[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8027-8029]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             CLIMATE CHANGE

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I come to the floor to discuss for a few 
minutes with my colleague from South Carolina the issue of climate 
change.
  We all know the budget will be forthcoming. We already understand 
there will be some $650 billion included in the budget for general 
revenues that would go as revenues from climate--here it is: $646 
billion over 8 years. According to some aides to the administration, it 
could be as much as $2 trillion. Remarkable.
  What we have done is we have gone from an attempt to address the 
issue of climate change through cap and trade to just generating $680 
billion or $2 trillion without a trace of bipartisanship, without any 
consultation, without discussions. What we have done on the issue of 
climate change, by basically funneling $680-some billion, is we have 
destroyed any chance of bipartisanship, and the administration is 
proposing a plan which will have a crippling effect in a bad economy 
on, particularly, parts of the country and lower income residents in 
the South and Midwest.
  First of all, if we are going to do cap and trade, we should have 
generous allowances for people who are now operating under certain 
greenhouse gas emission conditions.
  Second of all, any money, any revenues that are gained through cap 
and trade clearly should not go to just ``general revenues.'' Any 
funding should go directly to the development of technologies which 
will then reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That has to be a fundamental 
principle. So the administration, in this budget, is basically using it 
as just a revenue raiser.
  By the way, the entire budget contains no references to nuclear 
power, except striking funds for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste 
repository, for which the utilities--passing it on to the ratepayers--
have paid somewhere between $8 billion and $13 billion for Yucca 
Mountain to be used as a spent nuclear fuel repository. So it is 
remarkable.
  The Secretary of Energy told me in a hearing in the Energy Committee: 
Yucca Mountain is finished. I said: What about reprocessing? Can't do 
that either.
  So here you have nuclear powerplants--there are 120 of them operating 
in the United States of America today--and we cannot reprocess and we 
cannot store. So what do we do? We either keep them in pools or 
``solidification'' outside of nuclear powerplants all over America--
clearly, a threat to the Nation's security.
  Let me say to my colleagues, I am proud of my record on climate 
change. I have been all over the world, and I have seen climate change. 
I know it is real, and I will be glad to continue this debate with my 
colleagues and people who do not agree with that. I believe climate 
change is real.
  I believe with what we did in addressing acid rain, which was through 
a cap-and-trade kind of dynamic, we were able to largely eliminate the 
problem of acid rain in America. So it has been done before, and we can 
do it again, admittedly on a much smaller scale.
  In the Antarctic, in Alaska and even in the rain forests of Brazil 
and here in the United States, we are feeling the effect of climate 
change. So here we are, with a chance to work together in a bipartisan 
fashion on the issue, and what does the administration do? They send 
over a budget which earmarks $600-and-some billion--$646 billion--which 
would then go to general revenues, with no consultation or discussions 
on the issue. I am proud to have worked with Senator Lieberman in years 
past on trying to address the issue of climate change.
  Of course, there is no mention of nuclear power. I do not wish to 
spend my time on the floor, too much, on nuclear power. But according 
to the Department of Energy--and depending on whom you talk to--solar 
will contribute something like 5, 10, at most, 15 percent of our 
renewable energy needs between now and 2050. Wind, tide, all those 
others may contribute another 10, 15, 20 percent.
  There is a vast, gaping hole in our demand for renewable energy, and 
nuclear power and hydro can fill those. This administration has turned 
its back completely on nuclear power. So what do we tell the ratepayers 
and the utilities that have been paying billions of dollars? As I 
mentioned, somewhere between $8 billion and $13 billion they have 
invested in Yucca Mountain. And now we are canceling it? Well, maybe 
they ought to get their money back since it was Government action that 
made Yucca Mountain no longer a viable option.
  We need to debate this issue. We need to address it separately. We 
certainly do not need to address the issue of climate change and how we 
are going to remedy it through the budget process.
  By the way, the Obama administration plans to use revenues as a slush 
fund to meet budgetary shortfalls, as I mentioned. Only $120 billion of 
the $650 billion in new revenues would go to climate policy spending, 
$15 billion a year out of the $650 billion would go for clean energy 
technologies. There is no detail in the budget as to what this includes 
or excludes--except for closing Yucca Mountain.
  Nuclear is not mentioned in the entire budget. Most of the remainder 
of the revenues generated from the present cap-and-trade proposal as 
sent over and part of the budget will be used to pay for the Making 
Work Pay tax credit. I would add that the administration argues that 
the Making Work Pay tax credit will offset the increase in utility 
bills caused by their cap-and-trade policy. However, the credit is 
phased out for taxpayers earning between $75,000 and $95,000 a year for 
individuals and $150,000 to $190,000 for married couples.
  So the administration is insisting on 100 percent auction which, 
obviously, would be an incredible detriment to a very serious approach. 
Our economy is suffering. At times such as these, it is particularly 
important we provide for transition assistance that will not result in 
higher energy costs. Again, I wish to point out 100 percent auction 
will harm heavy manufacturers, the very ones who need the help the 
most: automobiles, concrete, et cetera, and the lower income residents 
of the South and Midwest.
  Every reasonable cap-and-trade bill in the past has been a blend of 
auction and allocations--except for this one. The hybrid approach 
allows heavy manufacturers and coal-fired utilities time to meet 
emissions targets without needing to exponentially raise energy costs 
for consumers.
  So the administration has sent us a budget with not a single mention 
of nuclear power and Yucca Mountain no

[[Page 8028]]

longer an option. No Yucca Mountain means no waste confidence and, 
certainly, no new licensing, no spent fuel recycling. Secretary Chu is 
insinuating the French and Japanese, who have been recycling for 
decades, are ``reckless.''
  So what we need to do is take up separately the issue of climate 
change legislation. It would have a gradual implementation schedule. It 
would allow for the economy to adapt while we meet our environmental 
goals. The policy must aggressively promote nonemitting green energy 
technologies, such as nuclear power, hydro, and others. We should 
pursue a hybrid approach of auctioning a portion of credits while 
reserving a large portion of the credits that we could allocate to 
those who need the most help, complying with the emission reductions. 
Revenues should be used to promote new technologies, help low-income 
people with the increased costs of electricity, and pay down the debt--
not expand the Federal Government.
  So it is with some regret I come to the floor to discuss this 
important issue with a total lack of bipartisanship on the part of the 
administration and, again, express my willingness--in fact, my deep 
desire--to sit down and try to address, in a bipartisan fashion, this 
compelling issue, which is endangering the future of this planet and 
certainly our children's and grandchildren's future, and that is the 
issue of climate change.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, one, I would like to recognize the role 
Senator McCain has played on this issue. It is not something he comes 
to lightly, when the issue of climate change is discussed. He put 
together a cap-and-trade system with Senator Lieberman at a time when 
it was not very popular among some Republicans. But I think he 
understands the issue as well as any Member I have talked with.
  The idea that what we put into the environment can affect our 
environment--I am not a scientist, but that is common sense to me. Acid 
rain is a reality. It was a reality. You could see it in the Southeast, 
where the Presiding Officer lives in North Carolina, and in South 
Carolina. It was a cap-and-trade system, a new technology that solved 
that problem. So it is not much of a stretch to me that CO2 
carbon emissions that we are putting into our environment from 
transportation and power production is heating up the planet, but we 
can have that debate. If you are serious about energy independence as a 
nation, it would be good to get away from fossil fuels coming from the 
Mideast. Clean coal technology is something worth pursuing. The worst 
thing that could happen to the climate change debate is--you cleaned up 
your planet and you passed on a better environment to your children 
only if you did it responsibly.
  Really, the worst thing that could happen to the climate change 
debate is what this administration is doing. They have destroyed, in my 
opinion, a lot of bipartisanship by coming up with a $646 billion 
budget number, revenue to be created from a cap-and-trade system they 
never talked to anybody about who has been involved in the issue. This 
is a radical, reckless departure from the climate change debate that 
existed before they took office.
  This 100 percent auction is a bit complicated to explain, but it is a 
major departure from the solutions that have existed in the past. Under 
the McCain-Warner-Lieberman approach, 22 percent of the credits 
available to industry and energy users would be auctioned and there 
would be an allocation of credits.
  What do I mean by that? A cap-and-trade system at its very basic 
level--concept--is that we are going to put limits on how much carbon 
you can emit into the air as an industry. We will have one for the 
power sector, the transportation sector, for manufacturing. We are 
going to put a cap on these industries, and anything you emit above 
that cap, you are going to have to go get a credit, purchase a credit.
  Well, if you have a 100-percent auction of these credits, hedge funds 
are going to come in and buy these credits and bid them up, so it would 
be very hard for an industry to purchase the credits. People start 
speculating with these credits.
  Now, the northeastern compact has a 100-percent auction, but the 
emission standards they have decided upon allow--basically, it is 
greater than the current emissions that exist, so the credits only 
trade for $3 because they don't have much of a cap that puts pressure 
on anybody. The only way you will solve this problem is to have caps 
that will push people to get away from using carbon, but our 
manufacturing sector is hanging by a thread in the global economy. If 
you put too much of a burden on these industries to move away from 
carbon and their cost of doing business goes up vis-a-vis their 
competitors in China and India, you are going to put them out of 
business.
  So in some circumstances, you have to allocate to these industries 
some credits so they can make it through the transition phase. This 
idea of having a 100-percent auction on day one is a radical departure, 
and it does generate more revenue, and I think that is what this whole 
exercise is about--revenue--not solving the climate problem. They have 
a budget problem, and they are using the climate change debate to 
generate money.
  I have asked the Secretary of Energy and the OMB Director: Where did 
you get $646 billion to plug into your budget? What system did you 
evaluate that would generate that much money? What did the credits 
trade for? Nobody has a clue. I literally think they made up these 
numbers. Some people are talking about the $646 billion being maybe 
half of what the actual cost would be if you went to a 100 percent 
auction. So this is a major departure from the way we have tried to 
solve the climate change problem in the past, and I think it is going 
to destroy the ability of the Congress to come together to solve a 
problem that is looming for the world and particularly this country.
  So I hope our colleagues who are serious about the climate change 
issue will reject this proposal, and let's get together, talk among 
ourselves, rather than making up numbers that will increase the cost to 
American consumers by hundreds of dollars a month. This idea of using 
revenue from a cap-and-trade system to pay for a tax plan of the 
administration is a complete departure from what we have been doing in 
the past. I wouldn't expect my Democratic colleagues to allow the 
Republican Party to come up with a cap-and-trade system to fund one of 
our projects. The money from a cap-and-trade system should go back into 
the energy economy to help people comply with the cost of a cap-and-
trade system and to develop technologies to get us away from using 
carbon.
  The make work pay tax program is something I don't agree with. It 
doesn't apply to everybody who will be using energy, and it is a 
departure from how we would envision the use of revenue, and that is a 
problem that has to be addressed. If the administration is going to 
insist on a cap-and-trade system that would generate this much money 
from our economy at a time when we are weak as a nation economically 
and would dedicate the revenue to controversial programs, they have 
done more to kill the climate change debate than any group I know of. 
You have some people who disagree with the idea that climate change is 
real. I respect them. They are attacking it up front. We are having a 
genuine debate. But to say you believe in climate change as a result, 
and you devise a program such as this without talking to anybody means 
that you have put climate change second to the budget problems you have 
created by a massive budget. So this is not going to bear fruit. This 
is a very low point, in my opinion, in the bipartisan effort to try to 
create a meaningful inclusion to climate change. I hope the 
administration will reconsider.
  To my Democratic colleagues, those of you who stood up and said: We 
are not going to let reconciliation--we only need 50 votes to pass 
something regarding climate change; we are not going to go that route, 
you have done

[[Page 8029]]

the country and the Senate a lot of good because if you ever try that, 
you have destroyed the position of the minority in the Senate on a 
major piece of legislation, and that is not what we need to be doing. 
That is certainly not the change that anybody envisioned. That would be 
a radical departure in terms of how reconciliation has been used in the 
past.
  To take an issue such as climate change, which has a massive economic 
impact and is politically very difficult with a lot of honestly held 
differences, and jam that through reconciliation, well, that would not 
be the politics of the past, that would be the politics of the past on 
steroids. That would be taking us to a place where no one has gone 
before, and if you wanted to destroy any chance of working together, 
that would be a good way to do it.
  Now, as to my colleagues on the Democratic side who see through that, 
God bless you for standing up and not letting that happen.
  So I wish to end my discussion with where I began. Senator McCain and 
others have charted a path that would lead to a bipartisan solution. I 
hope the President will consider nuclear power because it is very 
disingenuous to say you want to solve the climate change problem and 
you will not address nuclear power as part of the solution. Seventy 
percent of the energy that is created in America that is not emitting, 
that has no carbon base, comes from nuclear power. When he campaigned 
for President, candidate Obama openly talked about offshore drilling 
and nuclear power. When his budget comes out, there is nothing in the 
budget to enhance nuclear power, and Yucca Mountain is now going to be 
closed, apparently, and the idea that reprocessing of spent fuel is the 
way to store less spent fuel seems to be resisted by this 
administration.
  So I thought we were going to have an administration where science 
trumped politics. Well, I can assure you when it comes to nuclear 
power, politics is trumping science. Other than that, I have no problem 
with what they are doing.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

                          ____________________