[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11083-11089]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             CLIMATE CHANGE

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I heard the distinguished majority leader 
criticize the Republicans for wanting to have a debate on this piece of 
legislation. Frankly, I think we would be remiss in our duties if we 
didn't discuss this important piece of legislation, as complex and 
difficult a topic as it is and, frankly, ask questions that I know our 
constituents would ask of us were we to vote for or against this 
particular legislation.
  I, for one, make no apologies for doing what I consider to be my 
duty, and I think all of us would do well to ask questions about this 
legislation, which proposes a $6.7 trillion pricetag--that is trillion; 
not billion, not million but trillion, $6.7 trillion.
  We talk about what Congress has been doing. Let me mention what 
Congress has not been doing and what the Senate has not been doing.
  It has been 109 days since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 
was not reauthorized, which has hampered our ability to listen in on 
terrorist-to-terrorist communications.
  We have spent 560 days since American businesses and farmers have 
been disadvantaged by not taking up the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. 
For my State alone, it is roughly $2.3 billion a year. But my 
producers, farmers, and manufacturers are disadvantaged by tariffs on 
those goods when they are imported into Colombia, even though Colombian 
goods bear zero tariffs coming into the United States. We ought to fix 
that.
  So it has been 560 days since that condition has existed. It has been 
705 days since some judicial nominees have been waiting for a vote. It 
has been 771 days since Speaker Pelosi went campaigning before the 2006 
election and said, if elected, the Democrats would deliver a 
commonsense solution to the price of gasoline and the pain consumers 
were feeling at the pump. That

[[Page 11084]]

was 771 days ago. Yet there has been no proposal by our friends in the 
majority to actually come up with a commonsense solution to help ease 
the pain at the pump. Instead, we have a bill which--while I don't 
question the motivation for the bill since we are all concerned about 
the environment, I do think it is important that we ask questions about 
a bill that carries such a high pricetag and which will have the impact 
of actually increasing the cost of energy--gasoline and electricity--
rather than reducing it.
  I must say that last week, like all the rest of my colleagues, I went 
back home and had a chance to visit with a number of my constituents. 
Of course, high gasoline prices was the No. 1 issue on their minds. 
Even though my State is doing relatively well compared to the rest of 
the country, with about a 4.1-percent unemployment rate, we have seen 
some softening in the housing market, but generally speaking, my State 
is prospering. We are grateful for that. But even people who have jobs 
and feel as though they are doing pretty well otherwise are still 
feeling their paychecks shrink as a result of rising energy costs.
  I am wondering why we are now on a piece of legislation that, rather 
than reducing the cost of their gasoline or electricity, will actually 
increase it. Right now, the average price of a gallon of gasoline 
across the country is right at $4 per gallon.
  As I talked to my constituents last week around the State, they asked 
me: What is Congress going to do to finally take action to lower those 
prices?
  Well, unfortunately, I had to tell them we only got 42 votes on a 
provision on a bill--the Domenici amendment--which would actually have 
increased our use of American energy and reduced our dependency on 
imported oil from some of our enemies, such as Hugo Chavez from 
Venezuela and Ahmed Amadi Nejad from Iran, which are part of OPEC.
  By our inaction in Congress, we are driving up that cost because, 
since 1982, we have been putting vast American reserves of energy out 
of bounds through a moratorium that was enacted on the Outer 
Continental Shelf, through our unwillingness to explore and develop oil 
shale in the West and our unwillingness to allow the State of Alaska to 
develop its own energy reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 
So it is easy for me to understand, seeing that disconnect between what 
my constituents are concerned about--high prices of energy, including 
gasoline--having to come back and debate a bill that will drive up 
those costs even further--it is easy to see why more and more people 
believe Congress is totally disconnected from reality. Congress appears 
to have very little relevance to the issue that concerns the American 
people the most, and that is the family budget.
  I want to be clear about one matter though. The debate about our 
environment is one well worth having. Of course, we can all do better 
and should do better in being good stewards of the environment, 
conserving energy and reducing waste. Reducing dependency on foreign 
oil and bringing down prices at the pump are needed too. My fear is 
that this important issue is rapidly becoming just another tired 
political game.
  Taking care of the environment is not a Republican versus Democrat 
issue. It should not be about partisan politics. Haven't we learned by 
now that the American people are fed up with the games in Washington 
and want real solutions?
  Well, yesterday, the majority leader and the chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Boxer, were criticizing 
the fact that we wanted to use some of the time today to ask questions 
about this important legislation so that we could educate ourselves and 
our constituents about what is in this very complex piece of 
legislation. But I do have some questions I hope will be answered in 
this week's debate.
  First of all, how much will this bill cost? I have read estimates 
that this bill's pricetag is somewhere in the $6.7 trillion range. I 
fear that if that is correct, this is simply too costly of a burden to 
put on the American people. This is especially true when I believe more 
cost-effective solutions are available. I think we should balk at any 
piece of legislation that carries a pricetag of $6.7 trillion. Perhaps 
I have not been in Congress long enough to be jaded by such talk, and I 
hope I never am, but I still have trouble grasping the enormity of a 
number like $1 trillion. Now we are talking about $6.7 trillion. People 
in Congress tend to toss those numbers around like it is pocket change. 
But this is real money coming out of the budgets of real people--the 
American people.
  I would like to know why $6.7 trillion, and what is that money going 
to be spent for?
  Why do we have to opt for a cost in that range when there are more 
cost-effective solutions available, such as tax credits for developing 
renewable energy, clean energy, like solar energy and wind energy? Why 
aren't we doing more to develop our nuclear energy capacity to create 
electricity, which is carbon free? Why aren't we doing that instead of 
spending $6.7 trillion?
  I want to know what the impact of this legislation would be on our 
economy and on the family budget. Already we have seen--as a result of 
the inaction of Congress over this last 771 days, since our Democratic 
colleagues said they had a commonsense plan to reduce the price of 
gasoline at the pump--the average American family lose $1,400 in 
increased gasoline costs as a result of the rise in gasoline prices 
over that same period of time.
  Now, some estimates are that Texas families--my constituents--would 
pay an additional $8,000 if we pass this piece of legislation. That 
includes, some estimates say, a 145-percent increase in electricity 
costs and a 147-percent increase in gasoline costs. That is at least 
$5.30 a gallon at a time when gasoline is $3.98 a gallon.
  Is it really true the proponents of this legislation want to raise 
that to $5.30 a gallon? It seems to me we are going in the wrong 
direction, not the right direction.
  At the same time, it is estimated this legislation, if passed, would 
actually cause more than 300,000 Texans to lose their jobs. Overall, 
estimates indicate this bill could cost the economy in my State--one of 
the States that is actually doing very well from an economic point of 
view--more than $50 billion in additional costs.
  Mr. President, we cannot afford another wet blanket on our economy 
caused by higher taxes and more expenses coming out of the family 
budget and more pressure on our job creators that provide people an 
opportunity to put food on the table.
  Another question I have is, if the United States of America decides 
to impose this costly burden on ourselves, will China and India 
likewise impose the same burden on their energy industry? Of course, 
booming industrial giants such as China and India both have 1 billion-
plus people. We know we are increasingly in a global competition and 
not only with India and China but the entire planet.
  Why in the world would we impose a costly piece of legislation in the 
amount of $6.7 trillion on the American people and raise electricity 
costs and gasoline costs and depress the gross domestic product of this 
country, putting people out of work, if our major global competitors 
are going to get off scot-free and not likewise constrain their economy 
by imposing these sorts of burdens on themselves?
  Finally, Mr. President, I would like to know on what basis do the 
proponents of the legislation believe this bill will have its intended 
effect? If human beings contribute to climate change, which I will not 
debate--I assume we do in some way or another--why have these targets 
been proposed? What is the science to justify those? What if those 
targets are reached, albeit at a cost of $6.7 trillion, with rising gas 
and electricity costs and a depression effect on our gross domestic 
product? How do we know, and where is the science that says, this bill 
will actually have its intended effect, particularly if China and 
India, our global competitors, don't participate?
  The Wall Street Journal has dubbed this legislation ``the most 
extensive Government reorganization of the

[[Page 11085]]

American economy since the 1930s.'' It seems to me this is something we 
should debate and examine and we should ask questions about so that we 
will know what the effect of this bill will be if it is passed.
  We have already seen that Congress is not exactly omniscient when it 
comes to the energy area, where we have subsidized corn-based ethanol 
as an alternative to renewable sources of energy. The fact is, we found 
there are unintended consequences when we use food for fuel.
  How do we know this particular bill, the Boxer climate tax bill, will 
not have unintended consequences? I fear it may not have the intended 
effect of reducing carbon emissions, and it may have some of the 
unintended and disastrous side effects I have already outlined.
  If we are certain this is the right approach to protecting the 
environment, where is the evidence? Yesterday, the distinguished 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and today the 
majority leader, complained about the fact that we want to use some 
time today to ask these questions and get answers. We should not be 
asked nor should the American people be asked to accept this on faith: 
Don't worry, trust us. It reminds me of the most fearsome words in the 
English language: We are from the Government, and we are here to help. 
If that is true, the American people ought to see the evidence that 
will justify this huge expenditure of their money, the huge increase in 
prices of energy, and the depressing effect on the economy, why that is 
necessary, and whether it will actually work as intended. Where is the 
evidence?
  Senator Boxer, the distinguished chairman of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, said the rising cost would not be a problem 
because of tax offsets she has included in this bill. She assured us 
this bill contained almost $1 trillion of tax relief, so that if we do 
see some of the increases in energy costs in the early years--
electricity, for example--we can offset that. It almost boggles the 
imagination that the primary author of this legislation, Senator Boxer, 
would essentially concede that there will be rising energy costs as a 
result of this legislation and say we ought to spend $1 trillion more 
of the taxpayers' money to provide offsets for relief. This huge, 
complex bill deserves all the scrutiny we can give it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would like to say, first of all, that 
I share some of the great concerns of my colleague from Texas.
  Today, I rise to address the legislative proposal introduced by 
Senators Lieberman and Warner to address global climate change. Like 
many of my colleagues, I share the urgency to take proactive steps to 
address this challenge we have.
  That said, I have serious reservations about the proposal. I think it 
is overly aggressive, vastly outpacing what technology can provide and 
thus ensuring enormous economic pain on the country, and it is overly 
bureaucratic and cumbersome in its implementation, representing an 
unprecedented expansion of Government power and a massive bureaucratic 
intrusion into American lives that will have a profound effect on 
businesses, communities, and families.
  The EPA has stated in answer to a letter I sent them that this 
program will take between 300 and 400 people to implement, whereas the 
acid rain provision takes just under 30.
  The major failure of this legislation is it fails to harmonize our 
country's economic energy and environmental objectives, and the 
consequences to American interests could be devastating.
  The international aspect of this problem is particularly troublesome. 
The developing world is currently undertaking an intensive expansion of 
energy infrastructure and escalating industrial and commercial 
expansion to meet the demands of growing domestic and international 
markets. The developing nations' combined emissions shortly will exceed 
the developed nations' combined emissions.
  In 2007, ``[t]he International Energy Agency issued a . . . report 
projecting global energy demand would increase by more than one-half by 
2030, and that `Developing countries . . . contribute 74 percent of the 
increase in global primary energy use . . . China and India alone 
account for 45 percent of that increase.' ''
  China puts on line two coal-fired plants every week--two coal-fired 
plants every week. In June, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment 
Agency announced that China's 2006 CO2 emissions surpassed 
those of the United States by 8 percent. With this, China tops the list 
of CO2-emitting countries for the first time and, by the 
way, years ahead of the projections that were made a couple of years 
ago.
  Much like China, those countries with large domestic reserves of 
coal--and that includes the United States--will continue to use it. It 
is unrealistic to assume that the world would turn its back on this 
abundant resource. We must take this reality into account, and this can 
be done by jump-starting the technology that is needed to produce the 
energy we need in an environmentally sound manner.
  Recognizing the international dynamic of this problem, the Lieberman-
Warner proposal attempts to impose a tariff-like requirement to hold 
carbon credits for goods entering the United States from countries that 
do not control their emissions. The U.S. Trade Representative has 
questioned the plan's efficacy, and China, Mexico, and Brazil have 
signaled that the policy could begin a trade war. Indeed, top officials 
from the European Union and the United Nations have also raised doubts 
about whether the U.S. trade penalties would harm the prospects of a 
new global warming agreement.
  But even if the provision is WTO compliant, it will not address the 
underlying competitiveness issues the United States would face from the 
higher fuel, feedstock, and electricity prices the bill would impose on 
U.S. manufacturers.
  A better approach is needed. Americans are already struggling with 
the increase in their cost of living due to higher prices for gasoline, 
home heating fuel, electricity, food, and health care, and this bill 
would only make things worse. I wish some of the sponsors would go back 
into their respective constituencies to hear the complaints from most 
people--middle-class people, poor, the retirees--whose standard of 
living is being reduced in the country today because of these costs.
  We cannot tolerate policies that harm our economy and drive 
businesses overseas. If those businesses locate in countries that do 
not share our environmental objectives, then we are worse off on two 
counts: Fewer jobs in the United States and no benefits at all to the 
environment.
  Over my strenuous objections, this bill was voted out of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee without an analysis of the 
economic impacts on the country from either the EPA or the Energy 
Information Office. Today, we have at least a dozen analyses of the 
bill from a wide variety of groups, and they are all about the same.
  EPA's analysis predicts that by 2030, annual losses in gross domestic 
product could be as high as $983 billion, and by 2050, those losses 
would grow to $2.8 trillion. To put this into perspective, CBO projects 
the Federal budget for this year will be $2.9 trillion. That means the 
potential impact losses from this legislation in 2050 would equal that 
spent on everything we intend to spend this year from Social Security 
to national defense. Think about it.
  In order to meet the caps of the bill, the analysis assumes 
aggressive growth in nuclear and other clean energy technologies at 
rates that are widely regarded as unachievable and, from my 
perspective, unbelievable. For example, they predict a 150-percent 
increase in nuclear power by 2050. Today, there are 104 operating 
plants, meaning that we have to build up to another 150 new plants by 
2050. The Energy Information Office said, when they did the analysis, 
that we would have to build 220 of them

[[Page 11086]]

by 2030 in order for these caps to be realistic. These assumptions are 
unrealistic and mask the true cost of implementing the bill.
  In regard to nuclear power, I recently published a paper in the 
Nuclear News on the steps we need to take to launch a nuclear 
renaissance. I am going to make certain that each Member receives a 
copy of this paper. But bringing vast amounts of new nuclear power on 
line will not be a layup shot. For example, there is only one company 
and one plant in the world that makes the vessels and forges for 
plants. Recently, we anticipated new plants would cost about $5 
billion. The new cost is $7 billion per copy. Today, we have pending at 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9 applications for 15 new plants 
that, if constructed, would not come on line until 2015, 2016, and 
2017. Honestly, we are going to be lucky to have 30 new nuclear 
powerplants by 2030.
  In regard to what we call capture carbon and sequestration--the 
technology that is needed--no commercial experience or testing at scale 
has been done. DOE says it will take 10 years before the seven large-
scale demonstration tests are complete to look at sequestration. DOE 
said that a more robust geological assessment will not be complete 
until 2015. Liability and critical infrastructure issues remain 
unanswered, and DOE says commercial CCS may not be available for 20 
years.
  The connection between the costs of the program and the availability 
of clean energy technology is clear. As EIA points out:

       The . . . timing of the development, commercialization, and 
     deployment of low-emissions electricity generating 
     technologies such as nuclear power, coal with CCS, and 
     dispatchable renewable power is a major detriment of the 
     energy and economic impacts of 2191.

  I want to repeat that.

       The . . . timing of the development, commercialization, and 
     deployment of low-emissions electricity generating 
     technologies such as nuclear power, coal with [carbon capture 
     sequestration], and dispatchable renewable power is a major 
     detriment of the energy and economic impacts of 2191.

  The Cleveland Plain Dealer, which is the largest newspaper in the 
State of Ohio, this Sunday editorialized on this bill. The title is 
``This carbon bill isn't the answer.'' It goes on to say:

       The bill, as conceived, will just bore new holes into an 
     already battered economy. . . .
       Coal-dependent states with partially deregulated energy 
     prices--Ohio, for instance--would take a double hit in 
     economic dislocations and electricity price spikes, with 
     barely any financial cushions to make the disruptions more 
     palatable. The bill also lacks the kind of consumer fairness 
     and flexibility necessary to avoid fuel-price shocks and 
     damage to manufacturing nationwide.

  I ask unanimous consent to have this editorial printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From the Plain Dealer, June 1, 2008]

                   This Carbon Bill Isn't the Answer

       The latest version of a bill that would mandate a carbon 
     emissions cap-and-trade system for utilities and others using 
     high-carbon coal is due to come before the full U.S. Senate 
     on Monday. It could be voted on before the end of the week.
       To judge from the intensity of lobbying, you'd think it was 
     a proposal to make it easier to exit Iraq, corral oil prices, 
     revive the economy, spur renewable energy investments and end 
     unemployment.
       You'd be wrong on all counts.
       The bill, as conceived, will just bore new holes into an 
     already battered economy.
       It also doesn't have a prayer of becoming law. There is no 
     companion legislation in the House, and President Bush 
     threatens a veto if one materializes.
       Neither of Ohio's senators has said he supports it, and the 
     big push by environmentalists to try to swing one of those 
     likely nays--the one belonging to freshman Democrat Sherrod 
     Brown--is all about symbolism over substance. In failing to 
     compromise on issues of regional equity repeatedly 
     highlighted by Ohio's other senator, George Voinovich, the 
     bill's supporters evince crass disregard for the economic 
     realities of hard-hit manufacturing states.
       Neither Brown nor Voinovich denies the need to reduce 
     carbon emissions and address global warming.
       That need is increasingly urgent, given recent findings by 
     scientists within the formerly skeptical Bush administration 
     on how accelerating climate change is beginning to impact 
     Americans' well-being.
       Yet the hammer-and-tong approach of the Senate bill--
     originally sponsored by Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut 
     and Republican John Warner of Virginia and recently tweaked 
     by Democrat Barbara Boxer of California--lacks even a 
     semblance of balance.
       Coal-dependent states with partially deregulated energy 
     prices--Ohio, for instance--would take a double hit in 
     economic dislocations and electricity price spikes, with 
     barely any financial cushions to make the disruptions more 
     palatable. The bill also lacks the kind of consumer fairness 
     and flexibility necessary to avoid fuel-price shocks and 
     damage to manufacturing nationwide.
       Those who have watched the Europeans' cap-and-trade system 
     deteriorate into a nightmare of bureaucratic costs, 
     nonsensical investments in outdated factories in China and 
     puzzling price spikes in which the utilities were the only 
     clear winners can be excused for scratching their heads over 
     why cap-and-trade remains the ``only'' idea worth pursuing.
       Surely there are less cumbersome, more equitable ways of 
     making carbon emissions more expensive, and thus spurring 
     investment in new technologies, without breaking the banks of 
     both small-town and industries Ohio.

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record the paper I have written on the nuclear renaissance.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  [From the Nuclear News, March 2008]

                Making the Nuclear Renaissance a Reality

                        (By George V. Voinovich)

       In September, for the first time in over 30 years, a 
     license application to build a new nuclear power plant was 
     filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Three more 
     applications soon followed. The NRC expects to receive 18 
     more applications within the next two years for a total of 
     more than 30 new reactors. Although no applicant has yet made 
     a firm commitment to build, a number of them have made 
     significant investments, such as ordering long-lead 
     construction items. Internationally, the resurgence seems to 
     be moving at a faster pace. According to the International 
     Atomic Energy Agency, there are 34 reactors in various stages 
     of construction in 14 countries.
       The underlying political climate for nuclear power has 
     changed over the past several years, influenced by a 
     confluence of factors: the growing demand for electricity, 
     sharp increases in the prices of natural gas and oil, and the 
     increased emphasis on clean energy. Recent government 
     policies, such as the Energy Policy Act of 2005, have 
     certainly helped in stimulating private sector investment for 
     new nuclear as part of a portfolio of ``environmentally 
     clean'' energy projects. At the state level, legislation has 
     passed or is being considered in Georgia, Iowa, Wisconsin, 
     Florida, Virginia, Kansas, South Carolina, and Texas 
     recognizing the value of a diverse energy portfolio that 
     includes new nuclear plants. These factors have created an 
     environment in which nuclear has once again emerged as a 
     viable (perhaps one of only a few) energy source for baseload 
     generating capacity.
       Currently, 50 percent of our electricity comes from coal, 
     19 percent from nuclear, 19 percent from natural gas, 9 
     percent from renewable sources such as hydro, solar, and 
     wind, and 3 percent from oil. Of these, coal and nuclear 
     (with average capacity factor of about 90 percent) have been 
     the backbone of baseload generating capacity, since they are 
     capable of providing a steady flow of power to the grid at 
     low cost and high efficiency. Solar and wind power plants 
     produce electricity only when conditions are right; when the 
     sun sets or the wind calms, their output drops, regardless of 
     the demand for electricity. Natural gas power plants are too 
     expensive to run as baseload plants due to volatility in 
     natural gas prices.
       According to the Energy Information Agency, U.S. 
     electricity consumption is projected to grow from 3821 
     billion kilowatt-hours in 2005 to 5478 billion kilowatt-hours 
     by 2030, an increase of more than 43 percent. To be sure, we 
     must have greater efficiency, more demand-side management, 
     and more renewable energy, but we must also have clean coal 
     and nuclear generating capacity to sustain our $ll-trillion-
     a-year economy. With increasing environmental constraints, 
     particularly the desire for caps on carbon emissions, 
     expanding nuclear's share of baseload seems logical. The 104 
     nuclear power plants operating today represent over 70 
     percent of the nation's emission-free generation portfolio, 
     avoiding 681 million metric tons of CO2, compared 
     with 13.1 million tons for wind and 0.5 million tons for 
     solar.
       So it is no accident that there is a growing realization 
     among environmentalists, scientists, the media, think tanks, 
     and policymakers that nuclear power must play an important 
     role in harmonizing the country's need for energy 
     independence, economic competitiveness, and a healthy 
     environment. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), chairwoman of 
     the Environment and Public Works Committee, recently stated: 
     ``I am a pragmatist. The vast majority of the members on my 
     committee support nuclear power, and so do the majority in 
     the Senate. . . . I don't think

[[Page 11087]]

     there is any question that we are going to be seeing new 
     plants.'' Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, 
     also caused a stir last year when he declared that ``nuclear 
     energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source 
     that can reduce emissions while continuing to satisfy a 
     growing demand for power . . . and these days it can do so 
     safety.'' They have come to a similar conclusion: If we are 
     to meet the growing electricity needs in this country and 
     also address global climate change, nuclear power has a 
     crucial role to play.
       Despite these positive developments, a number of formidable 
     challenges to realizing a nuclear renaissance remain, 
     particularly in the areas of regulatory uncertainty, 
     financing, availability of human capital, expansion of the 
     domestic supply chain infrastructure, and nuclear waste 
     management. I intend to take steps, together with other 
     stakeholders, to turn these challenges into opportunities. My 
     hope is that these steps will serve as a road map to making 
     the nuclear renaissance a reality.


                         regulatory uncertainty

       Processing 22 or more new plant license applications 
     concurrently on schedule in a thorough manner will be a 
     monumental challenge for the NRC, which has not seen this 
     type of major licensing action in the past 25 years or so. 
     That is why as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public 
     Works Committee's Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear 
     Safety between 2003 and 2006, and now as ranking member, I 
     have focused a great deal of time and effort on making sure 
     that the NRC is gearing up to meet this challenge and avoid a 
     bottleneck. My management philosophy since my days as mayor 
     of Cleveland and governor of Ohio hasn't changed: Place the 
     right people to run the agencies and departments, provide 
     them with the resource and tools necessary to do their jobs 
     effectively and efficiently, and then hold them accountable 
     for results.
       Together with Sen. Tom Carper (D., Del.) and Sen. Jim 
     Inhofe (R., Okla.), I introduced a number of bills--the 
     Nuclear Fees Reauthorization Act of 2005 (S. 858), the 
     Nuclear Safety and Security Act of 2005 (S. 864), and the 
     Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 2005 (S. 865)--to provide 
     the NRC with what it needs in terms of legislative reforms, 
     human capital, and other resources to do its job effectively 
     and efficiently. These pieces of legislation were enacted 
     into law as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Among 
     other things, these bills authorized the NRC to take 
     innovative steps to attract both young talent and retired 
     experts to address the agency's anticipated shortages in 
     technical capabilities.
       The NRC's licensing process has been completely overhauled. 
     All regulatory approvals are now received up front based on a 
     completed plant design, before construction starts and 
     significant capital is placed at risk. Under the old process, 
     repeated construction delays and massive cost overruns were 
     common as applicants struggled to stay ahead of evolving 
     regulatory requirements and design changes. The old process 
     required two separate permits--one to begin construction of 
     the plant, and one to operate it--allowing multiple 
     opportunities for delay. Some multibillion-dollar facilities 
     stood idle for years while licensing proceedings ground 
     slowly to completion. The new process requires only a single 
     combined construction and operating license (COL) for both 
     functions. There are opportunities for public participation 
     in the new process, but most of those occur before 
     construction begins, when such participation is most 
     productive.
       While the new licensing process is a significant 
     improvement over the old process, a level of healthy 
     skepticism remains by virtue of the fact that the new process 
     has not yet been tested. Given the complexities involved, it 
     is perfectly reasonable to expect some wrinkles during the 
     NRC's review of the first few applications under the new 
     process. In my view, the level of success and certainty in 
     the process will depend in large part on the discipline with 
     which the process is implemented by both the NRC and the 
     applicants.
       Finally, and perhaps most important, the composition and 
     the stability of the commission will be more critical than 
     ever before. Senator Carper and I will work with the 
     administration and the Senate leadership to ensure that 
     future appointees have a balanced and objective view 
     regarding nuclear power and its role in harmonizing the 
     country's need for energy independence, economic 
     competitiveness, and a healthy environment.


                               Financing

       The nuclear industry's major financing challenge is the 
     cost of new baseload nuclear power plants relative to the 
     size of the companies that must make those investments. 
     Unregulated generating companies and regulated integrated 
     utilities represent different business models, and those 
     differences influence how these companies approach nuclear 
     plant financing. Regulated companies expect to finance 
     nuclear plants in the same way they finance all major capital 
     projects, with state regulatory approval and reasonable 
     assurance of investment recovery through approved rate 
     charges. These companies must know--before construction 
     begins--that their investment in a new nuclear plant is 
     judged prudent and can be recovered. Unregulated companies 
     rely on debt financing with a highly leveraged capital 
     structure. Since the estimated cost of a new nuclear plant 
     ($5 billion to $6 billion) is a significant fraction of the 
     company's assets, it is in effect a bet-the-company decision.
       To help overcome these obstacles, the Energy Policy Act of 
     2005 provides key incentives for investments in new nuclear 
     plants: a production tax credit of $18 per megawatt-hour for 
     the first 6000 megawatts of new nuclear capacity; regulatory 
     risk insurance against delays in commercial operation caused 
     by licensing or litigation for up to $500 million for the 
     first two plants and $250 million for the next four; and loan 
     guarantees up to 80 percent of the cost of projects, such as 
     nuclear plants, that reduce emissions. While the production 
     tax credit certainly improves the financial attractiveness of 
     a project during its commercial operation, and regulatory 
     risk insurance provides a safety net in case of regulatory 
     delays, it is the loan guarantee provision that makes the 
     difference for unregulated companies in deciding whether or 
     not to build. Properly implemented, this loan guarantee 
     program allows unregulated companies building nuclear plants 
     to employ a more leveraged capital structure at reduced 
     financing costs, which then benefits consumers through lower 
     rates for the price of electricity.
       I have worked hard to make the loan guarantee program 
     perform as Congress intended in the Energy Policy Act of 
     2005--that is, to attract sufficient private capital at low 
     cost. In addition to meeting with key administration 
     officials, including then Office of Management and Budget 
     Director Rob Portman and Energy Secretary Sam Bodman, in 
     2007. I introduced the Voinovich-Carper-Inhofe Amendment (SA-
     1575) to the Energy Bill (H.R. 6) to allow loan guarantees of 
     100 percent of the loan amount for capital-intensive projects 
     such as nuclear and clean coal, provided that the borrower 
     pays for the loan subsidy costs. Although this amendment did 
     not make it into the final version of the Energy Bill, the 
     administration recently issued a final rule that in effect 
     adopts the intent of the Voinovich-Carper-Inhofe amendment.
       I have also been working with the Senate appropriators to 
     increase the fiscal year 2008 cap on the aggregated value of 
     the guaranteed loans. On June 15, together with Senators 
     Carper and Inhofe, I sent a letter to the appropriators 
     urging them to increase the cap from $9 billion (as called 
     for in the president's budget) to an amount sufficient to 
     cover all qualified and worthy energy projects, including new 
     nuclear, clean coal, renewable energy, and energy efficiency 
     projects. The appropriators responded by increasing the cap 
     to $38.5 billion, with $18.5 billion for new nuclear, $6 
     billion for clean coal-based power generation and 
     gasification plants that incorporate carbon capture and 
     sequestration, $2 billion for advanced coal gasification, $10 
     billion for renewable energy, and $2 billion for a uranium 
     enrichment facility.
       Another critical factor for the successful implementation 
     of the loan guarantee program is a transparent methodology 
     for calculating the credit subsidy cost to be paid by project 
     sponsors. Such costs should be reasonable and commercially 
     viable. I will continue to work with my Senate colleagues and 
     the administration to make sure the loan guarantee program is 
     working the way it is intended to work. The need for 
     government-sponsored investment incentives should be only 
     temporary. Once it is shown that new plants can be built to 
     schedule and budget, the sector will take care of itself. I 
     don't want to create a ward of the state, but rather to 
     overcome initial hurdles and nurture a sector that makes 
     economic and policy sense on its own.


                  Human capital and job opportunities

       Senator Carper and I recently held a nuclear energy 
     roundtable with representatives from organized labor, 
     industry, academia, professional societies, and government 
     agencies. The roundtable was very productive as it raised an 
     awareness of the impending shortage of the skilled workers 
     needed to support the nuclear renaissance. Government, 
     industry, and labor efforts in the development of a skilled 
     workforce must be coordinated in order to align with 
     anticipated investment in new plants. Each new nuclear plant 
     will require 1400-1800 workers during construction, with peak 
     employment of as many as 2300 workers. Skilled tradesmen in 
     welding, pipefitting, masonry, carpentry, sheet metal, and 
     heavy equipment operations--among others--all stand to 
     benefit. If the industry were to construct the 30 reactors 
     that are currently projected, 43,400 to 55,800 workers would 
     be required during construction, with peak employment of up 
     to 71,300 workers. Everyone at the roundtable agreed that the 
     construction of more than 30 new reactors over the next 15 to 
     20 years could present an enormous challenge for the nuclear 
     industry.
       The roundtable resulted in a number of recommendations to 
     turn this challenge into an opportunity, including the 
     following: (1) use recent retirees as instructors, mentors, 
     and advisors; (2) provide more flexibility to a younger 
     generation of workers; (3) invest in building a pipeline of 
     future workers by front-loading recruitment and training--the 
     philosophy of ``just-in-time'' inventory does

[[Page 11088]]

     not work with human capital; (4) identify all existing public 
     and private-sector training programs, and then leverage and 
     fund those that are successful (e.g., Helmets to Hardhats and 
     the Building Construction Trade Department's training 
     program); and (5) provide adequate and consistent funding in 
     science and technology for universities and colleges.
       Successful follow-through on these suggestions requires a 
     collaborative effort from the federal and state governments, 
     industry, organized labor, and academia. Congress has 
     demonstrated leadership in addressing some of these workforce 
     challenges. The recently enacted America Competes Act 
     establishes a solid policy framework for addressing the 
     science, technology, engineering, and math workforce 
     challenges identified in the National Academies' report, 
     Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing 
     America for a Brighter Economic Future. Sen. Jeff Bingaman 
     (D., N.M.) and I fought to restore federal funding to support 
     nuclear science and engineering programs at universities 
     across the country in FY 2007 and FY 2008.
       Senator Carper and I are planning a follow-up roundtable in 
     mid-2008 to align investment and workforce development 
     initiatives to ensure the collaboration and coordination of 
     government, industry, and labor efforts in developing the 
     energy-related skilled work force, and to solicit input on 
     legislative support.


               Expanding the domestic manufacturing base

       In the three decades since the last nuclear plant was 
     ordered and the two decades since the bulk of the nuclear 
     plant construction was completed in the United States, the 
     nuclear design, manufacturing, and construction industry has 
     significantly declined. The leading U.S. firms have either 
     ceased operation, consolidated, or become subsidiaries of 
     non--U.S. parent companies. The companies that remain have 
     survived by retrofitting and maintaining existing U.S. 
     plants.
       Initially, it will not be possible to manufacture all of 
     the major plant components required of new nuclear plants in 
     the United States. Successfully bringing the planned 30 or 
     more new nuclear reactors on line, however, requires the 
     reestablishment of the construction and component supply 
     industries, as well as the supplier network needed to support 
     those industries--from the steam generators and reactor 
     vessel heads to the thousands of valves, pumps, heat 
     exchangers, and other parts used in a nuclear plant. The 
     potential for growth in the manufacturing sector and 
     manufacturing jobs to support the construction of 30 new 
     nuclear plants is staggering.
       I am a strong advocate for government policies that 
     encourage private-sector investment in the manufacturing of 
     various components and pieces of equipment for the energy 
     sector. This includes the nuclear industry, as well as other 
     energy technologies the nation will need, such as carbon 
     capture and sequestration. The United States has long been a 
     leader in innovation and advanced manufacturing. We need to 
     promote policies that take advantage of the growth of our 
     energy sector and of American ingenuity, productivity, and 
     entrepreneurship by encouraging the manufacturing industries 
     that will support future energy development to produce their 
     products in the United States.
       I introduced the Voinovich-Carper-Inhofe Amendment (SA-
     1683) to the Energy Bill (H.R. 6) to make American-
     manufactured nuclear components, parts, and service-related 
     jobs available to foreign markets. The support of our House 
     colleagues--Chairman John Dingell (D., Mich.) and Ranking 
     Member Joe Barton (R., Tex.) of the House Energy and Commerce 
     Committee--was instrumental in getting this piece of 
     legislation passed and signed into law. This legislation is 
     anticipated to spur growth in U.S. manufacturing for new 
     international commercial nuclear power plants, create highly 
     skilled jobs across the United States, and provide American 
     companies and workers access to foreign markets that have 
     long been dominated by foreign competitors.


                         Managing nuclear waste

       The U.S. high-level radioactive waste management program 
     under the Department of Energy has faced several challenges 
     for many years. First, a redirection of the program has 
     occurred with every change in administration. Second, a 
     majority of the Nuclear Waste Fund revenues are consistently 
     applied to support congressional budgetary priorities rather 
     than their intended purposes. Third, the annual 
     appropriations process provides for ongoing opportunities for 
     those opposed to the direction of the program to interfere 
     with its success.
       At the time the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was signed into 
     law in 1982, the direct disposal of spent fuel as a national 
     policy was established on the premise that the existing fleet 
     of nuclear plants would operate only through their initial 
     40-year license and then be retired, with no new plants being 
     built. This was during the post-Three Mile Island accident 
     era, when nearly 100 planned nuclear plants were canceled. 
     Today, the story is vastly different, with most nuclear 
     plants likely to extend their operating lives to at least 60 
     years. Also, there may be as many as 30 new nuclear power 
     plants planned in the next 15 to 20 years.
       I held a subcommittee hearing in September 2006 to examine 
     both short- and long-term options for the nuclear waste 
     issue. One of the options discussed was a program to 
     determine whether the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel 
     should be adopted in some form, rather than the current 
     policy of direct disposal. Through reprocessing, uranium and 
     plutonium recovered from spent fuel can be recycled into new 
     fuel. Reprocessing also serves to significantly reduce the 
     volume of material requiring geologic disposal. Reprocessing 
     technology has been used on a commercial scale for many years 
     in a number of countries. The renewed interest in an expanded 
     role for nuclear power in the climate change debate further 
     emphasizes the importance of reexamining U.S. policies 
     related to the nuclear fuel cycle. I believe we should not 
     remain solely fixated on a waste solution that was designed 
     for a different day.
       Another idea presented at the hearing involves long-term 
     interim storage perhaps complementing a spent fuel recycling 
     program. While permanent disposal at Yucca Mountain or a 
     similar facility remains a long-term imperative, the 
     combination of short-term on-site storage and longer-term 
     interim storage of spent fuel gives us time to complete the 
     technology development needed to safely and securely recycle 
     spent nuclear fuel.
       Senator Carper and I plan to hold a roundtable to solicit 
     input from various stakeholders to help us develop a 
     legislative proposal with the following objectives in mind: 
     (1) implement an accountable and sustainable governance 
     structure to execute the federal government's 
     responsibilities under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act; (2) 
     enable the investigation of recycling spent nuclear fuel with 
     appropriate consideration of safety, nuclear proliferation, 
     environmental, energy supply, and economic factors; and (3) 
     ensure that the fees paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund are 
     applied for their intended purpose--i.e., the disposal of 
     radioactive wastes produced by the generation of electricity 
     from nuclear power--in a manner insulated from political 
     influences.
       I believe that the safe and secure growth of nuclear energy 
     is essential if we are to harmonize the country's need for 
     energy independence, economic competitiveness, and a healthy 
     environment. Nuclear power is growing in the world, and our 
     own energy needs can serve as a springboard to rebuild U.S. 
     technology and manufacturing capabilities to something 
     approaching the leadership the nation once enjoyed, 
     contributing to foreign markets as well as supporting our 
     own. I intend to work with my colleagues in the Senate to 
     build bipartisan support and leadership for making the 
     nuclear renaissance a reality.

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, while coal and manufacturing States pay 
their neighbors and the Government to stay in business, the bill 
establishes trillions of dollars in new entitlements, earmarks--
earmarks--with money flowing to over 30 new Government spending 
programs, constituting, as the Wall Street Journal recently pointed 
out, one of the largest tax-and-spend bills in the Nation's history.
  Based on EPA's analysis, this bill would raise over $6 trillion from 
the allowance auction from owners and operators of utilities and 
factories that have to purchase allowances to stay in business. But the 
cost of purchasing these allowances would be passed on to consumers as 
higher prices, which will, as the CBO points out, amount to a 
regressive tax hitting low- and middle-income working families. In my 
State, they predict that by 2012, the cost of electricity will go up 50 
percent, the cost of natural gas 80 percent, and the cost of gasoline 
will go up 30 percent. Some of my constituents say: How can the cost of 
gasoline go up? I point out to them that we have refineries that refine 
oil. With this bill, they are going to have to buy allowances, and 
those allowances will increase the cost of your gasoline 30 percent. 
Did you hear that? A 30-percent increase in gasoline costs as a result 
of this legislation. Give me a break.
  Despite the severe economic damage Lieberman-Warner would impose on 
the U.S. economy, the policy would do little to address global climate 
change. EPA's--this is not some conservative group out there--analysis 
indicates the policy will reduce global concentrations of 
CO2 less than 5 percent by 2095.
  Addressing climate change will require a technology revolution 
centered on the way we produce and use energy. The theory behind 
Lieberman-Warner is that the more painful it is on business, the faster 
CO2 reductions will occur. I believe the solution to this 
problem lies in our ability to increase access to clean energy. Instead 
of using

[[Page 11089]]

the power of the Government to increase energy cost, we should use it 
to decrease barriers to investments and clean energy solutions.
  The United States took a lot of flak from countries for our not 
signing Kyoto, but I am pleased the Bush administration has been moving 
forward with some new initiatives. And while we didn't sign Kyoto, we 
do have a base of international activities to build on, and one of them 
could provide the basis for becoming a multinational effort, giving all 
countries a vested interest in technology advancement and deployment.
  The thing we have to remember is that, above all, the developing 
world desires sustained economic growth. Slowing down economic 
development to address climate change is not an option they are willing 
to pursue, and we cannot force it upon them. If we are going to be 
successful in addressing the challenge of climate change, we have to 
set a realistic vision for the developing world, using what Richard 
Armitage and Joseph Nye referred to as smart power. When they testified 
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 24, 2008, they 
argued that the world:

        . . . looks to the U.S. to put forward better ideas rather 
     than just walk away from the table.

  This was the perception after Kyoto, and it could be the perception 
again today if we do not find a way to engage the developing world.
  They go on to say:

       The United States needs to rediscover how to be a smart 
     power, which matches vision with execution and 
     accountability, and looks broadly at U.S. goals, strategies, 
     and influence in a changing world.

  And they rightly conclude that our:

        . . . challenges can only be addressed with capable and 
     willing allies and partners.

  Without willing partners in China and India, we cannot be successful 
in addressing climate change. Technologies development and promotion 
should drive our national climate policy. It is the only rational path 
forward. It is the only way to deal with emissions from rapidly 
expanding coal-based economies such as China and India, that readily 
admit they have no intention of accepting binding emission targets.
  The public interest and private sector communities agree that the 
crucial factor that will determine whether we have an effective climate 
policy is the extent that policy will encourage the development and 
deployment of needed technology. Regulation without sufficiently 
available technology will result in high cost for American consumers 
while offering little hope that developing nations will answer the call 
to reduce their emissions.
  In conclusion, I agree that we need to act quickly to address climate 
change, but we must be smart about how we proceed. I am hoping after 
this year's debate, we can come together--come together--on a 
bipartisan basis, to draft a bill that doesn't impose unilateral 
actions that hurt our economy and drive jobs overseas but rather jump-
starts technology, engages our international partners through 
collaborative multinational efforts to develop and deploy the clean 
energy technologies that everyone recognizes are necessary to solve 
this global environmental problem.
  I appreciate the Chair giving me an extra minute.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Florida.

                          ____________________