing 2.5 cents from the sale of gasohol to the highway trust 
fund, we can begin to alleviate a growing problem for many States--
lower highway trust fund contributions and therefore lower highway 
apportionments.
  Furthermore, a major goal of TEA-21 was to restore the integrity of 
the highway trust fund by depositing all motor fuel taxes in the trust 
fund and then spending that money on highway, and some transit, 
programs. Gasohol's 2.5 cents is the only user tax on vehicle fuel that 
does not flow into the highway trust fund . I am proud to have it as 
part of the energy tax package.
  I would especially like to thank Senators Harkin, Warner, and the 
ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley for their 
help in getting the 2.5 cent provision in the energy tax package. But 
the 2.5 cents is just the beginning.
  I had planned to introduce an amendment, along with Senators Harkin 
and Warner, that would truly make the highway trust fund ``whole.'' 
This amendment would keep the ethanol subsidy, but make sure that it is 
the Treasury's General Fund that subsidizes ethanol--not the highway 
trust fund.
  The ethanol subsidy is good energy policy, good agriculture policy 
and good tax policy. Yet, ironically, it is the highway trust fund that 
bears the burden of the subsidy. Since it is good general policy, I 
believe that the general fund should bear the burden of the subsidy.
  I have been asked by several Senators not to offer an amendment at 
this time. I have complied with the requests of my colleagues. However, 
I am fully committed to recouping the 5.3 cents for the highway trust 
fund at the next possible opportunity.
  I would like to thank Senators Warner and Harkin for working so 
closely with me on this matter. I look forward to continuing that work 
as soon as possible.
  I am pleased to see progress being made to include the highway trust 
fund in our collective thoughts as we discuss energy policy.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I congratulate the chairman of the Finance 
Committee, Senator Baucus, for his strong leadership in working to 
secure the integrity of the highway trust fund and promote the use of 
ethanol and other renewable fuels like biodiesel. I also commend the 
hard work of Senator Warner to preserve the trust fund.
  There is no question that a strong highway system is vitally 
important to the efficiency of our economy. Poor roads mean higher 
costs to move goods, raising prices to consumers and making us less 
competitive in a world marketplace. It also means inconvenience to our 
citizens. The use of fuels containing ethanol or soy is both extremely 
important to the economy of rural America and good for the environment. 
The Federal Government wisely promotes ethanol as a fuel through the 
Tax Code and in other ways. But, on the negative side, against the 
logic of our country's need, current law provides that increased use of 
ethanol in fuel means a reduction in the highway trust fund and fewer 
dollars being spent to repair and improve our roads and bridges. I 
would note that mass transit currently is not adversely impacted under 
the law.
  I was very pleased to be an original cosponsor of S. 1306, Highway 
Trust Fund Recovery Act, which provides for the shifting of the excise 
taxes on alcohol fuels from the general fund to the highway trust fund 
starting on October 1, 2003. I am very pleased that the measure has 
been included in the package of tax measures that the Finance Committee 
proposed to be added to the energy bill along with the very important 
legislation on biodiesel.
  Enacting the Highway Trust Fund Recovery Act is the first step. The 
next step is to provide that the highway trust fund be made truly whole 
for the 5.3 cents not collected for gasohol. We have agreed to not 
offer a proposal to accomplish that goal during the floor debate of 
this measure. However, it is my intention to work with Senator Baucus, 
Senator Warner and others to try to accomplish the goal of passing 
legislation to fully reimburse the highway trust fund from the general 
fund as soon as possible.
  Mr. INHOFE. I commend the Senators from Montana and Iowa for their 
vigorous support of the highway trust fund. Because of their efforts, 
the measure pending before us, the trust fund, will recoup an 
additional 2.5 cents per gallon of ethanol currently being deposited 
into general revenue.
  The Senator from Montana has also been very aggressive at trying to 
make the trust fund whole with respect to the current 5.3-cent per 
gallon ethanol subsidy. Although he and I do not agree on how to best 
address this issue, we are in agreement that the highway trust fund 
should not pay to subsidize

[[Page 5393]]

any fuel source. Our surface transportation infrastructure needs are 
such that we cannot afford to forego any revenue source.
  Certainly one of the key factors in the economic engine that drives 
our economy is a safe, efficient transportation system. If our economic 
recovery is going to continue to expand we cannot ignore the immediate 
and critical infrastructure needs of highways, bridges, and State and 
local roadways systems.
  I believe this issue is best resolved through the reauthorization of 
the surface transportation program next year. Furthermore, it is my 
hope that the final result will be one that can be embraced by all 
sides in this debate.
  Thus, I will be pulling together a working group of the highway 
community, the renewable fuels community, the refiners and the 
agricultural community to begin discussions on how we can make the 
highway trust fund whole. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from 
the Renewable Fuels Association be printed in the Record.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Again, I thank my colleagues from Montana and Iowa for their 
leadership on this issue and look forward to working with them to 
devise a permanent solution to this drain on the highway trust fund.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I applaud Senator Baucus for his efforts to enhance the 
flow of revenues into the highway trust fund. In particular, his 
suggestion that the time has come to redirect the 2.5 cents in ethanol 
tax that is now going into the general fund back to the highway trust 
fund is both timely and constructive.
  As we reauthorize the surface transportation program over the coming 
months, I look forward to working with Senator Baucus and others on the 
broader issue of the Nation's shifting fuel mix and the implications of 
that trend on the highway trust fund.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. As the Senators know, the compromise 
fuels package in the Daschle energy bill, which includes my language to 
ban MTBE and clean up the contamination caused by this gas additive, 
will also dramatically increase the use of ethanol. This compromise 
came after lengthy negotiations with several members of the Senate. We 
all worked in good faith to reach this agreement.
  However, the increase in ethanol use will, over time, have a negative 
impact on the highway trust fund due to the ethanol subsidy which 
exempts ethanol from a good portion of the gasoline tax that pays into 
the trust fund. This is a concern that virtually all members of the 
Environment & Public Works Committee share, and it is problem that we 
will have to address. I believe that reauthorization of TEA-21 is the 
proper place to fix the trust fund problems caused by the increased 
ethanol use.
  Between now and the time we introduce TEA-21 reauthorization, I would 
encourage all parties to work together, in a similar fashion to the way 
we reached the fuels compromise, in order to reach a consensus on the 
ethanol tax subsidy. If we work together in good faith, I have little 
doubt we will find a solution that can be included in reauthorization. 
I look forward to working my colleagues in that process.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Our Nation's vulnerability to foreign energy production 
has been brought into bold relief by the continuing turmoil in the 
Middle East. It is imperative that our Nation take greater strides to 
promote the use of domestic, renewable fuels as a means of reducing our 
dangerous dependence on imported oil and strengthening U.S. energy 
security.
  An aggressive program to produce and use more renewable fuel should 
be one of the pillars of our Nation's energy policy. And, as America 
uses more renewable fuel, we need to make sure that the financial 
soundness of the highway trust fund is not inadvertently undermined. 
That is why I strongly support Chairman Baucus' efforts to ensure that 
future use of ethanol will have no impact on the trust fund. I applaud 
his efforts in this regard and pledge to do whatever I can to see that 
we hold the highway trust fund harmless as we seek to make America more 
energy independent.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to support the efforts of Chairman 
Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley to ensure that the tax package from 
the Finance Committee begins to reform our tax policies to provide 
equitable treatment for the highway trust fund, the only source of 
Federal revenues to improve our Nation's transportation infrastructure.
  The Finance Committee's package ensures that revenue from the 2.5-
cent excise tax on the sale of gasohol will be transferred to the 
highway trust fund.
  It has been my privilege to work closely with Senator Baucus as a 
senior member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works during 
the development of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 
TEA-21. He has always been a steadfast partner on surface 
transportation issues, and once again, he is providing the necessary 
leadership to protect the solvency and purpose of the highway trust 
fund. All vehicles, regardless of whether they use gasoline or gasohol, 
cause the same damage to our roads. The highway trust fund is the only 
means to finance highway maintenance and expansion activities, and 
without the Highway Trust Fund Recovery Act our States would receive 
less funding to improve our roads.
  Depositing the 2.5 cents into the highway trust fund, however, is an 
important first step, but only part of the solution. I have been 
working with Senator Baucus and others to offer an amendment to provide 
for the full transfer of 5.3 cents to the highway trust fund, but we 
have decided to reserve this issue for another time. I remain fully 
committed to restoring the integrity of the highway trust fund by 
recovering the entire 5.3 cent per gallon subsidy that gasohol 
currently receives.
  The bill before the Senate also contains other provisions which will 
contribute to further reductions in revenues to the highway trust fund. 
Depending on the final disposition of the renewable fuels provisions, 
revenues to the highway trust fund could significantly decrease as the 
renewable fuels mandate increases. I look forward to working with 
Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Grassley, and the leadership of both 
parties to fully restore revenues to the highway trust fund so that our 
national network of highways remains a premiere system.
  Mr. REID. I share my colleagues' concern about the losses to the 
highway trust fund that result from the sale of ethanol-blended fuels. 
These losses to the highway trust fund have two causes. First, 2.5 
cents of the existing tax on ethanol goes into the General Fund rather 
than the highway trust fund. Senator Baucus has introduced a bill to 
address this problem and I am a cosponsor of that legislation.
  Second, the trust fund loses revenue because the tax on ethanol-
blended gasoline is lower than taxes on other fuels. With the mandate 
contained in this bill, this subsidy will have an increasingly negative 
impact on revenues into the highway trust fund.
  Next year we will reauthorize the Transportation Equity Act for the 
21st Century. This Nation has tremendous transportation infrastructure 
needs that must be addressed if we are to keep our roads safe and our 
economy moving. As we begin work on this important legislation, I hope 
that we can address the significant losses to the trust fund that 
result from current ethanol policy. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues on this and other issues related to the reauthorization of 
TEA-21.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Once again, I would like to state my intention of dealing 
with the ``5.3-cent problem'' as soon as possible. I look forward to 
working with these Senators and others as we work to protect the 
highway trust fund our Nation's source of funding for our surface 
transportation system.

                               Exhibit 1


                                  Renewable Fuels Association,

                                   Washington, DC, March 22, 2002.
     Hon. James M. Inhofe,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Inhofe, Baucus, Smith, Conrad, Grassley, 
     Jeffords, Reid and Daschle: The Renewable Fuels Association

[[Page 5394]]

     (RFA) appreciates your leadership on including a ``Renewable 
     Fuel Standard'' in the Energy Policy Act of 2002 (S. 517). 
     This program will provide significant energy, environmental 
     and economic benefits for the Nation.
       At the same time, we recognize that an increase in the 
     production and use of renewable fuels, including ethanol, 
     will have an impact on Federal highway excise tax receipts. 
     The RFA does not believe any state should be penalized by the 
     use of renewable fuels. Sound transportation policy and sound 
     energy policy should not be mutually exclusive. Thus, as 
     Congress works to reauthorize highway and transportation 
     funding next year, we wholeheartedly encourage Congress to 
     work towards addressing the issues surrounding the Highway 
     Trust Fund and other transportation trust funds as they 
     relate to ethanol.
       Much has been made of ethanol's impact on Highway Trust 
     Fund receipts in FY 2003, and at the appropriate time, prior 
     to or during the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity 
     Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law 105-178, we 
     look forward to working with the United States Senate, the 
     House of Representatives and the Administration, to create 
     the appropriate program to address the needs of these 
     programs.
       Additionally, we support transferring the 2.5 cents 
     currently directed to the General Fund for deficit reduction, 
     back to the Highway Trust Fund as is included in the ``Energy 
     Tax Incentives Act of 2002'' (S. 1979), which has been 
     approved by the Senate Finance Committee earlier this year.
       Transportation funding issues are not simple, and we look 
     forward to working with you on this important issue on a 
     unified front to address the many needs of the 
     transportation, petroleum, and renewable fuels industries.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Bob Dinneen,
                                                        President.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I appreciate the efforts by Chairman 
Baucus for correcting an oversight by Congress when it failed to shift 
from the general fund to the highway trust fund, 2.5 cents per gallon 
collected from sales of gasohol. Similar adjustments for other fuels 
were made by a previous Congress, but not for gasohol.
  I also want to thank the chairman for refraining from offering an 
amendment at this time that would require the general fund to 
contribute 5.3 cents to the highway trust fund for every gallon of 
gasohol sold.
  It is wise to wait until next Congress when we can look at the big 
picture. Next year, we need to analyze all revenue sources for the 
highway trust fund to determine if adjustments are appropriate.
  We also need to determine if adjustments are appropriate in the way 
we spend the Highway Trust Funds that are collected. For instance, we 
may determine that it makes better sense for mass transit subsidies to 
come from general funds instead of from the highway trust fund.
  We may find that the subsidies for special motor fuels such as 
propane, methanol, and liquified natural gas should be paid from the 
general fund instead of the highway trust fund. These three fuels are 
not paying the full 18.3 cents per gallon. Propane receives a 4.7 cent 
subsidy, liquified natural gas receives a 6.4 cent subsidy, and 
methanol receives a 9.15 cent subsidy. Much needs to be addressed as we 
reauthorize the highway bill, and approaching this very important 
matter in a piecemeal fashion would be a mistake.


                           Aviation Emissions

  Mr. BURNS. At this time, the General Accounting Office is working on 
a study--requested by the House Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, Aviation Subcommittee--to conduct a comprehensive 
overview of key issues associated with emissions from aviation 
activities. This study would cover the same subject matter as 
contemplated in Section 803 of H.R. 4. At this time of tight budget 
constraints, it is not a good use of limited resources to produce 
redundant studies. Accordingly, I urge Senator Murkowski in conference 
on the Energy Bill to strike the language in H.R. 4 requesting an 
aircraft emissions study.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I agree that this study does appear duplicative.
  Mr. BURNS. In addition to the GAO study, I wish to bring your 
attention to a voluntary effort to address emissions from the aviation 
sector, known as the ``EPA/FAA Local Air Quality Initiative.'' As part 
of this voluntary initiative, the Environmental Protection Agency, 
Federal Aviation Administration, States, airlines, aerospace 
manufacturers, and environmental groups are working together to develop 
analyses that address the same subject matter detailed in H.R. 4.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I agree with my colleague from Montana that there is 
no need at this time for another study on this issue. The Senator has 
my assurance that I will work to remove this provision when we go to 
conference.


                       climate change provisions

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the substitute for Title X of the Senate 
Amendment 2917, and title XIII, encompass significant bipartisan 
progress on the topic of climate change policy. This progress has been 
reached in discussions involving staff for many Senators with keen 
interests in this area, including myself and Senator Murkowski on 
behalf of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Senators Byrd 
and Stevens, Senators Kerry and Hagel, and the chair and ranking 
members of the Committee on Governmental Affairs and the Committee on 
Commerce, Science and Transportation. All these Committees that I just 
mentioned have important jurisdictional responsibilities under rule XXV 
related to the climate change provisions in this bill. There is one 
major area in the proposed changes to Senate Amendment 2917 that is 
still not in agreement, and that will be left to conference for further 
discussion, but will describe that in a moment. What has been agreed 
to, and for which there is commitment on the part of the co-sponsors of 
this amendment to advocate for here in the Senate and maintain in 
conference, is substantial.
  First, we have developed a streamlined set of findings and a Sense of 
Congress relating to climate change, the shared international 
responsibility to address the problem, and the role of the United 
States in that matrix of shared responsibility. Senate Amendment 2917 
had, in effect, two sets of findings in this regard. Developing a 
single set of agreed-to-statements, on the part of a broad cross-
section of Senators with active interests in climate change policy, is 
an important accomplishment.
  Second, we have taken the fundamental elements of S. 1008, introduced 
by Senators Byrd and Stevens and agreed to nearly all of them. S. 1008 
was introduced on June 8, 2001 and referred to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs. That committee held a hearing on the bill on July 
18, and marked the bill up in a business meeting on August 2, 2001. It 
was ordered reported by voice vote, and the Committee's report, as well 
as additional views of some members, was filed on November 15, 2001. 
This legislative history should be relevant to those who will be 
responsible for implementing these provisions. One of the agreed-to 
elements brought in from S. 1008 is a requirement for the development 
of a National Climate Change Strategy, which will be updated every 4 
years. That Strategy and its updates will be reviewed by the National 
Academy of Sciences, which will provide its findings and recommendation 
both to the President and to Congress. The Strategy will be the central 
focus for integrating, across the government, a consideration of the 
broad range of activities and action that can be taken to reduce, 
avoid, and sequester greenhouse gas emissions both in the United States 
and in other countries. The development of the Strategy is also 
intended to draw on broad participation from the public, scientific 
bodies, academia, industry, and various levels of State, local, and 
tribal governments. Another agreed-to element from S. 1008 is the 
creation of an Office of Climate Change Technology in the Department of 
Energy, and authority for creation of other necessary offices to carry 
out the National Climate Change Strategy in other agencies. The DOE 
Office will have a special role in bridging the gap that now exists 
between the more conventional energy technology R&D programs now in 
place at DOE and the necessary research that is pointing the way to 
breakthrough technologies that could have a pronounced effect on our 
ability to meet the climate change challenge. The substantial increase 
in authorization for this function that was contained in S. 1008 is 
maintained.

[[Page 5395]]

  Third, we have come to agreement on how to improve the structure of 
coordination of climate change science and monitoring programs across 
government, including the creation of a mechanism to fill gaps in 
research efforts among the various agency programs. Substantial 
portions of a bipartisan Commerce Committee bill, S. 1716, the Global 
Climate Change Act of 2001, introduced by Senators Kerry, Stevens, 
Hollings, Inouye and Akaka, are included in these sections. This bill 
emerged from a series of hearings held by the Committee during the 
107th Congress on the state of scientific knowledge of climate change 
and its impacts and possible technological means to address the 
problem. These Commerce Committee provisions include amendments to the 
Global Change Research Act, as well as language that ensures the 
programs and capabilities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration and the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
to monitor, measure, understand, and respond to climate change and 
climate variability.
  The one area of remaining disagreement in Title X relates to the 
proposed White House Office of National Climate Change Policy, in 
Section 1013 of the proposed text for Title X. I believe that it would 
be true to say that the co-sponsors of this amendment, at a minimum, 
all support having a locus of accountability for the development and 
implementation of climate change policy in the Executive Office of the 
President. All of us believe that it should be headed by a Senate-
confirmed appointee. We did not, however, reach consensus on how this 
position should be structured and whether the appointee should be a new 
or existing position. We have agreed to move forward to conference with 
the language of S. 1008, with the expectation that we would be able to 
engage the White House at that point and come to a final resolution of 
how to provide for the central accountability in the Executive Office 
of the President that is acceptable to all parties.
  On all other issues in Titles X and XIII aside from Section 1013, 
though, we are in agreement. We recommend their acceptance to our 
colleagues here in the Senate and, if adopted, plan to support these 
provisions strongly in conference.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would like to thank my colleague for his statement 
and indicate my support for the agreement that we have reached. These 
two titles of Senate Amendment 2917 lay the foundation for a sensible 
approach to managing the risk of climate change while providing the 
energy we will need for continued economic growth. The elements 
contained in these titles--improved scientific research, investment in 
development of improved energy technology, transfer of these 
technologies to markets at home and overseas, and coordinated climate 
policy development--are the same elements that were contained in S. 882 
and S. 1776 in the 106th Congress, and S. 1294 in the 107th Congress, 
legislation that I was pleased to sponsor or cosponsor along with 
others. Title XIII also contains the elements of my legislation, S. 
815, to improve research in the Arctic, including on topics of climate 
change. I want to thank Senator Bingaman and his staff for their 
leadership on forging this important bipartisan approach to our 
Nation's climate policy, and I want to thank all those Senators and 
staff who helped to bring these Titles into being.
  Mr. BYRD. I would like to thank my colleagues for their statements 
and indicate my support for the agreement that we have reached. I would 
also note the historic nature of what has been negotiated, refined, and 
supported by the Senate here today. The passage of a national climate 
change strategy, along with the improved integration of science and 
technology programs, is critical to our Nation's long-term energy 
policy. I appreciate that other Members also believe that, at a 
minimum, there needs to be a Senate-confirmed appointee in the White 
House to oversee climate change policy. While I understand that there 
is not full agreement on this issue at this time, I believe that it is 
important to have a new, separate office in the White House to serve as 
a focal point for this multifaceted, multidimensional, long-term issue. 
After further discussion, I hope that these important provisions will 
be supported by the House energy conferees and the White House as a 
part of a national energy policy.
  Mr. STEVENS. I would like to thank my colleagues for their statements 
and indicate my support for the agreement that we have reached. Title 
X, of Senate Amendment 2917, will address an immediate need to 
stimulate our Nation's research and development in innovative 
technologies and attempt to resolve any remaining uncertainties on the 
causes of climate change. Title XIII will provide the mechanisms to 
better assess coastal vulnerability from climate variances and improve 
climate monitoring, observing and prediction. The Barrow Arctic 
Research Center, authorized in Title XIII, is intended to replace the 
decades old and poorly equipped Naval Arctic Research Laboratory in 
Barrow and will perform the desperately needed scientific research on 
climate change that is already impacting America's Arctic.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I would like to thank my colleagues for their 
statements and indicate my support for the agreement that we have 
reached. As Senator Bingaman has indicated, this language incorporates 
the essential components of S. 1008, the Climate Change Strategy and 
Technology Innovation Act of 2001. Senators Byrd and Stevens introduced 
this important legislation, and I am proud that the Governmental 
Affairs Committee which I chair quickly endorsed the bill. The 
committee report accompanying the bill explains the reasoning behind 
the legislation and, as Senator Bingaman stated, should provide 
direction to those charged with executing the provisions of Title X. 
But I would like to summarize a few key points about why this is such 
an important contribution by Senators Byrd and Stevens. First, they 
have found a constructive way to move forward in a bipartisan fashion 
on the issue of climate change, one of the most profound and daunting 
challenges we face as a Nation and, indeed, a world community. Second, 
the bill establishes a regime of accountability on climate change--
under the legislation, the administration would be required to 
articulate a strategy to reach the long-agreed upon goal of stabilizing 
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Third, the bill 
provides support for the innovative technologies that will be essential 
to meet the challenge of climate change. This legislation is an 
important step forward on climate change, and I thank my colleagues for 
their work on this provision.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I would like to thank my colleagues for their 
statements and indicate my support for the agreement that we have 
reached with regard to Title X. A lot of hard work has gone into this 
agreement. It is my belief that there are still many uncertainties with 
regard to climate change. However, I also believe that the potential 
risks of climate change warrant study, research and technological 
development. This substitute to Title X goes a long way towards 
achieving those goals. This amendment also recognizes that there are 
many contributors to climate change beyond CO2 and I 
appreciate that black soot is included. My biggest concern with the 
substitute is the creation of a White House Office on Climate Change. 
As ranking member of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, I have 
great concerns about duplication and overlayering in government. I hope 
we can work this out in conference and I look forward to the White 
House weighing in on this important issue.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I would like to thank my colleagues for their 
statements and indicate my support for this bipartisan agreement on 
climate science and technology policy. The Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation over the years has developed and 
implemented the key statutes governing these matters. These include 
statutes establishing interagency science and research programs like 
the Global Climate Change Act, a coordinated Federal science and 
technology policy, such as is called for in the National Science and 
Technology Policy,

[[Page 5396]]

Organization and Priorities Act, and those establishing the first tier 
atmospheric science and technology programs within NOAA and NIST. I 
fully agree that responsibility for policy relating to climate issues 
should rest with an individual who is accountable to Congress, much as 
we have done for overall science and technology policy by exercising 
our oversight authority over the White House Office of Science 
Technology Policy, which will shoulder substantial responsibilities 
under this agreement.
  Mr. KERRY. I would like to thank my colleagues for their statements 
and indicate my support for the agreement that we have reached. 
Included in that agreement is a Sense of the Congress on the 
international climate change negotiations. The resolution originally 
passed the Foreign Relations Committee in August of 2001. At that time, 
Senator Biden and Senator Rockefeller played an important role in 
crafting it. The text as passed out of Committee called on President 
Bush to engage in the international negotiations and to present a 
proposal to the Conference of the Parties by October 2001 for a revised 
Kyoto Protocol or other binding agreement. However, since the Committee 
acted the state of the international negotiations has fundamentally 
changed. The revised text, as included in this legislation, reflects 
those important changes. I appreciate the work of Senators Biden and 
Hagel in crafting the updated text.
  I believe that the bipartisan consensus also strengthens the 
scientific and technical work that needs to be carried out and improves 
upon the structure for doing so. I am particularly pleased that the 
agreement incorporates provisions from the Commerce Committee's bill 
that will bring the world-class science, technology, and planning 
expertise of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and 
other Department of Commerce programs to bear on this problem--whether 
it is in climate observation, measurement and verification, information 
management, modeling and monitoring, technology development and 
transfer, or hazards planning and prevention. I am also pleased to see 
the bill includes language to establish a framework for a national 
coastal and ocean observing system, which is essential for climate 
prediction and coastal response planning.
  Mr. HAGEL. I would like to thank Chairman Bingaman and Senator 
Murkowski, and their staff, for their leadership in reaching an 
agreement on Title X. I would also like to thank my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle for their efforts, particularly Senators Byrd and 
Stevens who authored many of the original provisions included in Title 
X. This agreement represents the hard work of reaching a bipartisan 
consensus on a very challenging and difficult issue. While recognizing 
the need for greater coordination of climate change policy, I share 
Senator Thompson's concerns regarding the overlapping bureaucracy 
created by a new White House office and look forward to addressing this 
issue more fully in conference. Nonetheless, through the agreement 
reached on Title X we have made considerable progress in advancing 
climate change policy on a bipartisan foundation.
  Ms. SNOWE. I thank my esteemed colleagues, Senator Bingaman and 
Senator Murkowski, and those Senators who have taken part in this 
colloquy today as it shows an unprecedented effort to forge a 
bipartisan agreement to address the various issues relating to climate 
change and what our domestic approach and strategy should be for short 
and long term goals for stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations 
through U.S. actions. In addition, it will help the nation continue its 
efforts to carry out the objectives of the United Nations Framework 
Convention on Climate Change signed by President George H.W. Bush in 
1992 and ratified by the U.S. Senate. The major objective of the 
Conference is for the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in 
the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic, 
or manmade, interference with the climate system.
  I am pleased that Title X calls for an Office of National Climate 
Change Policy in the White House and hope this direction is pursued as 
last year I expressed my concerns to the Administration that the 
national energy policy being developed in the White House should not be 
developed independently of our U.S. climate change policy. These 
policies should be seamlessly coordinated across a number of our 
federal agencies through a broad range of research activities and 
actions that begin to reduce our Nation's greenhouse gas emissions in 
an environmentally and technologically sound and economically feasible 
manner.
  I am particularly pleased that Title XIII calls for an ocean and 
coastal observing system that will give us real time observations to 
help those of us on the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on 
Atmosphere, Oceans and Fisheries greater understand, assess and respond 
to both human-induced and natural processes of climate change and 
support efforts to restore the health of and manage coastal and marine 
ecosystems and living resources. Activities will also include research 
on abrupt climate change urged in December 2001 by the National 
Academies for NOAA research to identify the likelihood and potential 
impact of a sudden change in climate in response to global warming. I 
look forward to working with my colleague sand the White House on this 
issue of great importance not only to me, but to the Nation, to the 
international community, and to those generations to follow.

                          ____________________