[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11318-11319]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          CLIMATE SECURITY ACT

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, my staff members and I hear from 
Mississippians every day about the crippling effects of high energy 
prices. We all understand the need for increasing clean energy 
supplies, and I hope we can continue to work to do that and to develop 
other innovative solutions to deal more effectively with this great 
problem. But the bill we are considering will not accomplish that goal. 
Instead, the legislation will have a detrimental effect on our economy. 
It will contribute to a higher overall cost of living, and it will be 
especially harmful to lower income families.
  According to projections by the Energy Information Administration and 
the Environmental Protection Agency, energy costs are projected to rise 
because of this legislation. Energy prices are already at an all-time 
high. We cannot afford to increase these costs even further. By 2030, 
increased costs for delivered coal could range between 405 percent and 
804 percent, natural gas prices could rise between 34 percent and 107 
percent, and gasoline prices could go up between 17 percent and 41 
percent. Although the substitute amendment we are considering imposes 
yearly cost ceilings, these high prices will still be realized unless 
improbable advancements in alternative energy production, such as 70 
new nuclear reactors and 68 billion gallons of ethanol, are produced.
  Various projections of this bill show not only will prices increase, 
Americans could lose jobs as industries struggle to keep costs down. I 
am proud of the new era of manufacturing that my State of Mississippi 
is entering, but I don't want Mississippians to lose the jobs we have 
fought so hard to obtain. The Environmental Protection Agency and the 
Energy Information Administration suggest that this bill could reduce 
the gross domestic product of the United States by as much as 7 percent 
by 2050 and could reduce the manufacturing output of the United States 
by almost 10 percent in 2030. A reduction in output means that industry 
will need fewer workers in order to keep their costs down. A need for 
fewer workers will result in job losses, and unemployment rates in my 
State are already too high.
  I believe the Senate should spend time considering the best use of 
America's natural resources while being mindful of the environment. 
However, if we are going to mandate reductions in greenhouse gases, 
there are certain

[[Page 11319]]

principles we need to keep in mind. The Senate must consider the costs 
we will impose on the consumers we represent. The legislation we have 
before us goes beyond what is required to reduce emissions and imposes 
harsh, costly restrictions on the industries and businesses we count on 
to keep our economy healthy.
  The bill provides that only 30 percent of annual emissions reduction 
obligations can be met using credits and offsets. Only half of that 
amount can be from domestically generated credits, through a complex 
formula, and the remainder of the available credits would come from 
outside the United States. Many of these credits and offsets will 
likely come from the agricultural sector. Mississippi farmers are 
already engaged in better and more efficient practices, such as no-till 
farming, new irrigation efficiencies, and reforestation of marginal 
lands.
  Another troubling aspect of the legislation is the creation of a 
massive new mandatory spending regime that would direct nearly $3.3 
trillion in auction revenues over the next several decades to dozens of 
specific programs, some that already exist but some that are new. These 
mandatory programs will not likely receive the proper oversight and 
control that the annual appropriations process provides. It is 
unreasonable to think we can know today whether it will be appropriate 
in 2050 to allocate 3.42 percent of auction revenues for Department of 
the Interior adaptation activities or to allocate 3.1 percent of 
auction revenues in 2030 for cellulosic biomass programs.
  As ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, where we have 
annual hearings and review the needs and the constraints we are dealing 
with under the budget for appropriating funds, I cannot support this 
approach that pretends to project what the appropriated amount should 
be years and years from now.
  It is my hope we will be able to help restore a strong economy, 
create an energy infrastructure that provides for low-cost electrical 
and motor fuel prices, and foster a responsible attitude about our 
natural resources and the environment. However, the legislation we are 
now considering will not bring Americans lower energy costs or, 
realistically, a cleaner environment.
  Unless major changes to this legislation are considered, I cannot 
support this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I could give these remarks now or I 
could have given them when we were on the bill because they address 
something that is disturbing a number of Senators. That concern is that 
the majority leader may be thinking of filling the tree, which means he 
is not going to allow us to offer a significant number of amendments to 
this bill. That is, from what I can tell, something that we should not 
do, and he should not do. As someone who knows him well and works with 
him well, I think it would be a mistake to fill the tree on a bill like 
this, and let me give a few examples from my own experience.
  When we used to do business the way the Senate does business, not 
filling trees but filling many days with legislation of importance, we 
had a Clean Air Act, Mr. President. The manager of the bill was Ed 
Muskie. The Clean Air Act; Ed Muskie. The first bill of that sort that 
came to the floor. I was a brand new Senator. I was on the committee. 
Very interesting. I spent a great deal of time on the Senate floor just 
listening and watching. That bill was on the floor of the Senate 5 
weeks--5 weeks not 5 days--with 168 amendments considered and 162 acted 
upon. Of those, 60 were Democratic.
  Now, imagine this bill before us, which is far more important in 
terms of the ramifications to the American economy, to the costs that 
will be added to energy, to the trial run that we are taking upon 
ourselves to try to curtail carbon, which we don't even know will work, 
yet it will put into the marketplace trillions of new dollars that are 
allocations. There are certificates, not issued by the Treasury of the 
United States but, rather, issued under the mandate of this program. 
All of the language in this bill as to who gets those allocations, as 
though we walked around and walked the streets and tried to see who 
might need them and who might support the bill and provide these 
allocations, that deserves as much time as the Senate wants to spend 
offering amendments. It is probably the biggest, most complicated bill 
we have had, certainly in the 36 years that I have been a Senator.
  Secondly, we tried an energy bill. We finally passed it after the 
third try, but we didn't try to fill the tree. That is language for 
saying we are making it so that it can't be amended, so that it will 
move rapidly because all avenues for amendment are filled, and thus the 
tree is filled. That is where the language comes from. The leader has 
the authority to do it, or whoever can be recognized ahead of him, if 
they want to do that.
  I will cite another example. We finally passed a very good 
comprehensive energy act 3 years ago. That bill was on the floor of the 
Senate for 3 weeks--3 weeks not 3 days. This bill that we are talking 
about has been on the Senate floor only 3 days, 4 days, and already we 
are considering closing off debate. I have been here 35 years, and I 
have never seen anything like this--thinking of filling the tree on a 
bill of this magnitude, this complexity, and, I might say, with the 
certainty of having mistakes. It is just as certain as we are standing 
here and you are sitting there presiding that this bill has to have 
many errors in it, many things we will regret passing if we don't amend 
it, talk about it, and analyze it.
  Having said that, and having examples of precedent here, when we 
behave like a Senate, where we were not unwilling to take 100 
amendments on a bill when you considered that, and you didn't say: Oh, 
the Senate is closing its doors, we are dead, we used to say: We are 
live. We are going to get it done. Senator Muskie made his name on that 
one bill because it was here 5 weeks. Nobody ever questioned his 
capacity, after that, to handle legislation. I use that as an example 
when I tell people how do you become a Senator. You have an opportunity 
to come to the floor to manage something for anywhere from 3 days to 3 
or 4 weeks. I had that chance three times on budgets. Before anybody 
ever knew me, I had the opportunity to come down here and do that. 
People found out I could manage a bill. That is part of the Senate. 
That happened to Senator Muskie--5 solid weeks and 100 amendments to 
get a Clean Air Act through here.
  This bill is bigger, more important, more comprehensive, and maybe 
more difficult for the American economy and American people than the 
Clean Air Act. It needs time, not tree building, not trunk building, 
not closing off opportunities to amend.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains 14 minutes.

                          ____________________