[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 23]
[Senate]
[Pages 31512-31516]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENT ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CARPER (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Byrd, Mr. 
        Lieberman, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Webb):
  SA 2872. A bill to authorize appropriations for the National 
Historical Publications and Records Commission through fiscal year 
2014, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues to 
introduce an important and bipartisan piece of legislation that will 
help protect our Nation's history for future generations.
  Our bill reauthorizes the National Historical Publications and Record 
Commission, or NHPRC for short, which was first established by Congress 
in 1934. The Commission is the grant-making body of the National 
Archives and Records Administration and is comprised of representatives 
from the President of the United States, the U.S. Senate and House of 
Representatives, the Federal judiciary, the Departments of State and 
Defense, the Library of Congress, and six national, professional 
associations of archivists. Since 1964, the Commission has funded 
projects that locate, preserve, and provide public access to some our 
nation's most precious historical resources that otherwise would be 
lost and destroyed.
  For example, some of the history that has been preserved by the NHPRC 
over the years has helped award-winning historian David McCullough 
write his biography of John Adams and Pulitzer Prize-winner Ron Chernow 
write his biography of Alexander Hamilton. Further, the NHPRC has 
helped establish or modernize public records programs in cities all 
across America such as the cities of Seattle, Boston, and San Diego. 
The NHPRC also has been the key federal body to help preserve the oral 
histories of many Native American tribes such as the Seneca, Blackfoot, 
Sioux, Navajo, Apaches, and dozens more.
  Further, I am proud to say that the NHPRC recently sped up and 
digitized over 5,000 documents left behind by our Nation's founding 
fathers that were previously unpublished. Congress passed legislation 
last year that I was honored to co-author with our former colleague, 
Senator John Warner from Virginia, requiring the NHPRC to work with the 
groups publishing the volumes so that the documents could be made 
available online at no charge to any student of history. Before, they 
were walled-up behind the doors of large libraries and expensive to 
access. To put that into context, the NHPRC has saved anyone who needs 
to view the letters of John Adams thousands of dollars, which would 
have been the traditional cost of a complete set of published letters.
  Lastly, the bill I am introducing today removes an artificial profit 
cap that Congress put in place a few years ago that prevents the 
National Archives and Records Administration from operating its 
regional facilities more like a business. For example, there are times 
at the end of the year when the revolving fund that pays for the 
operation and maintenance of the regional archival facilities earns a 
profit. Instead of incentivizing the National Archives to save the 
excess profit for long-term capital investments, the cap incentivizes 
regional facilities to spend the money on short term projects that they 
may not be needed. This simply does not make sense for the National 
Archives or for the taxpayer.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to get this important 
and necessary bill enacted before it's too late. I think everyone can 
agree that one of the things our democracy relies on is educated 
citizenry. The NHPRC is the principle body that helps make that happen.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2872

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS THROUGH FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2014 FOR NATIONAL HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS 
                   AND RECORDS COMMISSION.

       Section 2504(g)(1) of title 44, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (R), by striking ``and'';
       (2) in subparagraph (S), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end of the following:
       ``(T) $13,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, $13,500,000 for 
     fiscal year 2011, $14,000,000 for fiscal year 2012, 
     $14,500,000 for fiscal year 2013, and $15,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2014.''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASED FLEXIBILITY FOR ARCHIVIST IN THE RECORDS 
                   CENTER REVOLVING FUND.

       Subsection (d) under the heading ``records center revolving 
     fund '' in title IV of the Independent Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-58; 113 Stat. 460; 
     44 U.S.C. 2901 note), is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``not to exceed 4 
     percent'' and inserting ``determined by the Archivist of the 
     United States''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``Funds in excess of the 
     4 percent at the close of each fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``Any unobligated and unexpended balances in the Fund that 
     the Archivist of the United States determines to be in excess 
     of those needed for capital equipment or a reasonable 
     operating reserve''.

     SEC. 3. GRANTS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF STATE AND LOCAL DATABASES 
                   FOR RECORDS OF SERVITUDE, EMANCIPATION, AND 
                   POST-CIVIL WAR RECONSTRUCTION.

       Section 8 of the Presidential Historical Records 
     Preservation Act of 2008 (44 U.S.C. 2504 note) is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``SEC. 8. GRANTS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF STATE AND LOCAL 
                   DATABASES FOR RECORDS OF SERVITUDE, 
                   EMANCIPATION, AND POST-CIVIL WAR 
                   RECONSTRUCTION.

       ``(a) In General.--The Archivist of the United States, 
     after considering the advice and recommendations of the 
     National Historical Publications and Records Commission, may 
     make grants to States, colleges and universities, museums, 
     libraries, and genealogical associations to preserve records 
     and establish electronically searchable databases consisting 
     of local records of servitude, emancipation, and post-Civil 
     War reconstruction.
       ``(b) Maintenance.--Any database established using a grant 
     under this section shall be maintained by appropriate 
     agencies or institutions designated by the Archivist of the 
     United States.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD.
  S. 2875. A bill to establish the Commission on Measures of Household 
Economic Security to conduct a study and submit a report containing 
recommendations to establish and report economic statistics that 
reflect the economic status and well-being of American households; to 
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, our government agencies collect and 
report a range of economic information but much of what we see or hear 
is most suited to describing the general state of the country's 
economy. This information does not reflect what is happening in and 
what matters most to our families and the quality of our lives. For 
example, our national unemployment figures don't tell us that those who 
are employed may not have benefits, or that they are working two or 
three jobs to earn the income that they report, or that their mortgage 
debt and college loans are jeopardizing their ability to repay their 
credit card debt or their medical bills. By knowing and reporting this 
kind of information we can not only more accurately reflect what our 
families are experiencing economically, we can better inform 
policymakers about what matters most to people and the steps that need 
to be taken to address household economic needs and concerns.
  To address this need I am re-introducing the Commission on Measures 
of Household Economic Security Act of 2009. The bill would establish a 
bipartisan congressional commission of 8 economic experts to look at 
existing

[[Page 31513]]

government economic data and identify the possible need for new 
information, more accurate methodologies and better ways to report 
these economic measures to give a more accurate and reliable picture of 
the economic well being of American households. As part of their 
effort, the Commission will be asked to meet with representative groups 
of the public so that their views are taken into account in the 
Commission's recommendations.
  In doing this, the Commission will look at such things as the current 
debt situation of American individuals and households, including 
categories of debt such as credit card debt, education related loans 
and mortgage payments; the movement of Americans between salaried jobs 
with benefits to single or multiple wage jobs with limited or no 
benefits with a comparison of income to include the value of benefits 
programs such as health insurance and retirement plans; the percentage 
of Americans who are covered by both employer-provided and individual 
health care plans and the extent of coverage per dollar paid by both 
employers and employees; the savings rate, including both standard 
savings plans and pension plans; the disparity in income distribution 
over time and between different demographic and geographic groups; and 
the breakdown of household expenditures between such categories as 
food, shelter, medical expenses, debt servicing, and energy.
  In addition, the Commission will consider the relevance of certain 
non-market activities, like household production, education, and 
volunteer services that affect the economic well-being of households 
but are not measured or valued in currently reported economic 
statistics. As Robert F. Kennedy famously said, some of our economic 
indicators measure ``everything in short, except that which makes life 
worthwhile.'' We need to make an effort to value more than just our 
gross domestic product and sales receipts. We need to better measure 
and understand what matters to American households.
  This effort to improve how we measure what matters in our economy is 
very much in the Wisconsin tradition of accountable good government. It 
was Senator Robert LaFollette, Jr. who, in 1932, introduced a 
resolution requiring the U.S. Government to establish a more 
scientific, specific and accurate set of measures of the health of the 
U.S. economy. From his request, Simon Kuznets, a University of 
Pennsylvania economics professor, developed the first set of national 
accounts which form the basis for today's measure of GDP and other 
economic indicators. Kuznets won the 1971 Nobel Prize in Economics 
``for his empirically founded interpretation of economic growth which 
has led to new and deepened insight into the economic and social 
structure and process of development''. His work was the basis for much 
of the New Deal reform policies. Yet Kuznets specifically acknowledged 
that his measures were incomplete and did not go far enough to measure 
what may really matter. In his 1934 report to the Senate on his 
compilation of statistics associated with Gross National Product he 
concluded: ``The welfare of a nation can . . . scarcely be inferred 
from a measurement of national income as [so] defined. . . .'' This 
bill is intended to advance these earlier efforts to make our economic 
statistical measures more reflective of the welfare of our families and 
our nation.
  The cost of this commission will be fully covered by amounts already 
authorized and appropriated to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I urge 
my colleagues to support my legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 2877. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to establish 
a program to regulate the entry of fossil carbon into commerce in the 
United States to promote clean energy jobs and economic growth and 
avoid dangerous interference with the climate of the Earth, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I send to the desk legislation on my 
behalf and Senator Collins', the Senator from Maine, dealing with 
putting a market signal on carbon so we can get off of carbon and move 
forward on a green energy economy that will create millions of jobs in 
America.
  I know we are still on health care so I am not going to take a lot of 
time right now to talk about this because we in the next several weeks 
and months ahead are going to have a lot of time to talk about this 
issue. But I do want to say for my colleagues, as we are introducing 
this legislation: The American people have been on a roller coaster 
ride with energy prices. I know the Presiding Officer knows this 
because she comes from the Northeast and knows what home heating oil 
costs have done to her State and surrounding States. I know my 
colleague from Maine knows this as well. That is part of her motivation 
in joining me in this cause, I am sure. The American public cannot 
sustain having oil prices wreak havoc on our economy for the next 30 
years.
  We know from economists that sometime in the next 5 to 30 years we 
will be at peak oil, and once we are at peak oil, the cost to the U.S. 
economy will be even more extravagant. The American people want to know 
what we are going to do to transition off of that and do so in a 
respectable way. What they are not so interested in is a proposal that 
would have Wall Street come up with a funding source by doing 
speculative trading to continue the games that have been played for the 
last year or 2 years on various commodities that drove the economy into 
the ditch.
  I find it interesting that today in the newspapers coming from 
Copenhagen, now they have decided that up to 90 percent of all market 
activity in the European trading markets was related to fraudulent 
activity. That tells us that trading markets already existing on carbon 
futures have had great deals of problems with manipulation. I don't 
think we need to repeat that. What we want to do instead is say, we are 
going to make sure that consumers get a check back to help them with 
their energy bills. We want to say we are going to protect them from 
the skyrocketing prices of energy, but we are going to transition off 
of fossil fuels and onto new sources of energy, of biofuels, of 
alternatives such as wind and solar, of things such as plug-in electric 
vehicles, of an electricity grid that can be more efficient and a smart 
two-way communications system.
  In the end, our economy is going to be better. We are going to create 
more jobs. We are going to make sure that consumers are not held 
hostage by future huge energy spikes. If we do that, we are going to 
leave to the next generation a better situation. We will leave the 
planet Earth in better shape. But most importantly, we are going to 
take the U.S. economy, struggling to move ahead, and we are going to 
create thousands of jobs in the short term and millions of jobs in the 
next several years. That is good news, to think that the United States 
could become a leader in energy technology, that we are not going to be 
as dependent upon the Chinese for battery technology of the future as 
we are right now on Middle East oil.
  I introduce this legislation with the most respect for my colleagues, 
Senators Boxer and Kerry, Lieberman and McCain, many of my colleagues 
have been involved in this issue for many decades, but to work across 
the aisle. If health care shows us anything, we have to cut down the 
amount of time it takes to move these important pieces of legislation 
by working together in an effort to show that we do understand the 
needs of the American public. We have to drive down their costs, not 
just on health care but on fuel as well. We have to give them economic 
opportunity for the future. Sending this market signal is the best way 
to create jobs and help protect consumers for the future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from 
Washington State, Senator Cantwell, in introducing what I believe to be 
landmark legislation, the Carbon Limits and Energy for America's 
Renewal, or CLEAR Act. Let me commend the Senator for her leadership on 
this important issue.

[[Page 31514]]

  One of the most appealing parts of this bill is it takes a fresh look 
at the issues facing our country in the area of developing alternative 
energy, promoting energy independence, and addressing climate change 
and the need for more green jobs in the economy. Indeed, this bill 
addresses the most significant energy and environmental challenges we 
face. It would help to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, promote 
alternative energy and energy conservation, and advance the goal of 
energy independence for our Nation.
  The cost of gas and oil imposes a great burden on many Americans, 
particularly those living in large rural States such as the State of 
Maine. High gasoline prices have a disproportionate impact on Mainers 
who often have no choice but to travel long distances to their jobs, 
grocery stores, and doctors offices. This lessens the amount of money 
they have to spend on other necessities.
  In addition, 80 percent of Mainers heat their homes with home heating 
oil. That is one of the highest percentages in the Nation. The State of 
Maine is one of the States most dependent on foreign oil of any State 
in the Nation. Our Nation must work together on comprehensive long-term 
actions that will stabilize gas and oil prices, help to prevent energy 
shortages, avoid those spikes when we are held hostage to foreign oil, 
and achieve national energy independence. This effort will require a 
stronger commitment to renewable energy sources such as wind energy, as 
well as energy efficiency and conservation.
  The development and implementation of these new approaches to 
environmental stewardship and energy independence will also provide a 
powerful stimulus to our economy and the creation of green jobs. Like 
my colleague, I want the United States to lead the way on green 
technology, not lose our edge to China, for example.
  In addition to advancing these goals, the CLEAR Act is the fairest 
climate change approach from the perspective of consumers. It would 
rebate 75 percent of the proceeds generated by the cap on carbon 
emissions directly to citizens. That is a tremendous advantage of this 
bill over alternative approaches such as the cap-and-trade bill.
  I also share the concerns of my colleague from Washington State about 
the abuses we have seen in energy and agricultural markets, when 
speculators are allowed to participate in the market. That is why in 
our bill, which imposes an upstream cap on carbon, only the producers 
are allowed to participate in the trading. That is a far better 
approach that will guard against market manipulation and excessive 
speculation.
  In the United States alone, emissions of the primary greenhouse gas 
carbon dioxide have risen more than 20 percent since 1990. Clearly 
climate change is a daunting environmental challenge, but we must 
develop solutions that do not impose a heavy burden on our economy, 
particularly during these difficult economic times. That is why I am 
pleased to join as the lead cosponsor of the CLEAR Act. Climate change 
legislation must protect consumers and industries that could be hit 
with higher energy prices. We must recognize that many of our citizens 
are struggling to afford their monthly energy bills now and cannot 
afford dramatically higher prices. We also must produce legislation 
that would provide predictability in the price of carbon emissions so 
that businesses can plan, invest, and create good jobs. Climate change 
legislation should encourage the adoption of energy efficiency measures 
and the further development of renewable energy.
  I am very excited about the possibilities for the State of Maine 
because of its immense potential to develop offshore wind energy. 
Estimates are that the development of 5 gigawatts of offshore wind in 
Maine would be enough to power more than 1 million homes for a year. It 
could attract $20 billion of investment to the State of Maine and 
create more than 15,000 green energy jobs, jobs that are desperately 
needed in our State. The CLEAR Act would help to achieve all of those 
goals.
  I could not support the bill that was passed to deal with climate 
change by the House of Representatives. Let me read a couple of the 
descriptions of that bill. The New York Times described it as ``fat 
with compromises, carve-outs, concessions, and out-and-out gifts.'' The 
Washington Post in an editorial described it as having pollution 
credits and revenue that were ``divvied up to the advantage of 
politically favored polluters.''
  I do not believe this bill, which is a 2,000-page monstrosity, can 
garner the necessary 60 votes to proceed in the Senate. The CLEAR Act, 
by contrast, would help to move a stalled debate forward by offering a 
fairer, a more efficient, and a straightforward approach.
  You have only to look at our bill. It is 39 pages long compared to 
2,000 pages of the House-passed bill.
  My full statement goes into detail on how the bill would work. I hope 
my colleagues will look closely at it. But let me talk about one part. 
That is in the CLEAR Act, 75 percent of the carbon auction revenues 
would be returned to consumers as tax free rebates. They wouldn't be 
lost to speculation or to $\1/2\ billion of fees every year to 
investment firms on Wall Street. No, 75 percent of those revenues would 
be returned on a per capita basis to consumers. That means that 80 
percent of Americans would incur no net new cost under the CLEAR Act. 
The average Mainer would stand to actually gain $102 per year from the 
CLEAR Act. I can tell you, Mainers would welcome that. It would help 
them winterize their homes, meet their energy bills, invest in energy 
conservation and efficiency, or have a little more money to get by.
  By contrast, under the House-passed cap-and-trade bill, the average 
citizen in this country would experience a net cost increase of $175 
per year. That is a big difference and a big advantage of the Cantwell-
Collins approach.
  What about the other 25 percent of the auction revenues? What we 
would propose is that those would go to a trust fund to fund energy 
efficiency programs and renewable energy research and development, to 
provide incentives for forestry and agriculture practices that 
sequester carbon, to encourage practices that reduce other greenhouse 
gases, to help energy-efficient, energy-intensive manufacturers, and to 
assist low-income consumers. That fund would be called the Clean Energy 
Reinvestment Trust, the CERT fund. It would be subject to the annual 
appropriations process so that Congress could adapt assistance for 
climate-related activities on an annual basis rather than being locked 
into a complicated allocation scheme that may well favor special 
interests.
  I am excited about this bill. It offers us a way forward to a green 
economy. It will help create jobs. It will alleviate the burden on 
consumers, particularly in New England, where the Presiding Officer and 
I live, as well as the Northwest. It makes sense. It is a commonsense 
approach. I hope my colleagues will consider joining the Senator from 
Washington and me on this important legislation.
  Again, I commend Senator Cantwell's leadership. She has done a great 
deal of work to come up with this approach, and I am excited to be 
joining her in this effort.
  To reiterate, today I am pleased to join my colleague from 
Washington, Senator Cantwell, in introducing landmark legislation, the 
Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal, or CLEAR, Act.
  This bill addresses the most significant energy and environmental 
challenges facing our country. It would help reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil, promote alternative energy and energy conservation, and 
advance the goal of energy independence for our Nation.
  The costs of gas and oil impose a great burden on many Americans, 
particularly those living in large, rural States like Maine. High 
gasoline prices have a disproportionate impact on Mainers who often 
have to travel long distances to their jobs, doctors' offices, and 
grocery stores, which lessens the amount of money they have available 
to spend on other necessities. Also, 80 percent of Mainers heat their 
homes

[[Page 31515]]

with home heating oil, one of the highest percentages in the Nation. 
Our Nation must work together on comprehensive, long-term actions that 
will stabilize gas and oil prices, help to prevent energy shortages, 
and achieve national energy independence. This effort will require a 
stronger commitment to renewable energy sources, such as wind energy, 
and energy efficiency and conservation.
  The development and implementation of these new approaches to 
environmental stewardship and energy independence will also provide a 
powerful stimulus for our economy and the creation of ``green'' jobs.
  In addition to advancing the goal of energy independence and creating 
green jobs, the CLEAR Act is the fairest climate change approach for 
consumers. It would rebate 75 percent of the proceeds generated by the 
cap on carbon directly to citizens.
  According to recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change, increases in greenhouse gas emissions have already 
increased global temperatures, and likely contributed to more extreme 
weather events such as droughts and floods. These emissions will 
continue to change the climate, causing warming in most regions of the 
world, and likely causing more droughts, floods, and many other 
problems.
  In the United States alone, emissions of the primary greenhouse gas, 
carbon dioxide, have risen more than 20 percent since 1990. Climate 
change is the most daunting environmental challenge we face, and we 
must develop reasonable solutions to reduce our carbon emissions.
  I have personally observed the dramatic effects of climate change and 
had the opportunity to be briefed by the preeminent experts, including 
University of Maine professor and National Academy of Sciences member 
George Denton. In 2006, on a trip to Antarctica and New Zealand, for 
example, I saw sites in New Zealand that had been buried by massive 
glaciers at the beginning of the 20th century, but are now ice free. 
Fifty percent of the glaciers in New Zealand have melted since 1860--an 
event unprecedented in the last 5,000 years. It was remarkable to stand 
in a place where some 140 years ago, I would have been covered in tens 
or hundreds of feet of ice, and then to look far up the mountainside 
and see how distant the edge of the ice is today.
  The melting is even more dramatic in the Northern Hemisphere. In the 
last 30 years, the Arctic has lost sea ice cover over an area ten times 
as large as the State of Maine, and at this rate will be ice free by 
2050. In 2005 in Barrow, AK, I witnessed a melting permafrost that is 
causing telephone poles, planted years ago, to lean over for the first 
time ever.
  I also learned about the potential impact of sea level rise during my 
trips to these regions. If the west Antarctica ice sheet were to 
collapse, for example, sea level would rise 15 feet, flooding many 
coastal cities. In its 2007 report, the IPCC found that even with just 
gradual melting of ice sheets, the average predicted sea level rise by 
2100 will be 1.6 feet, but could be as high as 1 meter, or almost 3 
feet. In Maine a 1 meter rise in sea level would cause the loss of 
20,000 acres of land, include 100 acres of downtown Portland, including 
Commercial Street. Already in the past 94 years, a 7-inch rise in sea 
level has been documented in Portland.
  The solutions to these problems must not impose a heavy burden on our 
economy, particularly during these difficult economic times. That is 
why I am pleased to be the lead cosponsor of the CLEAR Act.
  While we must take meaningful action to respond to climate change, it 
must be a balanced approach. Climate change legislation must protect 
consumers and industries that could be hit with higher energy prices. 
We must recognize that many of our citizens are struggling just to pay 
their monthly energy bills and cannot afford dramatically higher 
prices. Such legislation also must provide predictability so that 
businesses can plan, invest, and create jobs.
  Climate change legislation should encourage adoption of energy 
efficiency measures and the further development of renewable energy, 
which could spur our economy and job creation. For example, Maine has 
immense potential to develop offshore wind energy. Estimates are that 
development of 5 gigawatts of offshore wind in Maine-- enough to power 
more than 1 million homes for a year--could attract $20 billion of 
investment to the State and create more than 15,000 green energy jobs 
that would be sustained over 30 years.
  The CLEAR Act achieves all of these goals, whereas the bill passed by 
the House of Representatives earlier this year has been characterized 
by the Boston Globe as ``providing cushions for industry;'' ``fat with 
compromises, carve-outs, concessions and out-and-out gifts,'' a New 
York Times article by John Broder, June 30, 2009; and having pollution 
credits and revenue that were ``divvied up to the advantage of 
politically favored polluters,'' from the Washington Post editorial, 
June 26, 2009. This House bill could not garner the necessary 60 votes 
in the Senate. The CLEAR Act will help to move a stalled debate forward 
by offering a more efficient, straightforward approach.
  Let me discuss how our bill would work. The CLEAR Act places an 
upstream cap on carbon entering the economy. The upstream cap on carbon 
would capture 96 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions, 93 percent of 
total annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by weight, and 82 percent of 
total annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by global warming potential.
  The initial annual carbon budget under the cap would be set based on 
the amount of fossil carbon likely to be consumed by the U.S. economy 
in 2012, the year in which the CLEAR Act regulations would begin, based 
on projections by the Energy Information Administration. For the first 
2 years, the cap would stay at the 2012 level to give companies time to 
adapt to the system. Starting in 2015, the carbon budget would be 
reduced annually along a schedule designed to achieve nearly an 80 
percent reduction in 2005 level emissions by 2050.
  The cap will recognize voluntary regional efforts like the Regional 
Greenhouse Gas Initiative, RGGI. RGGI is a cooperative effort by 10 
northeast and mid-Atlantic States to limit greenhouse gas emissions. 
These 10 States have capped CO2 emissions from the power 
sector and will require a 10-percent reduction in these emissions by 
2018.
  Coal companies, oil and gas producers, and oil and gas importers 
would have to buy permits or ``allowances'' for the carbon in their 
products. They would buy the permits in a monthly auction in which 
those companies would be the only ones allowed to participate. One 
hundred percent of the allowances would be auctioned; no free 
allowances are provided to special interests. Thus, the CLEAR Act does 
not provide special favors like the House bill.
  Unlike the House bill, in the CLEAR Act, only the companies directly 
regulated by the legislation would participate in the auction. This 
avoids the huge potential for market manipulation and speculation to 
drive up carbon prices that exists in the House bill. Financial experts 
estimate that under the House bill, carbon permit trading could create 
a $3 trillion commodity market by 2020. Do we really want to have 
energy consumers subsidizing Wall Street traders?
  In the CLEAR Act, 75 percent of the carbon auction revenues would be 
returned to consumers as tax-free rebates. Nationwide, this means 80 
percent of Americans would incur no net costs under the CLEAR Act. The 
average Mainer would stand to gain $102 per year from the CLEAR Act. By 
contrast, under the House-passed cap and trade bill, the average 
citizen would experience a net cost increase of $175 per year.
  The other 25 percent of the auction revenues generated under CLEAR 
would go into a trust fund to fund energy efficiency programs and 
renewable energy research and development, to provide incentives for 
forestry and agriculture practices that sequester

[[Page 31516]]

carbon, to encourage practices that reduce other greenhouse gases, to 
help energy-intensive manufacturers, and to assist low-income 
consumers. The fund, called the Clean Energy Reinvestment Trust, CERT 
Fund, would be subject to the annual appropriations process. This would 
allow Congress to adapt assistance for climate-related activities on an 
annual basis, rather than being locked into a complicated allocation 
scheme that favors special interests.
  I applaud the leadership of my colleague from Washington for 
developing this straightforward, effective and fair climate bill. I 
urge all my colleagues to consider joining us on this important 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Kerry, Ms. 
        Snowe, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Warner):
  S. 2879. A bill to direct the Federal Communications Commission to 
conduct a pilot program expanding the Lifeline Program to include 
broadband service, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that will enable more low-income households to receive broadband and 
its benefits.
  Broadband has fundamentally changed the way Americans live their 
daily lives. It has changed how we do business, get information, find 
jobs, learn, communicate, and interact with Federal, State, and local 
governments. Over the next few years, we can only expect more 
innovation and more broadband applications that open doors to new 
opportunities and provide even more benefits to consumers.
  While broadband has been more quickly deployed and adopted in 
predominantly urban areas, availability and adoption in rural areas has 
lagged behind. Low-income rural households are among the least likely 
to subscribe to broadband. At the same time, businesses and educational 
institutions, among others, have migrated many essential services and 
opportunities to the Internet. The result is that people without 
broadband, particularly in rural areas, are being left behind.
  Today, 77 percent of Fortune 500 companies only accept job 
applications online. Seventy-eight percent of students regularly use 
the Internet for classroom work. Similarly, State, and local government 
agencies, as well as vital healthcare services, are increasingly 
migrating online, especially as budget cuts reduce the availability and 
quality of offline services.
  All of this means that the children of families without broadband 
lose access to learning opportunities. Qualified workers lose access to 
jobs. Low-income Americans waste precious time--sometimes even having 
to take off from their jobs--in government offices, waiting for 
services that are otherwise available online.
  This income-based digital divide is stark. Americans who earn less 
than $30,000 per year have a 50 percent lower rate of broadband 
adoption than those who earn $100,000 annually. What makes it worse is 
that, in some ways, low-income consumers are the ones who stand to 
benefit the most from affordable broadband access. Online job 
information and educational opportunities can provide low-income 
consumers with critical means to improve their lives and the lives of 
their children.
  Like basic telephone service, broadband is quickly becoming a 
necessity. Consumers without access are at risk of becoming second 
class citizens in a growing digital world. The original Lifeline 
program recognized that telephone service was a critical part of 
everyday life and that low-income Americans needed to be connected to 
the world around them. What was true for telephony then is true for 
broadband now. That is why the Lifeline program at the FCC should be 
expanded to support broadband access for low-income households.
  The legislation we introduce today creates a two-year pilot program 
to expand the FCC's Lifeline program by supporting broadband service 
for eligible low-income households. It also asks the FCC to provide 
Congress with a report on expanding the Link-Up program to assist with 
the costs of securing equipment, such as computers, needed to use 
broadband service.
  We must make sure that we act now to bridge the divide that threatens 
to make low-income consumers second-class citizens. For this reason, I 
urge my colleagues to join me and support this legislation.

                          ____________________