[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 8]
[Issue]
[Pages 11758-11802]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 11758]]
SENATE--Friday, June 6, 2008
The Senate met at 9 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Sheldon Whitehouse, a Senator from the State of Rhode Island.
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Eternal God, our hope for years to come. You are our rock and
fortress, our deliverer and shield. We find refuge in You.
Give strength to our Senators. Energize them with the spirit of unity
that will enable them to solve our Nation's most pressing problems.
Keep them from becoming discouraged because of the enormity of their
challenges as they look to You in faith. Guide our lawmakers in the
direction that leads to justice, equity, and peace. We pray in Your
great Name. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse led the Pledge of Allegiance, as
follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Byrd).
The legislative clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, June 6, 2008.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Sheldon Whitehouse, a Senator from the State of Rhode Island,
to perform the duties of the Chair.
Robert C. Byrd,
President pro tempore.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro
tempore.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
LIEBERMAN-WARNER CLIMATE SECURITY ACT OF 2008
Pending:
Reid (for Boxer) amendment No. 4825, in the nature of a
substitute.
Reid amendment No. 4826 (to amendment No. 4825), to express
the sense of the Senate that the United States should address
global climate change through the negotiation of fair and
effective international commitments.
Reid amendment No. 4827 (to amendment No. 4826), to express
the sense of the Senate that the United States should address
global climate change through the negotiation of fair and
effective international commitments.
Reid amendment No. 4828 (to the language proposed to be
stricken by Reid (for Boxer amendment No. 4825), to provide
for the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 4829 (to amendment No. 4828), to change
the enactment date.
Reid motion to commit the bill to the Committee on the
Environment and Public Works with instructions to report back
forthwith, with Reid amendment No. 4830, to provide for the
enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 4831 (the instructions of the Reid
motion to commit), to change the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 4832 (to amendment No. 4831), to change
the enactment date.
cloture motion
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order and
pursuant to rule XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke
cloture.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the substitute
amendment No. 4825 to S. 3036, the Lieberman-Warner Climate
Security Act.
Barbara Boxer, John Warner, Joseph Lieberman, Tom Harkin,
Robert Menendez, Bill Nelson, Thomas R. Carper, Sheldon
Whitehouse, Charles E. Schumer, Frank R. Lautenberg,
Dianne Feinstein, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., John F. Kerry,
Robert P. Casey, Jr., Patrick J. Leahy, Richard Durbin,
Harry Reid.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory
quorum call is waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on
amendment No. 4825 to S. 3036, a bill to direct the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a program to decrease
emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other purposes, shall be brought
to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad), the Senator
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr.
Obama) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Delaware (Mr. Biden) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the
Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
DeMint), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from
New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the
Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Specter), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens).
Further, if present and voting the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
DeMint) and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted
``nay.''
The Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman) would have voted ``yea.''
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 36, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 145 Leg.]
YEAS--48
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bingaman
Boxer
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Dodd
Dole
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Martinez
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Stabenow
Sununu
Tester
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--36
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Crapo
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kyl
Landrieu
Lugar
McConnell
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Wicker
NOT VOTING--16
Biden
Byrd
Clinton
Coleman
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
DeMint
Graham
Gregg
Kennedy
McCain
Murkowski
Obama
Specter
Stevens
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the
nays are 36. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
[[Page 11759]]
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. For everybody here, this will be the last vote today. We
will have at least one vote in the morning on Tuesday, and perhaps
multiple votes. So everybody will have to be here Tuesday morning. The
votes will probably start at 10 o'clock in the morning.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia is
recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to put in the Record a statement by
Senator Coleman. He would have voted aye if he had been here today. I
ask to have his statement printed in the Record.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, we are in the middle of an energy
crisis, and the only way we're going to get out of it is to
dramatically transform how this country does energy.
That is what the Lieberman-Warner climate bill does--it takes on one
of the greatest economic and national security threats America faces
today: our energy insecurity.
Sometimes we must look around the mountain, we must look to our
future and recognize where our path must lead. We must recognize that
we need massive and speedy development of domestically produced clean
energy sources.
If we had committed to this bill 10 years ago, we wouldn't be in the
tight spot we find ourselves in right now. We needed carbon capture
technology for coal, increased nuclear power, cellulosic ethanol, and
widespread renewable energy use yesterday.
This year, nearly half a trillion of our dollars will be sent
overseas for energy we are capable of producing at home. The fact is,
we are being held hostage by a world oil market where much of the
supply is controlled by thugs and tyrants like Ahmadinejad and Chavez.
But, as we have found in Minnesota, we can grow our own fuel, and the
potential of cellulosic ethanol to replace foreign oil makes today's
renewable fuels production look small, but it still hasn't reached
commercialization.
Meanwhile, nuclear energy is an affordable, zero-emissions source of
energy, yet we have not built a nuclear plant in this country in 30
years.
And, due to environmental concerns, it is increasingly difficult to
utilize one of our greatest sources of energy in the country: coal. We
have a 250 year supply of coal that we must find a way to use for
energy production because one thing is certain--America's energy needs
are only increasing.
At the same time, we have abundant energy around us that has yet to
be tapped. When I am fishing on a beautiful morning up in Lake Ada back
home, the sunshine and steady breeze are a constant reminder of the
renewable resources that we can harness to power our homes and
businesses.
The solutions to our energy woes are at our fingertips; it's time we
grabbed hold of the great opportunity at hand and lead an energy
revolution that will be the source for future security and increased
opportunity for generations to come.
But, we can't wait for this revolution to come to us. I am skeptical
that we are just going to wake up one day and see cellulosic ethanol at
the pump or see a nuclear energy renaissance or clean coal with carbon
sequestration or widespread use of renewables, unless we take bold
action.
Mr. President, that's what this bill is about.
The Climate Security Act empowers Americans to do what we must do,
which is to transform our production of energy. It sets up a cap-and-
trade system, just as was done in the 1990 Clean Air Act to combat acid
rain, that gives greenhouse gas producers flexibility in meeting their
obligations through submission of allowances. Listening to some of the
debate over this last week, one might think this bill is a windfall for
the Federal Government, but what this bill really does is allocate
these allowances to help the folks regulated in their transition to
clean energy and to help energy consumers, both families and businesses
with their energy costs. Just look at what happens in 2012, when the
cap begins:
Over 38 percent of allowances are given out for free to fossil-fired
power plants, energy consumers, natural gas and petroleum facilities,
carbon intensive manufacturing facilities, agriculture and forestry,
and states that are manufacturing and coal reliant;
Another 36 percent of allowances go to states and emitters to
incentivize clean energy deployment and carbon sequestration; and
The 25 percent of the allowances that the Government does ``auction''
go to programs that invest in our energy future by doing things like
dramatically boosting clean coal technology, clean energy research and
development, and worker training assistance.
In particular, the bill provides record investment in clean coal,
renewables, and cellulosic ethanol, including: $17 billion of support
for carbon capture and storage technology for coal to kick start this
technology, $120 billion in incentives for carbon capture and storage,
and my CO2 pipeline study proposal; bonus allowances for
renewable energy that I have strongly supported; $150 billion for
renewable energy; $92 billion for low-carbon electricity technology;
and $26 billion for production of cellulosic ethanol.
But there is no doubt in revolutionizing our energy production, a
transition will be required that won't come easy. That's why, from the
time I cosponsored the first Lieberman-Warner proposal, I made clear
that as we work on this legislation, we have to keep in mind the single
mother in St. Paul working two jobs who can't afford higher energy
prices and we must protect the economy and American jobs.
I compliment Senators Lieberman and Warner for taking these concerns
to heart. This substitute makes several critical changes from earlier
drafts to assist poor and middle class families with energy prices and
to protect jobs.
First, this substitute dramatically increases the resources dedicated
to help consumers, both families and businesses, with energy costs--
bringing the total assistance to $1.7 trillion. $800 million of this
amount is targeted at a tax cut for low income Americans' energy costs.
Meanwhile, this substitute increases by 40 percent the funding that
will go to energy consumers through their utility bill, bringing this
provision's assistance total to $900 billion.
Secondly, this bill includes a new allowance trigger at between $22
and $30 per allowance that provides an important off-ramp should costs
become high. This trigger is critical because economic consequences
escalate when the price of an allowance increases.
Many of the high energy cost and GDP estimates cited on the floor
this week have been taken from an EPA study that assumes an allowance
price of at least $46 per allowance. Under this substitute, prices
won't be allowed to get anywhere near that level.
Finally, this bill places an allowance purchase requirement on
importers of products like steel, chemicals, and other energy intensive
products if a commission does not find that the country of origin is
taking comparable action to curb greenhouse gases.
There is a lot of concern that this bill will increase energy prices
and hurt the economy. You will hear many of my colleagues cite studies
with drastic cost increase numbers. While this substitute amendment,
with the protections I just outlined, has yet to be analyzed, I believe
much of the economic pain projected in some studies is overstated--even
without the off-ramp.
For instance, the independent Energy Information Agency found in
their High Cost scenario that there is a predicted electricity price
increase of 1.5 percent a year and a gas price increase of 2 cents per
year. Meanwhile, EIA has projected less than half of one percent effect
on GDP--again, this is before the off-ramp.
I do want to commend Senators Lieberman and Warner for their work on
this bill--they deserve much credit for taking this on, for pouring
themselves into this very difficult, complex task--taking on one of the
great challenges of our day.
[[Page 11760]]
That's why I am so disappointed that we won't have a chance to
consider this bill on the floor. Mr. President, the Clean Air Act took
5 weeks, we have been given less than 5 days on a much more
comprehensive piece of legislation. The process set up here robs us of
an opportunity to take our energy crisis head on.
I have supported the Lieberman-Warner effort as a cosponsor, and I
continue to support this bill, but I have always made clear that I
would work to improve the bill to protect Minnesota jobs. So, I have a
few amendments, some that I am introducing, some I am cosponsoring that
substantively improve this bill--many of these changes are very small,
but the consequences of not including them will be very large in my
state.
Because of this process, I won't have the chance to offer my
amendment to create a fuel assistance fund that will lower Federal fuel
taxes by an amount equal to fuel price increases those driving cars and
trucks and riding on airplanes have to pay as a result from this bill.
This is an amendment to protect American consumers, it's common-sense,
and it keeps the Highway Trust Fund and the Airport and Airways Trust
Fund whole.
I won't have a chance to amend the bill to ensure that my state's
many waste-to-energy facilities are considered renewable. This is a
small change, but without it, we could disadvantage an important clean
energy technology.
This bill needs a nuclear energy title. We need to boost tax
incentives for nuclear power plants and improve the existing loan
guarantee program. We need to train a workforce for the nuclear
renaissance that we'll need to meet our energy needs.
Meanwhile, we need to restore the transition assistance for rural
electric cooperatives that was included in earlier drafts of the bill,
and we need to exempt steel process emissions as there is no feasible
technological alternative to using carbon to produce iron ore. If these
process emissions aren't excluded, we're going to send steel jobs
overseas.
These amendments are designed to work within the structure of this
bill, to augment it, to remove negative impacts that could hit
Minnesotans--they deserve to be considered.
Mr. President, the challenge we face in solving our energy security
problems is great, but for the folks who don't think America can meet
this challenge, I would like to remind them of the fight we had over
the first Renewable Fuels Standard, RFS, just a few years ago. I worked
with a bipartisan cast of colleagues to pass the first RFS in 2005, and
at the time, it was criticized as onerous and too ambitious.
We thought we were aiming high by passing a 7.5 billion gallon
renewable fuels requirement by 2012. Today, in 2008, we have the
renewable fuel production capacity of 8.5 billion gallons--we have far
out surpassed expectations of production at the time.
Driving around Minnesota's countryside, I have witnessed the source
of this overwhelming success--local entrepreneurs, innovators, and
visionaries. And, the Minnesotans who have built our renewable fuels
industry, which contributes over $5 billion to the State's economy,
have transformed their local economies. The government sent the market
a strong signal, and the American people responded.
Mr. President, the time for an energy revolution is long overdue. We
cannot afford delay, and it is my hope that we will be provided the
time we need to consider and pass this critical bill in the near
future.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Lieberman-
Warner Climate Security Act. I am deeply grateful that we are at last
beginning to address an issue that goes to the heart of our security,
our economy, our ingenuity and our leadership in the world: Climate
change.
Over the course of this debate, I have no doubt that some will
continue to argue that the science of global warming remains
``inconclusive''--that there is simply too much uncertainty to take any
sort of action.
But before we even go into the science of global warming, let us
consider all that is quite certain today because of our dependence on
fossil fuels.
We can start with our national security, which is compromised because
we import oil to the tune of $300 billion every year, much of it from
the most unstable countries in the world, a great many of whom are no
friends to America.
We can then examine how this dependence puts our economy at risk, as
families and businesses struggle with ever-rising gas prices that now
top $4 per gallon, impacting our economic security and competitiveness
alike.
We can also look at the public health implications, as asthma rates
soar, disease spreads to new regions and the developing world
experiences increases in climate-sensitive diseases, such as malaria,
malnutrition--diseases that acutely threaten children.
There is also the rise in extreme weather incidents of Katrina-like
ferocity that have increasingly become not the exception but the rule.
And finally, we can reflect on our waning moral leadership in the
world, due at least in part because of this administration's stubborn
insistence on abandoning the Kyoto Protocol entirely.
They didn't propose ways for the United States to improve a flawed
but noble effort important to virtually every other nation in the
civilized world. Nor did they demonstrate any commitment whatsoever on
our part to leading the world in alternative energy production.
Instead, they simply let the problem fall to the next administration.
They picked up their chair and went home.
Whatever else you think about the science of climate change, surely
you must agree that American families have paid a price for our failure
to act on these many related issues.
But I would immediately add, on the fundamental question of whether
climate change is real and whether human actions are responsible, there
can be no debate.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming, an international panel
composed of hundreds of the most respected scientists in the world,
conducted a comprehensive study of available climate change data.
And what they found was unequivocal. The IPCC concluded that, and I
quote, ``most of the observed increase in globally averaged
temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the
observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.''
In plain English, virtually the entire scientific community agrees on
two points--one, that temperatures are rising because of greenhouse gas
emissions, and two, that such increases are caused by human activity.
And so, let us be very clear: global warming is real, and we are
causing it. It is not in question. And it is a very big problem for all
of us.
Yet even still, some continue to push back. Some acknowledge the
science behind climate change but argue we cannot take action because
of the threat it poses to our economy.
They present us with what I believe is a false choice:
That we can choose environmental responsibility or economic
prosperity, but not both.
I completely and emphatically disagree.
Our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels may pose some of our
biggest problems. But breaking that dependence offers us the single
greatest opportunity for a brighter, more secure future.
How is that possible?
Because if so many problems can stem from a single source--and in the
case of energy, they surely do--then it is only logical that if we deal
with that problem, we can begin meeting those challenges as well.
We can begin creating a stronger, more prosperous America that relies
not on politically fragile corners of the globe for its security, but
on the ingenuity of America's small businesses and university
laboratories.
A stronger, more prosperous America that uses its abundant economic
resources not to perpetuate anti-American sentiment abroad but to
create
[[Page 11761]]
jobs here at home--from the construction of energy efficient buildings
and renewable energy power plants to an auto industry that builds cars
that lead the world in fuel efficiency.
An America that charges not simply our cities with helping us achieve
these goals but also rural communities across the country. That is not
only a stronger, more prosperous America; it is one more Americans get
to be a part of.
As such, I believe we can no longer wait to move to quickly reduce
America's greenhouse gas emissions in a comprehensive way. That is why
I have supported cap-and-trade proposals in the past, and I will
continue to do so, because they offer a way for America to begin
tackling global warming.
But I believe there is a more promising solution that too often gets
lost in these debates: A carbon tax, a fee placed on each ton of carbon
dioxide emitted from fossil fuels.
Such a solution has been endorsed by everyone from NASA scientist
James Hansen and former Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence Summers to
conservative Harvard economist N. Gregory Mankiw, President George W.
Bush's former chief economic advisor.
Even Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State, George Schulze, has voiced
support for the idea. All agree it is the most efficient way to address
the climate problem.
The idea is simple. We already know how much carbon is emitted from
the burning of various fossil fuels, and we already collect the data we
need to figure out how much to tax each sale of fossil fuels. As such,
all that we would need to do to impose a carbon tax is set a price for
a ton of carbon. That price would increase over time, leading to
decreased carbon emissions as the cost of using dirty fossil fuels
overtakes the cost of investing in clean, renewable technologies.
I know ``new taxes'' have been anathema to American politics for
years. But a carbon tax eliminates the last incentive there is to
pollute because it is cheaper.
A carbon tax would reduce carbon emissions much more efficiently than
a cap-and-trade program. The Congressional Budget Office said as much,
finding that ``available research suggests that in the near term, the
net benefits . . . of a tax could be roughly five times greater than
the net benefits of an inflexible cap.
Put another way, a given long-term emission-reduction target could be
met by a tax at a fraction of the cost of an inflexible cap-and-trade
program.''
Why? Because a tax provides the kind of long-term predictability for
the price of emissions a carbon allowance would not. It allows
companies to more effectively plan over the long-term how they could
most cost-effectively reduce emissions.
Additionally, a carbon tax could be much more easily administered and
overseen than a cap-and-trade program because the administrative
infrastructure already exists to levy taxes on the upstream sources of
fossil fuels, with their carbon contents known quantities as well.
Unlike cap and trade, which would require a complex new
administrative structure to oversee and regulate the carbon market, we
don't have to start from scratch.
In my view, a carbon tax is a critical piece of the debate over
global warming, and I look forward to engaging with Chairwoman Boxer
and my other colleagues in making part of this discussion. If for no
other reason than the short window of time with which we have to
address this problem before it is too late, it must be.
Allow me also to briefly address some other issues raised by the
Lieberman-Warner bill.
I appreciate all that Chairwoman Boxer and her colleagues on the EPW
Committee have done to take care of low-income consumers who will
struggle with rising energy prices and the increased cost of consumer
goods. The steps taken in this bill are certainly a good start.
However, I am concerned that we could be delivering rebates to low-
income consumers more efficiently than we do in this legislation.
Already, nearly 3,000 of the 5,400 households in my State who qualify
for heating assistance are exhausting their benefits in the dead of
winter every year.
We cannot put seniors and low-income households in the position of
having to stretch tight household budgets to the breaking point simply
to heat their homes, drive to work and put food on the table.
I look forward to working with Chairwoman Boxer and others to make
sure our most vulnerable citizens are taken care of, which I know is as
high a priority for her as it is the rest of us.
Lastly, I want to say a word about public transportation which falls
within the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. Given that the
transportation sector is responsible for a third of all U.S. greenhouse
gas emissions, clearly we need to direct significant resources toward
public transit, which reduces the number of cars on the road.
While I thank Chairwoman Boxer as well as Senators Lieberman and
Warner for recognizing transit's importance in this bill, I do believe
more needs to be done, and I look forward to working with them to make
that possible.
Ultimately, I believe this bill represents an important first step
toward grappling with what may prove to be the defining challenge of
our age. And if we meet this challenge, it could mean the difference
between rural America being left behind by the 21st century economy or
becoming the engine that drives it.
It may be the difference between small businesses being burdened by
energy costs or finding innovative ways to drive them down.
It may well be our very best chance to give our children and
grandchildren the future of hope, prosperity, and optimism I know we
all want to give them.
I thank the Chair for this opportunity, yield the floor, and look
forward to this debate continuing in the coming weeks and months.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I share with my colleagues some
thoughts regarding how to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions and
a few key benchmarks I believe should be included in a national
strategy to address this environmental and economic security challenge.
The scientific evidence linking the effects of man-made releases of
carbon dioxide and the warming of the Earth's climate is clear. In
2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change analyzed the
science on climate change and concluded with high probability that the
Earth is dramatically warming and that the atmospheric concentration of
CO2 is at the highest level in 400,000 years. To forestall
the most significant effects of predicted changes in the world's
climate over the next 50 years, the United States and other major
emitting nations must begin to transition to a low-carbon economy.
Although South Dakota may avoid the direct consequences of rising sea
levels or more powerful storms caused by climate change, in many other
respects my State is vulnerable to changes in the Earth's temperature.
More frequent and severe droughts would dramatically harm the State's
economy. The loss of productive farmland, denuded pastureland, and
scarce ground and surface water supplies are probable under the current
scientific modeling on a warming planet. The Prairie Pothole Region,
which is partially located in my State, and is the most important duck
and geese habitat in North America, is threatened by the effects of
climate change. These changes, if borne out in the next generation,
would have significant and severe economic consequences for my State.
Understanding clearly the probable environmental harm from taking no
action, I support a mandatory, nationwide program that limits
greenhouse gas emissions. I have voted in support of a nationwide plan
previously because it is important to reach agreement and understanding
on the complicated legislative, regulatory and economic choices from a
nationwide strategy.
With the strong, peer-reviewed scientific conclusions linking climate
change to human caused greenhouse
[[Page 11762]]
gas emissions, the future uncertainty and cost of a nationwide program
to reduce these emissions challenge our path to producing the optimal
bill. We need to take strong steps with an early no regrets policy of
action. Over the longer-term, addressing this problem will require
changes in how we produce and use energy. It is realistic to expect
such a plan to have costs. Transiting to lower carbon forms of energy
production not yet commercially deployable could increase the price of
producing energy. Creating policies and incentives that contain those
costs over the next several decades to lessen impacts to consumers is a
key concern of mine.
A nationwide plan that caps greenhouse gas emissions must make room
for the expansion of traditional fossil fuel generation sources to meet
growing energy demand. I am a strong supporter of renewable energy--
biofuels, wind and solar energy can and should make up an increasingly
greater share of our country's energy mix. I support a mandatory,
nationwide renewable electricity standard to increase the amount of
renewable electricity produced from less than 5 percent currently to a
requirement of 15 percent in the next 10 years. However, we need the
full suite of energy resources and that includes natural gas and coal.
In my State, we have a diverse mix of energy resources, including
hydropower, wind, natural gas and coal-fired generation. To keep that
available and cost-competitive mix of fuels, a mandatory greenhouse gas
reduction program must be linked to an aggressive and dedicated source
of funding for reducing the emissions from conventional energy sources.
Carbon capture and sequester is a path forward to keep coal as a fuel
source, but reduce harmful CO2 emissions. Commercially
deployable CCS technology is not yet available. It will take several
more years and billions of dollars in research and testing to develop
the right types of CCS processes that separate CO2 from the
emissions stream. Accordingly, it is important to try to link
reductions from existing sources with the likely path of technology
development. Is it possible to completely match up reduction targets
with technology development? Probably not. Technology develops at an
inconsistently timed pace. Nonetheless, a plan that includes an
unrealistically optimistic emissions reduction schedule that does not
meet up with the resources for next-generation emission reduction
technologies will break the program and hamper our efforts to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
Part of the solution to this challenge resides in ensuring that
incumbent as well as new entrant fossil fuel generators can manage
price and emission reductions and have the resources to invest in new,
low-emitting technologies. Allowance distribution should, as one
factor, take into consideration historic emissions in allocating
emission allowances. A limited and tightly controlled auction and other
distribution calculations can be incorporated into this framework, but
if we don't get this part of the program right it could swamp our
efforts in other parts of the economy to wring carbon from the
production process.
The good news is that South Dakotans can bring our strengths to
contributing to the solution of a low carbon and economically strong
America. Farmers, ranchers and forestland owners can play an important
role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Agriculture practices and
land management decisions that sequester carbon dioxide are cheap and
efficient ways to comply with the requirements of a nationwide and
mandatory program. The use of limited offsets and the flexibility of
producers and landowners to get credit for past, current and future
action target an incentive that eases costs for other sectors of the
economy while at the same time creating an income stream for rural
America. A ton of carbon sequestered, verified, and accounted is as
powerful as reducing a ton of carbon from the smokestack of an electric
utility or the smelter from a manufacturing facility. There is a strong
coalition of Senators who believe that a vigorous offset program should
be part of a comprehensive climate bill. Properly administered, offsets
lower costs and improve compliance which is why I am confident that
such a plan strengthens the objectives of a low carbon economy.
Mr. President, I feel confident the Congress can come together and
address these challenges. Those deniers of the problem who throw up
obstacles and simply say no to any and all avenues for action will find
themselves increasingly marginalized and ineffective as the American
people demand a serious response to a serious problem. My objectives
and concerns should be viewed as a way to make an eventual policy more
equitable and efficient. The consequences of taking no action are dire
and simply unacceptable. Although the Congress will not find consensus
this year on tackling the problem, I am glad that the Senate has
started a much needed debate on this issue and count myself in the vast
majority of citizens who feel we have the capability to curtail the
effects of climate change.
(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to
be printed in the Record.)
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Constitution places the power of
the purse squarely in the hands of Congress. The Lieberman-Warner
climate security bill and the Boxer substitute to it, however, thwart
the Constitution and longstanding tradition by shifting much spending
power to the executive branch. In order to protect Congress's
constitutional role to make spending decisions, I have introduced an
amendment, cosponsored by Senators Murray, Dorgan, Leahy, Durbin,
Feinstein, and Mikulski.
Enacting this climate change legislation in its current form would
vest unelected executive branch boards and agencies with unprecedented
discretion on Federal spending in excess of more than $1.4 trillion in
new and existing Federal programs over a span of 38 years.
Rather than Congress making decisions on funding and conducting
oversight of Federal programs as intended by the Constitution, much of
these responsibilities would be in the hands of the executive branch
agencies.
In one specific case, the burden would be on Congress to stop
executive branch decisions on Federal spending related to climate
change initiatives. The Climate Change Technology Board would simply
have to notify congressional committees 60 days in advance of a funding
distribution for a range of energy technology programs. The money would
be spent unless Congress could pass a law, signed by the President, to
stop it. Effectively, the Senate could only stop the spending if it
could muster 67 votes.
The legislation would not expire until 2050, meaning that the
executive branch would go unchecked on spending decisions related to
climate change initiatives for 38 years. Our Founding Fathers clearly
did not intend for Congress to relinquish the power of the purse to any
President for any issue--and certainly not for nearly four decades on
such a crucial and timely issue.
The clock is certainly ticking for America to take more responsible
action on the global climate security challenge. Congress should retain
its active role in funding and oversight of climate security programs,
as it does for every other Federal program. It would be irresponsible
to concentrate such power in the executive branch and then sit on the
side lines watching as Federal agencies take action without a
congressional check.
There is concern that the new funds raised in this bill through the
auctioning of emissions allowances should be spent on the measures
authorized in this bill to address climate change. Some may worry that
our amendment would allow these new receipts to just sit in the
Treasury and not get spent on their intended purpose. That is simply
not the case.
Our amendment, No. 4920, addresses that concern head-on by granting
these receipts special budget treatment and requiring that they be
allocated only to the specified purposes and programs authorized in
this climate change bill. The Committee on Appropriations would
continue its rightful role in allocating these funds.
[[Page 11763]]
Under this approach--known as ``offsetting collections''--the amounts
are appropriated annually in appropriations acts for the specific
purposes allowed under the authorization act, but those appropriations
are paid for by the auction receipts collected pursuant to the Boxer
substitute. The receipts serve to offset the cost of the appropriation.
The ``offsetting collections'' model has worked successfully in the
past. It has given the authorizing committees that have raised new fees
the comfort that their new revenues would be spent on their intended
purpose. At the same time, it has given the Committee on Appropriations
the ability to continually oversee the spending of these funds and
ensure that they are spent responsibly.
For example, the Appropriations Committee has successfully
coordinated this approach with the Commerce Committee for new receipts
that were established after the September 11 tragedy for the costs of
the Transportation Security Administration. Every penny of the security
fees that were newly established in the Aviation and Transportation
Security Act have been appropriated annually by my Homeland Security
Appropriations Subcommittee Act and only for the purposes specified in
the authorizing law.
The purpose of our amendment is not to put a roadblock to these funds
being spent. To the contrary, it is to keep honor with the intent of
Chairman Boxer and her legislation while simultaneously keeping honor
with the Constitution of the United States and the role of the
legislative branch.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, there have been several companies,
organizations, unions, and environmental groups that have come out
against this bill by sending letters urging Senators to vote no on the
legislation. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
these letters signed by the following groups:
Duke Energy, National Association of Manufacturers, U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, United Auto Workers, Farm Bureau, and
the United Mine Workers of America.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Farm Bureau,
May 30, 2008.
Dear Senator: The full Senate is expected to debate climate
change legislation, S.2191, the Lieberman-Warner Climate
Security Act, during the week of June 2. We also expect that
there will be a Boxer substitute amendment that will be the
focus of the debate. The American Farm Bureau Federation
urges you to oppose the substitute.
Agriculture can play a significant role in addressing
climate change by reducing and sequestering carbon through
tillage practices, manure and soil management, and other
practices. These practices can also help to offset the
emissions reductions imposed by cap and trade legislation,
thereby reducing the costs of the bill to regulated
industries and to consumers. The Boxer amendment fails to
recognize these benefits that agriculture can provide.
While establishing a domestic offset market, the bill fails
to assure that domestic offsets will be available. It leaves
the decision whether to allow any agricultural offsets at
all, and which to allow, at the sole discretion of the
Environmental Protection Agency. The bill establishes an
artificial cap of 15 percent on the number of domestic
offsets available, and further provides that any unfilled
portion of that amount may be filled by international
offsets. The cap on agricultural offsets stifles efforts of
producers to reduce or sequester carbon, and the cap on
offsets also increases the economic impacts of the
legislation on businesses and consumers.
The bill also stifles development of agricultural reduction
or sequestration projects by creating uncertainty as to
whether projects will even be approved for the offset market.
The bill requires any project to be completed first and the
carbon reduction or sequestration benefits be verified before
a decision to approve is made. This uncertainty creates a
disincentive for project managers and buyers of offsets to
enter into carbon reduction projects if they might not be
approved as offsets.
Many agricultural practices that reduce or sequester carbon
also have other environmental benefits. For example, reduced
tillage practices have soil erosion control and water quality
benefits in addition to sequestering carbon. By requiring
that projects may not be approved as offsets unless their
sole purpose is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG), the bill
disqualifies many otherwise worthwhile projects that have
collateral environmental benefits, and may discourage the
development of these multi-benefit projects.
Finally, unilateral carbon mandates by the United States
that impose cost increases on American producers without a
corresponding and similar commitment from other countries
such as China, India or Brazil, among others, puts American
producers at a significant competitive trade disadvantage.
Any benefits from reduced GHG emissions by the United States
will be minimal if other countries continue to emit as usual.
Agriculture can play an important role in reducing and
sequestering carbon, and thereby ease the costs to industry
and to society of compliance with emission reductions. Its
role must be fully recognized in any climate change
legislation. The Boxer substitute fails to recognize this and
provides no assurances that agriculture will have any
opportunity to mitigate the obvious increased costs of this
legislation. We urge you to oppose it.
Sincerely,
Bob Stallman,
President.
____
Duke Energy Corporation,
Charlotte, NC, June 2, 2008.
Dear Senator: I appreciate the tough decisions you may be
called on to make in the next several days as climate change
legislation comes to the Senate floor for, what I hope will
be, a healthy debate. I am grateful for the courtesy you've
extended Duke Energy and me personally in allowing us to make
our case for a fair climate bill that benefits the
environment without penalizing the customer.
As you are well aware, Duke Energy has been a strong
supporter of enacting a mandatory, economy-wide greenhouse
gas cap-and-trade program. As this issue has continued to
develop over the last several years we have taken a
leadership role in working with a wide group of affected
stakeholders on both sides of the debate to try and find
common ground and move this issue forward. I think we have
made progress in that regard, and I am confident more will be
made in the months ahead.
But we have said from the beginning that, as important as
it is for Congress to act on climate change, it is just as
important that Congress get it right. In our view, the
legislation Senator Boxer plans to offer on the Senate floor
does not meet that test. Its provisions, as written, would
impose excessive and unfair costs on our customers which, in
our view, would unnecessarily disrupt the regional and
national economies.
While costs cannot be a reason for inaction, they must be
part of the decision making process. Our country will require
time as we transition to a low-carbon economy and Congress
must find effective ways to cushion that transition, which is
particularly important for customers in states that depend
heavily on fossil fuel generation. Senator Boxer's amendment
makes some progress in trying to mitigate these economic
concerns, but it does not go far enough to ensure against
substantial electricity price increases on Day 1 of the
program. Customers in the 25 states whose generation is more
than 50 percent coal-fired will pay a disproportionate share
of these higher costs.
As previous successful cap-and-trade programs have shown,
there are more effective ways to achieve our environmental
goals, while keeping costs low. Providing transitional
allowances to fossil generators based on and equal to
historic emissions proved to be a win-win for customers and
the environment under the Acid Rain Program and Duke believes
this approach would have the same results under carbon
legislation.
If the measure to be debated were enacted into law, costs
to the average household, especially in those 25 coal-based
states, would increase rather quickly because a significant
number of emission allowances would have to be purchased
through an auction at a fluctuating price. These costs to
consumers would be in addition to increased costs for the
capital investments required for actually lowering carbon
emissions. The additional charges paid by these customers to
buy allowances will not lower carbon emissions by one ounce,
but will have a profound economic impact on their everyday
lives.
In 2007 Duke Energy provided electricity to more than 3.7
million homes in South Carolina, North Carolina, Ohio,
Indiana, and Kentucky. More than 20 percent of these homes
had a combined income of less than $25,000 a year, with 7
percent earning less than $10,000 a year. These families are
already struggling due to higher prices for other goods and
commodities and it is unfair and unnecessary to require them
to fund a substantial portion of the climate program through
increased energy bills. And while there are provisions
contained within the bill to assist low-income families with
their energy bills, it is somewhat disingenuous to tell them
they will get a rebate when they get back only a fraction of
what they put in.
As I have stated before, addressing climate change should
be a transition from where we are today to where we need to
be tomorrow. The program will not work if it is based on the
premise that there needs to be an immediate upheaval of our
current infrastructure base. Instead, legislation will work
if its intent is to build the foundation to transition our
economy to a low-carbon environment.
[[Page 11764]]
Even without a national climate change policy Duke Energy
is implementing steps to lower its carbon footprint. We
continue to invest in energy efficiency and over the next
five years plan to invest approximately $23 billion (almost
equal to our current market cap) to make our entire system
more efficient, retire inefficient plants and increase our
renewable energy portfolio. These investments show Duke
Energy's commitment to addressing climate change. But, this
transition will take time and cannot be accomplished
overnight.
While it is unfortunate that Duke Energy cannot support the
current climate change measure, we remain committed to being
a constructive part of the debate as this issue moves
forward. Strong leadership will be required to pass
legislation that protects our environment, protects our
economy and protects our customers and I look forward to
working with you to make this a reality.
Sincerely,
James E. Rogers,
Chairman, President and CEO.
____
National Association of Manufacturers,
Washington, DC, June 3, 2008.
Hon. James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senate, Senate Russell Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Inhofe: On behalf of the National Association
of Manufacturers (NAM), the nation's largest industrial trade
association representing manufacturers in every industrial
sector and in all 50 states, I urge you to oppose S. 3036,
the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, as introduced.
The NAM understands the importance of environmental
stewardship. Our member companies are committed to pursuing
reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, provided that
any commitments made by the United States are mirrored by
comparable commitments by our trading partners, are based on
sound science and cost-effectiveness, and are applied equally
throughout the economy.
The NAM opposes S. 3036's nationwide cap-and-trade program
because it:
Does not pre-empt conflicting state and local climate
change laws and/or regulations;
Imposes major new requirements on businesses without
sufficiently protecting U.S. competitiveness or funding the
research, development and commercial deployment of essential
new technologies;
Omits ``safety valve'' provisions that are key to ensuring
cost containment;
Is limited in scope and does not include all sectors of the
economy;
Unnecessarily increases demand on natural gas, driving up
energy costs and job losses;
Does not adequately promote global participation; and
Creates a multitude of conflicting and duplicative
regulations for manufacturers.
The NAM, in cooperation with the American Council for
Capital Formation, commissioned a study earlier this year to
assess the potential economic impacts of the Lieberman-Warner
legislation. The study concluded that, if adopted, the
legislation by 2030 could lead to net national employment
losses of up to 4 million jobs, electricity price increases
of up to 129 percent, gasoline price increases of up to 145
percent and a loss of household income of up to $6,752 per
year.
Manufacturers are committed to working with Congress to
establish sensible and responsible federal climate change
policies that reduce GHG emissions, but these policies must
maintain a competitive playing field for American companies.
S. 3036 fails this test, and we oppose its passage. We will
be closely evaluating amendments that affect U.S.
manufacturers and workers and will be communicating our views
on these amendments prior to their final consideration.
The NAM's Key Vote Advisory Committee has indicated that
votes on S. 3036, including votes on related amendments or
procedural motions, merit designation as Key Manufacturing
Votes.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jay Timmons,
Executive Vice President.
____
United Mine Workers of America,
Fairfax, VA, May 27, 2008.
Re: S. 2191
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
Chair, Environment and Public Works Committee, Senate Dirksen
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. James Inhofe,
Ranking Minority Member, Environment and Public Works
Committee, Senate Dirksen Office Building, Washington,
DC.
Dear Senators Boxer and Inhofe: As President of the United
Mine Workers of America (UMWA), I am writing to explain why
we do not support S. 2191, the Lieberman-Warner Climate
Security Act of 2008.
The UMWA has participated in the global climate change
debate for more than 15 years, both domestically and abroad
as an NGO at all major negotiating sessions of the U.N.
Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). Last July, we
were pleased to join the AFL-CIO and many of our labor
colleagues in endorsing the bipartisan Bingaman-Specter bill,
S. 1766.
Our support for S. 1766 reflected our agreement with its
emission reduction targets and timetables provisions to
accelerate the commercialization of carbon capture and
sequestration (CCS) technology, and projected moderate
impacts on the U.S. economy overall, and on coal utilization
in the electric utility sector. Recent analyses by EPA and
EIA confirm our judgment in this regard.
We met with Committee staff during the development of S.
2191, expressing our deep concerns about the Bill's overly
aggressive targets and timetables for near-term reductions,
particularly the magnitude of reductions required by 2020, It
is not feasible to deploy CCS technology on a large-scale
basis by that time. With the economy-wide emission trading
system employed by S. 2191, the electric utility and coal
industries would bear the brunt of the adverse economic and
job impacts associated with compliance. EIA's recent analysis
shows that over time, these adverse impacts will spread
across our manufacturing and industrial base.
The severity of these impacts cannot be justified on
environmental grounds in light of EPA's analysis of the
comparative global CO2 concentrations resulting
from alternative climate change bills before the Senate. In
essence, there is no significant difference among these bills
measured in terms of future atmospheric concentrations of
CO2.
The world's ability to stabilize future global
CO2 concentrations--the long-term goal of the U.N.
FCCC--depends overwhelmingly upon the willingness of major
developing economies like India, China, Brazil and Mexico to
accept meaningful commitments to reduce their future rate of
emissions. The magnitude of their commitments will not be
evident until the conclusion of the Copenhagen negotiations
scheduled for December 2009.
We appreciate the efforts that you and the Committee have
made to accommodate labor's interests in the initial bill,
the Committee mark-up, and the Manager's Amendment. CCS bonus
allowances, provision for Davis-Bacon compliance, inclusion
of the IBEW-AEP trade provisions from S. 1766, a limited
cost-containment ``off-ramp'' and additional technology
incentives are welcome additions. However, these measures do
not mitigate the severe adverse impacts that S. 2191 would
have on American workers, primarily due to the unrealistic
schedule of emissions reductions required by 2020, just 12
years from now.
Impact on Coal Utilization
Both EPA and EIA's analyses of S. 2191 indicate that U.S.
coal production for electric generation would be sharply
reduced due to the concentration of emission reductions in
the utility sector, in turn reflecting the low availability
of CCS technology when the 2020 reductions are required.
Emission reductions in the transport sector are minimal in
comparison.
The table below summarizes EIA's findings for electricity
generated by coal and natural gas under its business-as-usual
Reference Case, Core S. 2191 case, and ``Limited
Alternatives'' case for 2020 and 2030. ElA's core case
assumes that nuclear generation will triple by 2030. The
limited alternatives case constrains coal-based CCS, new
nuclear power, and renewables generation to reference case
levels.
EIA S. 2191 PROJECTIONS OF COAL AND NATURAL GAS ELECTRIC GENERATION, 2020 AND 2030
[Billions of kilowatt-hours and pct. chg. from 2006]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 2020 Ref. Case 2020 Core Case 2020 Ltd. Alter. 2030 Ref. Case 2030 Core Case 2030 Ltd. Alter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal....................................................... 1,988 2,357 1,890 1,606 2,838 703 703
................. +19% -5% -19% +20% -65% -65%
N. Gas..................................................... 806 833 761 1,094 741 427 1,558
................. +3% -6% +36% -8% -47% +93%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: DOE/EIA, n.2, Table ES2.
These findings, showing a 65% reduction in coal use in both
the core and limited alternatives cases from 2006 levels,
underscore our concerns about the lopsided impacts of S. 2191
on our members. We also note the potential for huge increases
in the demand for natural gas in the limited alternatives
case, with adverse implications for other industries and
consumers dependent on scarce gas resources. If EIA's core
case assumptions about the robust growth of nuclear power
proved optimistic, utilities would have little
[[Page 11765]]
choice but to switch from coal to natural gas on a massive,
unprecedented scale.
EPA's results are consistent with EIA's findings. EPA
projects that coal production for electric generation would
decline from 1.1 billion tons in 2010 to less than 800
million tons in 2020, and to less than 700 million tons by
2025--a reduction of nearly 40% from 2010 production.
Electricity prices are forecast to increase 44% by 2030,
assuming that allowance cost can be partially passed through
to consumers.
EPA attributes the disproportionate concentration of
emission reductions in S. 2191 within the utility sector to
the ``relatively modest indirect price signal an upstream cap
and trade program sends to the transportation sector.'' EIA's
analysis of the distribution of CO2 emissions
expected in 2020 and 2030 under its core case and five
alternative cases shows a similar disproportionate impact on
the electric power sector.
Manufacturing and Other Industrial Sectors
Higher electricity and other fuel costs would depress
demand for industrial output and result in job losses across
of the economy. EIA's analysis compares the reduction of the
value of industrial shipments (excluding services) for S.
2191 and S. 1766, as summarized below for the S. 2191 core
and limited alternatives cases:
IMPACTS OF S. 2191 AND S. 1766 ON INDUSTRIAL SHIPMENTS, 2020 and 2030
[In billions of 2000 dollars and pct. change from reference case]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 Core Case 2020 Ltd. Alter. 2030 Core Case 2030 Ltd. Alter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. 2191............................. -$100 -$153 -$233 -$354
-1.4% -2.1% -2.9% -4.4%
S. 1766 Update...................... -$55 n.a. -$139 n.a.
-0.8% ................. -1.7% .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: DOE/EIA, n. 2, Table 4.
The adverse impacts of the Bingaman-Specter bill on
industrial shipments (and by implication, on industrial
employment) are roughly one-half those projected for the S.
2191 core case, and one-third those for the limited
alternatives case.
At 2002 productivity rates, each U.S. manufacturing worker
produced shipments or sales receipts of some $266,000
annually. At this rate, one billion dollars of reduced
manufacturing output translates to approximately 3,750 direct
job losses. A loss of $354 billion of industrial shipments
could represent the loss of 1.3 million jobs. Multiplier
effects for indirect job losses are typically a factor of 2
to 3 times direct job losses, implying total potential job
losses of 2.7 to 3.9 million American workers.
Given the rising uncertainties about our future economic
growth, sacrificing an additional hundred billion dollars or
more of annual industrial output relative to other policy
measures is difficult to justify without a compelling
demonstration of offsetting environmental benefits. We do not
believe such a demonstration is possible for differences of a
few parts per million of global CO2 concentrations
50 to 100 years from today.
Looking Ahead
The global climate debate has progressed rapidly in the
past few years due to the commitment and sincere efforts of
leaders on both sides of the aisle in seeking balanced
solutions that can protect the American economy and jobs
while achieving significant reductions of greenhouse gases.
This is the basic objective that has guided our involvement
in this issue from the outset.
Legitimate debate remains about measures such as cost
containment, preemption of duplicative state and regional
cap-and-trade programs, emission offsets, international
trading, technology incentives and other provisions of S.
2191. We remain persuaded, however, that the key to striking
an appropriate balance must involve adjustment of unrealistic
targets and timetables that do not provide sufficient time
for the widescale commercial deployment of CCS technology.
Neither advance allowance auction reserves, as proposed by
the Manager's Amendment, nor additional CCS incentives will
allow CCS to play a major role in compliance plans by 2020.
It requires a decade or more to site, permit and construct a
single baseload facility.
We look forward to working with you and your colleagues in
the Senate as you seek to further improve S. 2191.
Sincerely,
Cecil E. Roberts.
____
Washington, DC, June 2, 2008.
Dear Senator: This week the Senate is scheduled to consider
legislation to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, the
Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 (S. 2191). At
that time, we understand that Chairwoman Boxer and Senators
Lieberman and Warner intend to offer a manager's amendment
making a number of important changes in the bill that was
reported by the Committee on the Environment and Public
Works. Unfortunately, even with these changes the legislation
still contains serious defects that would undermine the
environmental benefits, while posing a threat to economic
growth and jobs. Accordingly, the UAW opposes this bill in
its current form. We urge you to insist that the legislation
must be modified to correct these defects.
The UAW agrees that climate change is a serious problem
that urgently needs to be addressed through the establishment
of an economy-wide cap-and-trade program. We commend
Chairwoman Boxer and Senators Lieberman and Warner for
crafting legislation that would establish this type of
program and achieve very significant reductions in greenhouse
gases. The UAW is pleased that this bill covers the electric
power, industrial and transportation sectors, which account
for the overwhelming percentage of greenhouse gas emissions.
We are also pleased that the transportation sector is covered
on an ``up-stream'' basis through the regulation of fuels,
which is the most economically efficient mechanism. The UAW
applauds the inclusion of transition assistance for workers.
And we welcome the provisions allocating allowances to states
whose economies rely heavily on manufacturing.
The UAW would especially like to commend the chief sponsors
of this legislation for including provisions (Sections 1111-
1115) establishing a Climate Change Transportation Technology
Fund that would use revenues from the auction of 1 percent of
the allowances each year to finance a manufacturer facility
conversion program. This critically important initiative
would provide grants to manufacturers to pay for up to 30
percent of the costs to retool facilities in the United
States to produce advanced technology vehicles (hybrids,
clean diesels, fuel cells) and their key components. This
will help to speed up the introduction of these advanced
technology vehicles, thereby reducing oil consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, it will provide a
significant incentive for auto and parts manufacturers to
retool facilities in this country to produce these vehicles
of the future and their key components. This can create tens
of thousands of jobs for American workers.
While recognizing these very positive provisions in S.
2191, the UAW still is very troubled by a number of
provisions and omissions.
1. Even though S. 2191 establishes an economy-wide cap-and-
trade program to reduce greenhouse gases, Section 1751 makes
it clear that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would
retain residual authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate
CO2 emissions. This effectively means that EPA
would be free to disregard key decisions that Congress will
make in considering S. 2191 concerning the timetable for
reductions in CO2 emissions, the appropriate point
of regulation, and the distribution of economic burdens.
Instead, EPA would be free to regulate CO2
emissions from the electric power, industrial and
transportation sectors in ways that differ fundamentally from
S. 2191. The UAW believes it is inappropriate and untenable
to allow a federal agency to supersede decisions by Congress
in this manner.
2. Section 1731 of S. 2191 does not simply preserve
existing state authority to regulate greenhouse gas
emissions. Instead, as the Committee report makes clear, this
provision is drafted in a manner that would trump pending
litigation concerning the scope of existing state authority--
specifically whether state auto CO2 tailpipe
standards are preempted by federal law. The UAW believes the
courts should be allowed to resolve this contentious issue.
Thus, Section 1731 should be redrafted to indicate that it is
just preserving existing state authority, not deciding what
the scope of that authority is.
3. S. 2191 fails to deal with the important issue of how
state climate change measures will interface with the federal
cap-and-trade program. Instead, it simply calls for a study
on this issue (Section 1761). Because of this critical
omission, the unfortunate reality is that state climate
change measures would result in ZERO additional reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions beyond the level already mandated by
the federal cap-and-trade program established by S. 2191.
Although state measures could reduce emissions from a
particular sector, this would simply relax the pressure from
the federal cap on other sectors, without providing any net
environmental benefit. The UAW submits that this is a
nonsensical result. If the states are going to be allowed to
implement climate change measures that impose significant
economic burdens on particular industries, a mechanism should
be established to ensure that these state measures can
[[Page 11766]]
interface with the federal cap-and-trade program in an
appropriate manner, and thereby provide additional reductions
in greenhouse emissions.
The UAW believes this can easily be accomplished by
allowing entities regulated by state climate change measures
to purchase and retire allowances from the federal program to
satisfy the state standards (to the extent they are more
stringent than comparable federal standards). This would
guarantee that the state measures actually provide an
environmental benefit through additional reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions, while also allowing this to be
accomplished in the most economically efficient manner in
keeping with the fundamental premise of the federal cap-and-
trade program.
4. In our judgment, S. 2191 still does not deal adequately
with the problem of international competition. We recognize
that the manager's amendment includes a number of changes
that strengthen the provisions of the bill that are intended
to encourage other nations--especially India and China--to
adopt comparable climate change programs, and to prevent
American businesses and workers from being placed at an
unfair competitive disadvantage. However, the UAW is still
concerned that the definition of ``manufactured item for
consumption'' (Section 1301(13)) grants too much discretion
to the International Climate Change Commission and the EPA in
determining whether finished products (such as automobiles or
auto parts) are subject to the international reserve
allowance requirements. If these products are not covered,
this could pose a major threat to the jobs of American
workers. Thus, we believe this section of the legislation
needs to be redrafted to make it clear that these products
are in fact covered.
The UAW strongly urges the Senate to correct the foregoing
deficiencies in S. 2191. We believe all of these concerns can
be addressed in a manner that is consistent with the
essential thrust of S. 2191. If these problems are not
corrected, we urge you to oppose this legislation.
The UAW also urges you to reject amendments that may be
offered by various industries such as steel and airlines--to
exempt the coal or oil that they use from the requirements of
the cap-and-trade program. We firmly believe that a cap-and-
trade program covering most of the economy is the only fair
and effective way to meet the challenge posed by climate
change. To the extent any industries obtain special ``carve
outs'' for themselves, this will only serve to increase the
pressure on the rest of the industries and sectors that are
still covered under the cap-and-trade program. In the end,
this could unravel the prospects for enacting any meaningful
federal program to combat climate change.
The UAW recognizes that Senate consideration of S. 2191
represents the beginning of a long process to determine
federal policy to address the serious threat posed by climate
change. The UAW looks forward to working with Congress and a
new administration to pass legislation establishing a federal
cap-and-trade program that resolves the concerns discussed
above, achieves major reductions in greenhouse gases, and
enhances prospects for economic growth and the creation of
jobs for American workers.
Thank you for considering our views on this critically
important issue.
Sincerely,
Alan Reuther,
Legislative Director.
____
U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
Washington, DC, June 5, 2008.
To the Members of the United States Senate: The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation
representing more than three million businesses and
organizations of every size, sector, and region, strongly
urges you to oppose cloture on the Boxer manager's amendment
to S. 3036, the ``Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of
2008.'' This week's truncated debate left many serious
questions unanswered as to how to control domestic and
international greenhouse gas emissions while keeping costs in
check and assuring a reliable energy supply. As the debate
vividly demonstrated, S. 3036 is not the proper vehicle to
answer those questions.
First, and foremost, S. 3036 will be very expensive. Its
predecessor, S. 2191, was forecast by a range of analyses to
result in two to four million lost jobs, as high as 60 to 80
percent increases in household energy prices, as much as a
3.4 percent decrease in GDP, and an annual household cost of
compliance, ranging from $1,000 to $6,700. Although S. 3036
was brought to the floor too rapidly for similar studies to
be completed, it is clear that the cost of purchasing
allocations under the bill would result in a $3.2 trillion
tax. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office recently
estimated that S. 3036 would result in tens of billions of
dollars annually in private sector mandates.
S. 3036 also creates a massive federal bureaucracy, via
more than 300 mandates, that must be translated into rules,
regulations and reports by the Executive Branch. The result:
a cavalcade of new bureaucrats, decades of costly
implementation and prolonged litigation. The Chamber's chart
summarizing this regulatory nightmare is available at: http:/
/www.uschamber.com/issues/index/environment/
080603climatechange.
Finally, although S. 3036 earmarks a tremendous amount of
money to provide support for the families impacted by the
legislation, it fails to support the research and development
of the technologies necessary to continue powering our
economy as fossil fuels are restricted by the cap. S. 3036
also fails to address the problem of deployment, specifically
the streamlining of permits for low- and zero-carbon energy
technologies.
The Chamber strongly urges you to protect American jobs and
the economy by voting no on cloture on the manager's
amendment to S. 3036, and will include this vote in our
annual How They Voted scorecard.
Sincerely,
R. Bruce Josten.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I invoke cloture in order to move forward
with the debate and break the Republican filibuster so that we can
amend and improve the bill in order to begin to address the problem of
global climate change. I oppose it in its current form and would have
voted no if the vote were on whether to pass the bill. For this reason,
I joined with other Senate colleagues in a letter identifying many of
my concerns and outlining a way to move forward. A copy of this letter
is printed at the end of this statement.
Chairman Boxer and Senators Lieberman and Warner have taken on a
matter of global significance, which will impact both present and
future generations.
We are in agreement on the fundamentals: Global warming is occurring,
and human activity is causing it. Scientists tell us that we need to
act with urgency to attain the levels of global greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere that will prevent catastrophic impacts
from occurring.
The impacts of global climate change are being realized already. We
have already been experiencing more heat waves, shorter winters, and
more frequent severe weather events.
In the future, the EPA estimates that an acceleration in heavy
rainfall events will cause more runoff, stressing the sewer
infrastructure and harming water quality. Other projected future
impacts are even more alarming: Portions of countries and entire
islands could be lost to rising sea levels, crop yields could
significantly decline, water shortages are expected, and droughts,
hurricanes, and floods will likely increase.
Most experts agree that these phenomena will have a huge impact on
people living in less developed countries and could result in the mass
dislocation of millions throughout the world. Along with dire
environmental and economic consequences, climate change could also
impact our national security. Heightened domestic and international
tensions caused by competition for scarce resources such as fresh water
or agricultural land may result in armed conflict in and between
nations.
While we agree on the fundamentals of the problem, I have some
differences with the approach of this bill regarding how to confront
the immense and complex problem of global climate change. I have
consistently argued that the best way of addressing global warming is
through an effective and enforceable international agreement that binds
all nations to reductions in greenhouse gases, including developing
nations such as China and India. Proponents of this bill have argued
that U.S. action through this cap-and-trade bill will prompt action by
other countries to reduce their emissions. The international provision
in this bill that attempts to level the playing field may put some
pressure on other countries to act, but it will not automatically get
these countries on board with us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at
levels comparable to ours. Unfortunately, if we do not get these other
countries on board, what we do in the United States as a result of this
bill will only have a marginal impact on controlling global greenhouse
gas emissions and could create a severe economic disadvantage to us.
This bill does not adequately assure American manufacturing a level
playing field. A recent Energy Information Administration analysis,
EIA, projected manufacturing job losses in the hundreds of thousands
each year if the Lieberman-Warner bill were signed into law. Cumulative
job impacts in
[[Page 11767]]
the manufacturing sector through 2030 are estimated at between 2 to 14
million manufacturing jobs. We have already lost 3.3 million
manufacturing jobs since 2001, about 250,000 in Michigan alone. We
cannot afford to lose any more because of an unlevel playing field.
Significantly, EIA's projected manufacturing job losses can be
attributed to manufacturers moving to countries with less stringent
environmental standards. Without the proper protections, our actions
may ship manufacturing facilities and the greenhouse gas emissions that
go with them overseas, providing no environmental benefit while
needlessly hurting our economy.
The substitute amendment offered by Senator Boxer makes few
improvements to the Lieberman-Warner bill that was reported from the
Environment and Public Works Committee. The cost containment auction
will help to moderate emission allowance prices and help contain
compliance costs, which will ultimately help control prices that hard-
working consumers face. More assistance is provided to energy-intensive
manufacturers to transition to a carbon-constrained world, and more
allowances are provided to reward early action. The substitute
amendment provides additional flexibility for covered sources to use
EPA-verified offsets, which will also help control the costs of this
bill. The substitute also includes some carbon market oversight
mechanisms that will help monitor the new emission allowance trading
market created by this bill. However, one of the changes in the
substitute could have damaging impacts to our domestic auto industry
because it could lead to potentially conflicting State regulations for
greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources and potentially highly
unfair discriminatory impacts on U.S. manufacturers as a result of
those state regulations.
I have filed a number of amendments and have cosponsored others that
will strengthen the bill to protect American jobs, reduce the burdens
on working families and consumers, and also protect the environment.
One of my amendments would provide Americans with protection from
economic disruptions in case the costs of the bill exceed a certain
level. Specifically, my amendment would suspend the compliance
requirements of the cap-and-trade program if the emission allowance
price reaches a prohibitively expensive amount. This amendment would
provide an effective backstop if the various cost containment
mechanisms included in the bill turn out to be less effective than
expected and would prevent harm to the US economy.
Another amendment I filed would protect the competitiveness of U.S.
manufacturers in international markets. While I am pleased that the
bill sponsors included an important provision that would help level the
international playing field between U.S. manufacturers and
international competitors not facing similar greenhouse gas limits, if
this provision does not survive a WTO challenge, the bill provides no
recourse to correct the situation. My amendment would suspend this
program and compliance obligations of manufacturers that face global
competition if a foreign country retaliates against the international
allowance requirement that would be imposed by this bill. Also,
additional allowances would be provided to these manufacturers to
compensate for their higher production costs that would result from
this bill. This amendment would help keep manufacturers and jobs in the
United States if the international reserve allowance program in title
XIII results in retaliation by other countries.
I also joined Senators Specter and Brown in filing an amendment that
would strengthen the international reserve allowance program to ensure
that importers bear the same responsibility as American manufacturers
with respect to limiting greenhouse gas emissions. The bill attempts to
do this by requiring certain importers to submit emissions allowances
to account for the greenhouse gas emissions of their products if the
product comes from a foreign country that has not taken comparable
action to limit greenhouse gas emissions. However, the bill defines
``comparable action'' in such broad terms that it would likely exclude
many countries that in fact have not taken similar actions. The bill
gives discretion to the International Climate Change Commission that
would be established by the bill to determine that a foreign country
has taken comparable action if they are using state-of-the-art
technologies to limit greenhouse gas emissions, without considering the
magnitude of the reductions achieved by these technologies.
The Specter-Brown amendment would determine that a foreign country is
taking comparable action only if actual greenhouse gas reductions are
comparable to those achieved in the United States. The amendment would
also broaden the types of imports that would be required to submit
emission allowances by including both direct and indirect emissions
generated in the course of manufacturing the product. The substitute
amendment only includes direct emissions and emissions associated with
the electricity used to manufacture the product, which fails to account
for emissions associated with other inputs used to make downstream
products. The Brown-Specter amendment corrects the competitive problem
that would be faced by U.S. manufacturers.
I also filed an amendment that would provide more allowances to
fossil fuel-fired electric utilities whose prices are regulated. A
coal-fired powerplant is limited in its ability to reduce its
greenhouse gas emissions because this depends entirely on the
efficiency of the generating plant. A Congressional Research Service
analysis found that efficiency improvements on the order of 4-to-6
percent could be achieved by improving an existing unit, which would in
turn have a 4-to-6 percent reduction in carbon emissions. The only way
to further reduce emissions from a powerplant would be to install
carbon capture and sequestration technology, which is not expected to
be commercially available until sometime after 2030. Because the
electric utilities can do very little to address greenhouse gas
emissions at existing plants, it is only fair to provide emission
allowances to these facilities that power homes, retail establishments,
and industry with vital electric power. Limiting additional allowances
to utilities whose prices are regulated will prevent companies from
realizing windfall profits, which occurred in the European Union.
I continue to be concerned about provisions of this bill that could
result in both conflicting cap-and-trade systems and conflicting
underlying regulations for greenhouse gas emissions. I believe that
Congress should adopt a mandatory Federal economywide cap-and-trade
program that will be the single regulatory regime for overall control
of greenhouse gas emissions. Existing State laws and initiatives should
be integrated into the Federal cap-and-trade program where the policies
do not conflict, but in areas where the regulations or programs
conflict or overlap, there must be a single clear national authority.
Federal authority in this area should be made clear in the statutory
language to prevent conflicts in regulation, preserve overall
efficiency, and ensure harmonization of regulations.
I am also concerned about other provisions of the Boxer substitute.
These provisions, taken together, seek to preserve state authority and
to reward States that have been leaders in the effort to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy efficiency. I applaud
efforts to encourage energy efficiency, and I have no concerns about
that aspect of these provisions. I am very concerned, however, that
rewarding States for leadership in greenhouse gas emission reduction
efforts in the way laid out in this bill may have the effect of setting
up an unworkable system that will result in confusion, at best, and
regulatory chaos, at worst.
Section 614 would provide additional allowances to States that are
``leaders'' in the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
increase energy efficiency. A leader is not defined by the act,
however, and the EPA Administrator is given the task to establish a
[[Page 11768]]
system, by regulation, for ``scoring historical State investments and
achievements in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing energy
efficiency.'' To qualify as a leader under the terms of the bill, it
appears that a State must have set more stringent standards than the
Federal Government. To receive the reward of additional allowances,
however, a State must either have never established a cap-and-trade
system or have terminated its cap-and-trade program. In other words, on
the one hand, the bill is encouraging States to set their own standards
in order to qualify for additional allowances, but then, on the other
hand, the States are told to terminate their programs in order to
receive the additional allowances. That sounds to me like regulatory
chaos. Worse still, the bill does not actually require States to
terminate separate cap-and-trade programs it simply provides a
financial incentive to do so. Therefore, if the financial incentive is
not sufficient for the State to decide to terminate its program, there
is too great a likelihood there will be conflicting and confusing
Federal and State cap-and-trade systems.
It simply does not make sense to have competing Federal and State
cap-and-trade programs. It simply will not work. If a State were to
implement a more stringent cap-and-trade program that allowed regulated
entities to purchase Federal emissions allowances to satisfy State
compliance requirements, this would in turn increase demand for the
Federal allowances, which would increase the price of Federal
allowances. Thus, such an action by a State would affect entities in
other States because the Federal allowance trading market is
nationwide.
Another provision of this bill that gives me cause for concern is
section 1731, entitled ``Retention of State Authority'', which purports
to be a savings clause that simply preserves authority under existing
provisions of law. I am concerned, however, about language in Senate
Report 110-337, the report accompanying S. 2191, which states in part,
``The purpose of this section is to make it absolutely clear that this
bill does not affect the validity of these State and local greenhouse
gas emissions laws and regulations (and any related laws or
regulations), so long as these laws require state and local reductions
of greenhouse gas emissions at least as stringent as those required by
federal law. There will be no express, implied, field, or conflict
preemption of these regional, state, or local efforts.'' The report
language concludes by saying, ``In interpreting the scope of this
savings clause, the courts should follow the applicable precedent that
calls for a narrow reading of federal preemption of state and local
authority and a broad reading of this savings clause.'' Because of that
concern, I have filed an amendment that would make clear that nothing
in this act confers authority on either the Federal Government or State
government to establish new standards in this area.
Lastly, I want to speak to why I am so concerned about the potential
for conflicting State and Federal regulations in this area,
particularly as it relates to greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.
The State of California has already issued regulations to limit
greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles by establishing fuel economy
standards that would apply to vehicles sold in that State. A number of
other States have either adopted similar regulations or indicated that
they intend to do so. The net effect of these regulations adopted in
many States across the country--if allowed to go into force--would be a
patchwork of potentially conflicting regulations because the average
fuel economy standard required in each State would be driven by the
sales mix of vehicles in that particular State.
Moreover, the regulations adopted by the State of California--the
model regulations that other States would adopt--include a provision
that is highly discriminatory against our domestic manufacturers. The
California regulations have an exemption for manufacturers who sell
less than 60,000 vehicles in the State. The effect of this exemption is
that the California law would only regulate vehicles made by Ford, GM,
Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. Other manufactures, such as
Volkswagen, which is the fourth largest automaker in the world, would
be exempt from the California law. In addition, automakers from Korea,
India, and China and their vehicles would be exempt from the California
constraints. Surely, we do not want to perpetuate such a discriminatory
State law around the country. However, if the provisions of this bill
confer new authority on State governments to set separate standards, we
may do just that.
In response to questions I posed to Senator Boxer, the manager of the
bill for the majority, concerning the scope of State and Federal
authority in this bill, I have obtained from Senator Boxer answers to
my questions to her, which clarify her intent as the author of the
language in question. I will ask that the text of the questions and her
answers be printed at the end of my statement.
I have highlighted a number of ways this legislation could be
repaired. I filed amendments and cosponsored other filed amendments,
which would do that. I agree with many provisions in this bill. The
bill attempts to provide the necessary funding and technical resources
so that we can successfully transition to a low carbon economy and
recognizes at least in part the burdens of this transition. I am
pleased that the substitute amendment provides more funding for
manufacturing States to implement a variety of programs and measures
that would help mitigate any negative impacts from global warming or
the regulatory requirements of this bill. I am also pleased that the
bill funds advancements in technology that could provide jobs and also
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The bill establishes a national wildlife adaptation fund with
mandatory funding that could be used for a very broad range of
activities including Great Lakes restoration projects. In developing a
plan for wildlife adaptation, the bill specifically requires the
President to consider the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy
which was developed with extensive public involvement. I have long
supported the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy, but the lack
of funding has presented a serious impediment to implementing it. The
President's plan must include measures to protect, maintain, and
restore coastal ecosystems to ensure that the ecosystems are more
resilient to withstand the additional stresses associated with climate
change, including water level and temperature changes in Great Lakes.
The National Wildlife Adaptation Fund would be distributed to federal
agencies for a series of wildlife programs, and the Great Lakes are
eligible to receive funds through many of these programs. Each agency
has the discretion to allocate funds to its various programs so it is
unknown how much money the Great Lakes would receive.
To be sure, far-ranging action is needed to confront the daunting
challenges of global climate change. While we are just now beginning to
see the preliminary impacts of global warming, most scientists agree
that the problems of climate change will only worsen in the future. I
am hopeful that this debate has laid a foundation for us to move
forward and for the United States to lead in what may be the defining
issue of our planet's future environment. The potential costs of global
climate change are tremendous, and these costs will only mount if we
wait too long to address this critical problem. Clearly, we need to act
to avert a global catastrophe. However, this action must be taken in a
way that does not needlessly sacrifice additional American
manufacturing jobs and further burden the working men and women of our
country with higher gas, food, and energy prices. We need to invest in
advanced technology that will help create jobs and spur our economy as
well. With significant investment in research and development, public-
private partnerships and incentives for manufacturers to invest in new
technologies, we can make great technological leaps to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions not only here but around the world.
[[Page 11769]]
I ask unanimous consent that the materials to which I referred be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
June 6, 2008.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, United States Senate, S-221, the Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Leader and Chairman Boxer: As Democrats from
regions of the country that will be most immediately affected
by climate legislation, we want to share our concerns with
the bill that is currently before the Senate. We commend your
leadership in attempting to address one of the most
significant threats to this and future generations; however,
we cannot support final passage of the Boxer Substitute in
its current form.
We believe a federal cap and trade program must not only
significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also ensure
that consumers and workers in all regions of the U.S. are
protected from undue hardship. A federal cap and trade
program is perhaps the most significant endeavor undertaken
by Congress in over 70 years and must be done with great
care. To that point we have laid out the following principles
and concerns that must be considered and fully addressed in
any final legislation.
Contain Costs and Prevent Harm to the U.S. Economy: We hope
that you recognize, as we do, the inherent uncertainty in
predicting the costs of achieving the emission caps set forth
in this or any climate legislation. While placing a cost on
carbon is important, we believe that there must be a balance
and a short-term cushion when new technologies may not be
available as hoped for or are more expensive than assumed.
There are many options to deal with the issue and all should
be up for discussion in order to meet our environmental and
economic goals. Ultimately, we must strive to form a
partnership with regulated industries to help them reduce
emissions as they transition from an old energy economy to a
new energy economy which will protect both our environment
and our economy.''
Invest Aggressively in New Technologies and Deployment of
Existing Technologies: There is no doubt that we need a
technological revolution to enter into a low carbon economy.
It is critical that we design effective mechanisms to augment
and accelerate government-sponsored technology R&D programs
and incentives that will motivate rapid deployment of those
technologies without picking winners and losers. We also want
to include proposals to provide funding for carbon capture
and storage and other critical low carbon technologies in
advance of resources being available through the auction of
emission allowances. We also need to aggressively deploy
existing energy efficiency technologies now to retrofit
millions of homes, buildings and manufacturing facilities to
reduce electricity costs for everyone.
Treat States Equitably: Just as some groups of consumers
will be more severely affected by the cost of compliance, so
too will our states. The allocation structure of a cap-and-
trade bill must be designed to balance these burdens across
states and regions and be sufficiently transparent to be
understood.
Protect America's Working Families: Any legislation must
recognize that working families are going to be affected most
significantly by any cap and trade legislation. Price relief
for these families must be included in any federal cap and
trade program. For instance, one way to provide some relief
would be to provide additional allowances to utilities whose
electricity prices are regulated, which would help to keep
electricity prices low.
Protect U.S. Manufacturing Jobs and Strengthen
International Competitiveness: The Lieberman-Warner bill
contains a mechanism to protect U.S. manufacturers from
international competitors that do not face the same carbon
constraints. If this mechanism does not work, or is found to
be noncompliant with the World Trade Organization, then the
program needs to be modified or suspended. The final bill
must include adequate safeguards to ensure a truly equitable
and effective global effort that minimizes harm to the U.S.
economy and protects American jobs. Furthermore, we must
adequately help manufacturers transition to a low carbon
economy to maintain domestic jobs and production.
Fully Recognize Agriculture and Forestry's Role:
Agriculture and forestry are not regulated under the bill but
they can contribute to reducing emissions by over 20%
domestically. Furthermore, international deforestation
contributes to 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Strong, aggressive and verifiable offset policies can fully
utilize the capabilities of our farmers and forests. A strong
offset policy can also reduce the costs of a cap and trade
program while maintaining our strong environmental goals.
Clarify Federal/State Authority: Congress should adopt a
mandatory federal cap-and-trade program that will be the
single regulatory regime for controlling greenhouse gas
emissions. Existing state laws and initiatives should be
integrated into the federal cap-and-trade program where the
policies do not conflict. Federal uniformity in this area
should be made clear in the statutory language to prevent
conflict in regulation, preserve overall efficiency, and
ensure harmonization of regulations. Where a conflict exists,
federal law needs to clearly prevail.
Provide Accountability for Consumer Dollars: The cap and
trade program developed in the Lieberman-Warner bill has the
potential to raise over $7 trillion. Much of these funds will
be indirectly paid for by consumers through increased energy
prices. The federal government has a fundamental obligation
to ensure these funds are being spent in a responsible and
wise manner. The development of any cap and trade program
must recognize the sensitivity of this obligation and
eliminate all possibility of waste, fraud or abuse.
We look forward to working with you to ensure that any
final bill will address the problems of climate change
without imposing undue hardship on our states, key industrial
sectors and consumers.
Sincerely,
Debbie Stabenow, John D. Rockefeller, Carl Levin, Blanche
Lincoln, Mark Pryor, Jim Webb, Evan Bayh, Claire
McCaskill, Sherrod Brown, Ben Nelson.
____
Questions of Senator Levin to Senator Boxer
Would you be able to provide answers to these questions
prior to the cloture vote on the Boxer Substitute to S. 3036?
Relative to the pending substitute,
1. Does the substitute (or underlying bill) directly or
indirectly establish or provide federal or state authority to
set standards relative to greenhouse gas emissions from
mobile sources?
2. Does the substitute (or underlying bill) provide
authority for states or regions to establish their own cap
and trade programs for greenhouse gas emissions?
Concerning the language in Senate Report 110-337 relative
to Section 9003, Retention of State Authority, in S. 2191, as
reported, which states in part, as follows: ``The purpose of
this section is to make it absolutely clear that this bill
does not affect the validity of these state and local
greenhouse gas emissions laws and regulations (and any
related laws or regulations), so long as these laws require
state and local reductions of greenhouse gas emissions at
least as stringent as those required by federal law. There
will be no express, implied, field, or conflict preemption of
these regional, state, or local efforts.''
3. Does this mean ``There will be no express, implied,
field, or conflict preemption of these regional, state, or
local efforts'' by this Act, referring to S. 2191, as
reported?
The report language concludes, ``In interpreting the scope
of this savings clause, the courts should follow the
applicable precedent that calls for a narrow reading of
federal preemption of state and local authority and a broad
reading of this savings clause.''
4. Does this mean ``federal preemption of state and local
authority'' by this Act, referring to S. 2191, as reported?
Finally, with respect to existing law,
5. Does this bill in any way amend, change, or modify the
other statutes relating to the authority of the Federal and
State governments to adopt vehicle emissions standards?
____
Response to Senator Carl Levin's June 5, 2008 Questions From Senator
Barbara Boxer
You have asked several questions about the Boxer-Lieberman-
Warner substitute to S. 3036, the Climate Security Act. My
response follows. Relative to the pending substitute:
1. Question: Does the substitute (or underlying bill)
directly or indirectly establish or provide federal or state
authority to set standards relative to greenhouse gas
emissions from mobile sources? Answer: No.
2. Question: Does the substitute (or underlying bill)
provide authority for states or regions to establish their
own cap and trade programs for greenhouse gas emissions?
Answer: No.
3. Question: [Concerning language in Senate Report 110-337
relative to Section 9003, Retention of State Authority, in S.
2191 as reported] Does this mean ``There will be no express,
implied, field, or conflict preemption of these state or
local efforts'' by this Act, referring to S. 2191, as
reported? Answer: Yes.
4. Question: [Concerning report language regarding
interpretation of the scope of the savings clause]: Does this
mean ``federal preemption of state and local authority'' by
this Act, referring to S. 2191 as reported? Answer: Yes.
5. Question: Does this bill in any way amend, change, or
modify the other statutes relating to the authority of the
Federal and State governments to adopt vehicle emissions
standards? Answer: No.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the cloture vote on
the climate change legislation pending before the Senate.
Global warming is a problem that we must address and the sooner the
better.
[[Page 11770]]
We must meet it with a strong and mandatory regulatory system. Of all
the possible options, a cap-and-trade system makes the most sense.
Turning that concept into legislative language is not easy, and turning
it into legislative language that can become law is far harder still.
The substitute amendment before us is the product of a lot of hard
work and passion to do the right thing. I applaud that and thank the
sponsors for their sincere efforts. There are many ideas in this
amendment that I support, but, as the sponsors know, I also have many
concerns about the substance of their proposal. I am sorry that we will
not have a chance to debate the many complex and far-reaching issues
they present.
I have been in the Senate for 25 years. I have learned, and firmly
believe, that the only way to write legislation that stands a good
chance of becoming law is to ensure that all sides have a legitimate
opportunity to comment on and contribute to legislation as it is being
written. I know very well from my own experience that in bills as
complicated as this one, many Senators will have concerns that they
would like to see resolved. It is the prerogative of the authors to
include these issues or not. But it is important to assure all Senators
that their concerns have been carefully and openly considered and that
even if the sponsors don't share those concerns, the right of Senators
to have them considered by the full Senate will be protected. Without
these assurances, it is much harder to ask Senators to support the
final product and work for its passage. I hope that when we return to
this issue, we can use such a process to produce a bill that will be
signed into law.
I am especially disappointed by the tactics we have seen in recent
days from the other side of the aisle to slow this bill's progress and
frustrate the amendment process. While Senators certainly have the
right to use all 30 hours of postcloture debate time following cloture
on the motion to proceed and to make the Senate clerks spend 9 hours
reading the text of a long substitute amendment, it is hard to square
those actions with any sense of real concern about this critical issue
we should be working on.
We will be turning to the Defense bill later this month. I have a
hard time imagining that the same tactics will be applied. That would
be totally inconsistent with our responsibilities for national
security. Similarly, the tactics of the past few days have been totally
inconsistent with our responsibility to deal seriously with this
important issue.
I have struggled with this cloture vote. A vote for cloture can be
seen as a message vote that rejects the tactical maneuvering we have
seen to prevent consideration of this bill. At the same time, if
cloture is invoked it will mean that only a tightly prescribed set of
amendments would be in order. I do not believe that the problems in the
legislation before us can be adequately corrected under postcloture
procedural constraints. Ultimately, though, we must send a message
about how important this issue is and how it should not be hamstrung by
obstructionist parliamentary tactics. That is why I voted for the
cloture motion laid down by the majority leader.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, the Climate Change Act of 2008 wisely
recognizes that chemicals such as hydrofluorocarbons, HFCs, and
hydrochlorofluorocarbons, HCFCs, are valuable commercial products that
are used in refrigeration equipment, home and automobile air
conditioners, aerosols, insulating foams, and other products and should
be treated differently than other greenhouse gases. These important
gases are essential to the energy efficient operation of many of the
appliances and refrigeration equipment American consumers and
businesses rely upon. Having a separate market for HFCs is designed to
reduce emissions of these gases over time, while safeguarding the
business model of the producers and users of these gases in energy
efficient equipment and products.
The Montreal Protocol treaty has been widely praised as a model of
international cooperation to phase out the production of many ozone
depleting substances including Freon and other CFC-based gases.
Accordingly, the industry substituted HFCs for these substances, but
now these gases are thought to contribute to anthropogenic global
warming. The Montreal Protocol currently calls for a complete phaseout
of HCFCs by 2030, but does not place any restriction on HFCs.
The regulation of hydrofluorcarbon refrigerants represents a major
component of the Climate Security Act of 2008, and will have a
significant impact on jobs, taxpayers, businesses that manufacture and
import these chemicals, and the millions of users of these chemicals in
refrigeration and air conditioning equipment as well as other
applications. The businesses in this industry sector have a commendable
track record of protecting the environment, and are successfully making
the transition from ozone-depleting refrigerants to HFCs. Now, as there
is a call to phase down the production and consumption of HFCs to
address global warming, we must recognize the need for a regulatory
regime that reflects the industry's complex marketplace dynamics, cost
to the economy, and ensures fair and equitable treatment for producers,
importers, and end users.
It takes about 10 years for industry to develop a new class of
refrigeration gases with the required thermodynamic properties, low
flammability and toxicity, and reduced global warming potential than
what is currently in use. At this time, there is no known commercially
available replacement for HFCs. The gas providers and equipment
manufacturers will have to invest a significant amount of time and
money to develop these new, safe refrigeration gases and the compatible
equipment that can use them.
I believe that we can come to a reasonable and balanced approach on
this issue. The fact is that we need a realistic baseline. The baseline
for 2012 should be set at an amount necessary to avoid a supply
shortage, the cost of which will be borne by small businesses and
consumers. One study suggests that 365 million metric tons is an
appropriate baseline. Such a baseline will provide for a smoother
transition in subsequent years, which also will result in less cost to
small businesses and taxpayers without any adverse effect on the
environment.
I encourage Congress, the EPA, the gas producers, and the end-use
equipment manufacturers to work closely together to establish a more
reasonable emission cap and timeline for the transition from HFCs to a
cost-effective, low greenhouse gas potential, alternative substitute.
Through cooperation, I am sure we can establish a program that will
guarantee the future development of economically sound and
environmentally friendly alternatives for these important chemicals.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is disappointing that a minority of
Senators has chosen to delay and stall rather than allowing us to
consider the serious matter before the Senate--climate change. In order
to have the opportunity to debate and vote on amendments, I support
cloture on the Climate Security Act of 2008, S. 3036. The Climate
Security Act is far from perfect, but it represents a serious effort to
reduce greenhouse gas pollution, lessen our dependence on foreign oil,
and spur new technologies and green job opportunities. By supporting
cloture, we can begin to do the hard work of improving this legislation
so that we can enact a workable, effective cap-and-trade program.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week the Senate has undertaken the
beginning of a historic debate on global warming. For the past week we
have attempted to pass this important legislation that will reduce the
carbon dioxide pollution that causes global warming, while using market
incentives to create American jobs. Unfortunately it appears the other
side of aisle has no interest in enacting this important global warming
legislation. I am disappointed a minority in the Senate are blocking
our efforts to move forward on this important bill.
The time for debate about the existence of global warming has ended.
We are staring down the barrel of global
[[Page 11771]]
crisis if we do not aggressively address this problem now, and not 5
years from now or when the oil companies decide the time is right.
The most recent assessment of global climate change published by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, in November found that
the Earth's climate indisputably has warmed over the past century. Most
of this increase is very likely due to the increase in greenhouse gas
concentrations created by humans--primarily from the use of fossil
fuels. As we look around us every day and see all of the exhaust gases
emanating from factories, buildings, and vehicles, it only stands to
reason that human activity now, and for much of the last century,
increasingly has become a factor in the quality of the air we breathe
and in the natural processes of our environment.
The U.S. Climate Change Science Program, CCSP, recently released the
first of several climate change reports, and their assessment was
stark. They report that even under the most optimistic carbon dioxide
emission scenarios, we can expect a host of profound impacts that range
from changes in sea level and regional and super-regional temperature
hikes, to increased incidence of disturbances such as forest fires,
insect outbreaks, severe storms, and drought.
If we do not take aggressive action now to curb emissions, our
environmental and economic future is bleak. Even as we speak, our world
is experiencing alarming and detrimental changes from manmade
greenhouse gases. The Arctic Sea ice melted in 2007 to the smallest
coverage since satellite measurements began in 1979--perhaps 50 percent
below sea ice levels of the 1950s. The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data
Center at the University of Colorado projects that the Arctic Ocean
could be ice-free in summer as early as 2030.
As if to highlight the urgency, while the EPA was recently delaying a
decision over whether to add polar bears to the threatened species list
due to a decrease in their habitat, more than 160 square miles of
arctic ice collapsed away from the Wilkins Ice Shelf. If we needed any
clearer signal that now is the time to address this problem, the
partial collapse of an arctic shelf formed more than 1500 years ago
should leave no doubt.
How do we responsibly and aggressively address this problem?
According to the Bush administration, we should talk about curbing
global climate change on the one hand, while quietly eroding the safety
net that had been designed to better protect our environment with the
other.
We need only to look at the recent unprecedented intervention by this
administration in the EPA's decision to override the institutional
advice of the EPA's own experts--not to mention the Clean Air Act--and
stop California, Vermont, and 15 other States from setting their own
tailpipe emission standards. Even the release of CCSP research on
climate change last week had to be mandated by court order--and during
the course of this research, scientists left the CCSP alleging the
administration was rewriting the science for political purposes.
Add to all of this the auctioning of environmentally sensitive public
lands for oil development, the weakening of air quality regulations for
corporate polluters, and the billions of dollars of handouts in the
form of subsidies to oil companies at the expense of renewable energy,
and it adds up to 8 years of an administration that cares more about
corporate profits than the public's health and our environment's
protection.
This legislation is not a perfect solution, but its goals are
positive and its solutions are constructive. The annual reductions in
emissions, funding for renewable energy technologies, and a cap-and-
trade system designed to reward companies that invest in cleaner energy
are innovative solutions to a problem that won't just go away on its
own.
Failure to address global warming is a failure to address weather
catastrophes that can destroy entire Nations, a failure to address the
loss of species that will never return, and a failure to pass along to
future generations--our children, our grandchildren, and beyond--the
kind of world we want for them.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the consensus among scientists, whose
expertise I respect, is that there's something happening to the climate
of this planet that we need to be concerned about. As a result, I
believe that the Congress needs to enact climate change legislation to
address global warming It is one of the significant challenges of our
time. Addressing the issue of climate change will require a national
commitment of all the resources that are available to us to change
course and protect our planet.
I voted no on the motion to invoke cloture today, but this should not
be seen as a statement of my opposition to enact mandatory, climate
change legislation in the future. The specific proposal that has been
brought to the floor of the U.S. Congress by Senators Boxer, Lieberman,
Warner, Kerry, and others is a legitimate and thoughtful piece of
legislation.
The Senate has voted on climate change legislation in 2003, 2005, and
now in 2008. In all three cases, many Members have expressed their
opposition to any mandatory legislation. Yet, during this 5-year
period, there has been a significant shift in public awareness, the
certainty of the science, and the demand for legislative action. I hope
that industry in this country will understand what we are required to
do and start preparing for it.
When there is a new President and a new Congress in 2009, I predict
that there will be another debate, and there will be passage of
landmark U.S. climate change legislation. Major pieces of landmark
legislation such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, Superfund,
and others took several Congresses to be refined and enacted. I believe
that time for climate change legislation will be in the 111th Congress.
In order for our country to dramatically shift our energy use to a
lower greenhouse gas emitting blend, a strong commitment from all
sectors of the economy is needed. We need a ``moon shot'' approach to
increasing energy efficiency and conservation, renewable energy
production and technologies that allow us to capture and sequester
carbon emissions from fossil fuel energy generation.
I am a big fan of renewable energy, including wind, solar and
geothermal energy as well as biofuels. In order for these energy
sources to become a larger portion of the energy used in this country,
however, we need to demonstrate a robust commitment to funding research
and development to increase the efficiency of renewable energy and
drive the costs down so they are competitive with fossil energy
sources. Until they are cost-competitive, we need to provide long-term
incentives that signal certainty to potential investors. Even as we
strongly support our renewable energy research, development and
deployment, we also need to understand that in order to meet our energy
needs we will need to continue to use fossil fuels--but use them in a
different way.
For example, we use coal to produce about 50 percent of the
electricity we now use in this country. Coal is going to continue to be
a significant part of our energy future, so that means we must make a
major research push to find ways to the capture the carbon and
sequester the carbon.
The climate change bill that is now on the floor includes what is
called ``kick start'' funding and ``bonus'' funding that its authors
say addresses the needs of the industry to get carbon capture and
storage. However, the bill does not provide any funding for the
substantial research and development that will be necessary to find
ways to capture the carbon and safely sequester it.
Similarly, advancing renewable energy will require substantial
funding, of which there is not enough in the underlying bill. There is
money in the underlying bill for demonstration and commercialization of
technologies, both in the renewable area and carbon capture and
storage. But there is not the kind of funding that will be necessary to
fund the research and development at the front end of the process
[[Page 11772]]
for both carbon capture and renewables.
I prepared and filed amendments to address those two deficiencies.
Together, my amendments would add $30 billion in the first 12 years to
carbon capture and storage and renewable energy. The amendments provide
a full commitment by our country to fund the necessary research and
provide the opportunity to succeed in both areas on the front end. We
will not succeed in our quest to address global warming unless we
invest in these areas of research. The product of research for the
environmentally safe use of coal and the expanded use of renewables is
what will allow us to meet the targets in the global warming bill.
Today, however, we find a tangled procedure in the United States
Senate by which we are asked to vote to shut off debate and vote
cloture on the Boxer substitute. This means that my amendment and
others designed to improve the bill will not be allowed to even be
offered. That is because the minority blocked the process when the bill
came to the floor, so no amendments have been allowed to be offered.
Therefore, none are pending, and post cloture, only pending amendments
can be voted upon.
In short, voting for cloture means I would be voting to deny myself
the opportunity to offer the important amendments I have just
described. I am not prepared to do that. I am prepared to seriously
address global warming. I will count myself as someone who is going to
vote to advance appropriate legislation to address global warming. But
I am not going to vote this morning to prevent myself from offering the
amendments that I think are necessary to make this legislation work.
Let me state again, I think my colleagues that have brought the
Warner-Lieberman-Boxer bill to the floor today have done some good
work, and I am appreciative of their effort. The bill in its current
state is not ready to become the law of the land. We need to have a
serious debate about this legislation, amendments need to be
considered, the bill needs to be modified in significant ways before it
should be passed by this Congress.
Let me repeat, a piece of legislation that will have some of the most
significant consequences for the environment, for the economy, and for
a way of life than anything we have done in many decades in this
Congress has been brought to the floor and will now be subject to a
cloture vote without any opportunity to offer an amendment. That is not
a process that I can support.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of
amendment No. 4950, which I have offered to the Climate Security Act,
S. 3036, along with Senators Snowe, Wyden, and Cantwell.
This amendment is intended to improve section 412, the market
oversight and enforcement provisions. I helped author section 412 of
the Climate Security Act with Senator Dodd and Senator Whitehouse, and
I believe this amendment will improve the underlying provision by even
more clearly prohibiting speculation, fraud, and false reporting by
traders in carbon markets.
Specifically, this amendment would add a ``prohibitions'' subsection
to section 412, to establish that it is illegal:
No. 1, to knowingly provide to the President, or his
designee, any false information relating to the price or
quantity of emission allowances sold, purchased, transferred,
banked, or borrowed by the individual or entity, with the
intent to fraudulently affect the data being compiled;
No. 2, to use in connection with the purchase or sale of an
emission allowance any manipulative or deceptive device or
contrivance--within the meaning of section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78j(b))--or;
No. 3, to otherwise cheat or defraud another market
participant.
Including these prohibitions, which were part of the Emission
Allowance Market Transparency Act that I introduced with Senator Snowe,
clearly establishes the legal framework under which market manipulation
in these markets will be pursued. But unlike our legislation, the
amendment does not instruct the Environmental Protection Agency to
enforce these prohibitions. Instead, the amendment instructs the
President to decide which agency must conduct enforcement within 270
days of enactment.
I believe this amendment is necessary because it will establish that
the full legal history of the Securities Exchange Act's
antimanipulation provision forms the foundation upon which the carbon
market's principles-based regulation must stand. It gives guidance to
future regulators on the intent and meaning of the core principle that
``the market shall be designed to prevent fraud and manipulation.'' And
it adds teeth to that principle by making manipulation and fraud in
this market a defined crime subject to severe penalty.
With this amendment, authority to prevent fraud and manipulation in
carbon markets will mirror the authority over natural gas and
electricity markets that Congress granted to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission in 2005, as well as the authority over crude oil
that Congress granted to the Federal Trade Commission in 2007. By
mirroring proven market oversight mechanisms that protect market
participants and consumers, this amendment allows us to slip already
broken-in regulatory concepts onto a new market.
I believe this amendment will strongly discourage traders from
seeking to manipulate the market. If we don't set up a framework for
oversight, the greenhouse gas market could turn into a Wild West. The
market--estimated to be worth as much as $100 billion annually--would
invite the worst kind of manipulation, fraud, and abuse. The resulting
volatility would affect consumer energy costs.
This is not a hypothetical. In 2000 and 2001, newly created
California energy markets lacked the basic protections in this bill.
The electricity and related natural gas markets emerged before the law
caught up, and much of the manipulation that resulted, shockingly, was
legal.
Enron, for instance, ran a market where only they knew the prices.
Without market transparency laws, this one-sided market was legal.
Enron manipulated natural gas and electricity prices--but nothing in
the Natural Gas Act or the Federal Power Act made this manipulation
unlawful.
Only years later, after millions of consumers had been harmed, after
billions of dollars had been lost, and after the entire West had
endured an energy crisis largely fabricated by traders, did Congress
act.
In 2005, Congress succeeded in prohibiting manipulation in natural
gas and electricity markets. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
has put this authority to good use. It has performed aggressive natural
gas market oversight, and has brought its first manipulation case,
against Amaranth--a notorious hedge fund that allegedly manipulated
natural gas prices month after month.
This Nation needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and most
economists agree that a cap-and-trade system with a greenhouse gas
market would be the most cost efficient way to guarantee emissions
reductions.
Economists also tell us that markets are most efficient when buyers
and sellers have complete information, no market participant can cheat
another, and prices result from supply and demand, not manipulation.
Bottom line: this amendment improves a provision designed to protect
the integrity of greenhouse gas emissions markets, and it should be
included as part of any cap-and-trade legislation approved by Congress.
FURTHER CHANGES TO S. CON. RES. 21
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, pursuant to section 308(a) of S. Con. Res.
21, the 2008 budget resolution, I previously filed revisions to S. Con.
Res. 21, the 2008 budget resolution. Those revisions were made for
Senate amendment 4825, a complete substitute for S. 3036, the
Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008.
The Senate did not adopt Senate amendment 4825. As a consequence, I
am further revising the 2008 budget resolution and reversing the
adjustments made pursuant to section 308(a) to the aggregates and the
allocation provided
[[Page 11773]]
to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for Senate
amendment 4825.
Mr. President, this will be the final revision to the 2008 budget
resolution. This week, Congress passed S. Con. Res. 70, the 2009 budget
resolution. The 2009 budget resolution now replaces the 2008 budget
resolution for purposes of budget enforcement in the Senate.
I ask unanimous consent to have the following revisions to S. Con.
Res. 21 printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008--S. CON. RES.
21; FURTHER REVISIONS TO THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION
308(a) DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ENERGY LEGISLATION
[In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 101
(1)(A) Federal Revenues:
FY 2007................................................ 1,900.340
FY 2008................................................ 2,016.793
FY 2009................................................ 2,114.754
FY 2010................................................ 2,170.343
FY 2011................................................ 2,351.046
FY 2012................................................ 2,493.878
(1)(B) Change in Federal Revenues:
FY 2007................................................ -4.366
FY 2008................................................ -34.003
FY 2009................................................ 7.826
FY 2010................................................ 6.622
FY 2011................................................ -43.504
FY 2012................................................ -103.218
(2) New Budget Authority:
FY 2007................................................ 2,371.470
FY 2008................................................ 2,501.726
FY 2009................................................ 2,520.890
FY 2010................................................ 2,573.040
FY 2011................................................ 2,688.764
FY 2012................................................ 2,720.897
(3) Budget Outlays:
FY 2007................................................ 2,294.862
FY 2008................................................ 2,473.063
FY 2009................................................ 2,569.024
FY 2010................................................ 2,601.423
FY 2011................................................ 2,695.166
FY 2012................................................ 2,702.695
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008--S. CON. RES.
21; FURTHER REVISIONS TO THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION
308(a) DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ENERGY LEGISLATION
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Allocation to Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee:
FY 2007 Budget Authority............................... 42,426
FY 2007 Outlays........................................ 1,687
FY 2008 Budget Authority............................... 43,535
FY 2008 Outlays........................................ 1,753
FY 2008-2012 Budget Authority.......................... 316,183
FY 2008-2012 Outlays................................... 124,070
Adjustments:
FY 2007 Budget Authority............................... 0
FY 2007 Outlays........................................ 0
FY 2008 Budget Authority............................... 0
FY 2008 Outlays........................................ 0
FY 2008-2012 Budget Authority.......................... -134,696
FY 2008-2012 Outlays................................... -114,402
Revised Allocation to Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee:
FY 2007 Budget Authority............................... 42,426
FY 2007 Outlays........................................ 1,687
FY 2008 Budget Authority............................... 43,535
FY 2008 Outlays........................................ 1,753
FY 2008-2012 Budget Authority.......................... 181,487
FY 2008-2012 Outlays................................... 9,668
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to share my views on the
preeminent environmental challenge facing our generation--climate
change. I believe we must urgently address this looming issue--in
partnership with the rest of the world--and I commend the bill's
authors for finally getting this dialogue started after years of White
House and congressional inaction.
Scientists have determined conclusively that an ongoing buildup of
greenhouse gas emissions is causing the Earth's climate to warm and
will likely lead to drought, flooding, and other catastrophic natural
disasters.
The most recent United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change report found that about 1 billion people will be affected by
water shortages because of declining snow cover on land currently used
by one-sixth of the world's population.
The report also predicts global warming will parch large swaths of
the Earth, threatening the existence of up to 30 percent of its animals
and plants.
Global warming's impact on the Pacific Northwest could be
particularly harmful because our temperatures are rising faster than
the global average. In Washington, climate change is expected to alter
the region's historic water cycle, threatening drinking water supplies,
wildlife and salmon habitat, and the availability of emissions-free
hydropower. We are also already seeing the ominous beginning of ocean
acidification off our coastline.
According to a University of Washington analysis, temperatures in the
Puget Sound region will rise about 2 degrees by 2050. Cascade mountain
temperatures could rise 10 degrees or more, causing snowpacks to be
reduced to just 20 percent of their current levels by 2090.
In the eastern half of my State, temperatures are expected to rise
even faster. By 2050, parts of the Columbia Basin could be up to 5
degrees hotter. In 2090, much of the basin will be up to 8 degrees
warmer, very harmful to eastern Washington agriculture.
There has been a great deal of discussion of what the accumulation of
greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide is doing to change the Earth's
atmosphere. I am very concerned about that. But today I would like to
help my colleagues appreciate carbon dioxide is also slowly, silently,
but surely devastating our oceans and the marine life that depend on
them.
I would like to share with you the silent devastation of ocean
acidification.
Since the start of the Industrial Revolution 130 years ago, humans
have released more than 1.5 trillion tons of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere, increasing the global atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentration by 35 percent. But while carbon dioxide is accumulating
in our atmosphere, it is also being rapidly absorbed by our oceans. At
least one-third of our carbon dioxide emissions end up in the oceans--
more than half a trillion tons since the start of the Industrial
Revolution.
For decades, we assumed that the oceans absorbed these greenhouse
gases to the benefit of our atmosphere, with no side-effect for the
seas.
Science now shows that we were wrong. Today, ocean acidification is
actually changing the very chemistry of the oceans. As carbon dioxide
is absorbed, seawater becomes more acidic and begins to withhold the
basic chemical building blocks needed by many marine organisms.
According to National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration
scientists, humans have increased the oceans' acidity by 30 percent
since the start of the Industrial Revolution. In such acidic waters,
coral reefs--the rainforests of the sea--cannot build their skeletons.
In colder waters like the waters of Washington State, scientists
predict a more acidic ocean could dissolve the shells of the tiny
organisms that make up the base of the ocean's food chain.
A recent article in last month's journal Science detailed how acidic
seawater is already moving closer to shallow waters off of Washington
State, the habitat for most of my State's marine life.
These frightening findings were a surprise to researchers who didn't
expect finding acidic water for several more decades. Because ocean
acidification has the capacity to lead to a total collapse of ocean
food chains, it will have major impacts on coastal communities that
rely on the ocean's bounty.
And when we add ocean acidification to the effects of carbon dioxide
coming from a warming atmosphere--increasing ocean temperatures,
changing winds and currents, and rising sea levels, it is clear that
our carbon emissions will impact our ocean environments in ways far too
devastating to ignore.
Not many people think of orca whales, salmon, coral reefs, or oysters
when they drive their cars to work each day, but as ocean acidification
begins to take its toll, there is definitely a connection between the
carbon emissions we emit and the ocean environments we enjoy and depend
on.
Last week, I held a Commerce Committee field hearing in Seattle to
examine how climate change and ocean acidification are impacting the
marine environments of my State. What I heard from my constituents was
nothing short of frightening.
Brett Bishop, a fifth-generation shellfish farmer in Mason County,
WA, told me how his business is being devastated by the impacts of
climate change and ocean acidification. His story can be summed up by
two words he said to me: ``I'm scared.''
Climate change is killing his business, and threatens to destroy
everything his family has worked for over the past 150 years. If things
continue
[[Page 11774]]
on their current path and Mr. Bishop can't grow his shellfish, then the
bank will foreclose on the mortgage, his 27 employees will be left
jobless, and his family will lose their farm, their homes, and
generations of hard work.
This is not some obscure scientific theory pieced together by
academic scientists. This is real, and it is happening now. Today it is
shellfish farmers in Mason County, WA. but who will fall victim
tomorrow? Commercial fishermen? Coastal tourism from dead coral reefs?
Recreational fisheries?
These are frightening possibilities--but very real ones that our
Nation will face in the coming years. And unfortunately, if we don't
act, Brett Bishop will be one of the millions of Americans with similar
stories. And, unfortunately, these dangers are largely under the radar
because they occur beneath the surface of the ocean.
That is why one of the amendments to the Climate Security Act I am
pleased to be part of includes a bill I introduced with Senator
Lautenberg of New Jersey called the Federal Ocean Acidification
Research and Monitoring Act. Our bill, which passed the Senate Commerce
Committee unanimously last December, would establish a much-needed
Federal research program on ocean acidification.
This amendment also incorporates my Climate Change Adaptation Act
which was also approved unanimously by the Senate Commerce Committee.
This important legislation ensures that our Government plans for the
changes that global warming will inevitably bring. Because the reality
is that even if we were somehow able to stop using fossil fuels today,
a certain degree of warming and ocean acidification will still occur
over the next two or three decades. Planning for the future isn't just
common sense--it is responsible Government.
That brings me back to the Climate Security Act the Senate is
debating today. This is the first comprehensive effort to legislate on
climate change that has come through the committee process. It is a
historic feat, and in many ways it reflects the complexity of this
issue and the varied views and stakeholder interests that accompany any
effort to cap and trade climate change emissions.
I commend Senators Boxer, Lieberman, and Warner for their leadership
in beginning this process and starting us on the path we know we must
take soon. As Sun Tzu said in the ``Art of War,'' ``the journey of a
thousand miles begins with a single step.''
Unfortunately, it looks like our debate may end up being largely
confined to floor statements because opponents of the bill will succeed
in blocking the consideration of any amendments. The minority even
forced our hard-working Senate clerks to read the entire text of the
bill, word for word, for almost 9 hours on Wednesday. Unfortunately,
that is about as fitting an example of how opponents want to stall,
delay, and preserve the status quo as one can imagine.
While I do believe we must act urgently and decisively to control our
Nation's and planet's greenhouse gas emissions, I do have a number of
concerns about the pending legislation.
Ironically, many of my concerns stem from the fact that Washington
State is blessed with abundant, affordable, and emissions-free
hydropower. Unfortunately, this bill fails to recognize that Washington
State has significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions than other parts
of the country and how that dynamic poses unique energy challenges
going forward.
Some of these challenges are that Washington's hydropower system is
largely tapped out, so any future electricity generation will largely
come from relatively more polluting sources for which we will not
receive any emission allocations under the pending legislation.
Similarly, the bill does not provide Washington with any allocations we
will need to provide electricity to the 1.5 million people moving to
the Puget Sound region by 2020, unlike other parts of the country that
rely primarily on fossil fuel generation.
As currently drafted, the bill also effectively penalizes the Pacific
Northwest for its years of aggressive energy efficiency measures, which
have avoided the construction of 3,400 megawatts of additional
capacity. In other words, if we would have built fossil fuel plants
instead of conserving, we would be getting emission allocations for it
today. In addition, since we have already taken advantage of many of
the low-hanging efficiency ``fruit,'' additional efficiency savings
would be relatively more costly than in other parts of the country.
I also believe the legislation needs to more carefully consider how
Federal climate legislation might preempt or overturn the
groundbreaking efforts in Washington State, such as the Western Climate
Initiative.
As a scarred veteran of the Western energy crisis, I also have strong
concerns that there are not enough safeguards in the bill to prevent
excessive speculation and manipulation of emission allocation trading
markets. Even today we see what happens when there is not enough
transparency and clear rules of conduct in energy markets. Excessive
speculation and possibly market manipulation artificially elevate
prices and hurt consumers.
And finally, we need to make sure that anything we do is actually
going to do the job. Unfortunately, I understand that the emission-
reduction caps proposed by this legislation are actually not strong
enough to slow or stop global warming according to the latest science.
While I am disappointed that there probably won't be an opportunity
to improve the historic legislation before us today, I am proud that
after Congress came under new management last year we were able to
craft and pass the greenest, most important energy bill in our Nation's
history.
The Energy Independence and Security Act, which became law last
December, will create cleaner, more diverse sources of energy supply,
build new growth industries that support high-wage ``green-collar''
jobs, give consumers and businesses more affordable energy choices, and
protect our environment. For instance, this landmark energy legislation
aggressively boosts energy efficiency efforts by making our lighting
and appliances more efficient and reducing the Federal Government's
energy use.
Under the new law, fuel economy standards will increase for the first
time in over two decades to a nationwide average of 35 miles per
gallon, up from 25 miles per gallon today, by 2020 for all vehicles,
including SUV's and light trucks. By 2030, these measures will displace
the equivalent of one-third of our foreign oil needs and save American
consumers at least half a trillion dollars in energy costs.
And the new energy law includes mandates and incentives that biofuels
from nonfood feedstocks such as agriculture and wood waste become a
much more significant part of our Nation's effort to end our dependence
on fossil fuels and imported oil.
All together, these measures and others will reduce our Nation's
carbon dioxide emissions by the same amount as all of our vehicles on
the road produce today.
I think it is important to note that while tackling climate change
will not be easy or free, moving to a clean energy system, which is a
prerequisite to any serious effort to reduced greenhouse gases, has
many benefits beyond reducing greenhouse gases and the costs of
inaction will be far more significant.
According to a study by the Natural Resources Defense Council and
Tufts University, if the United States doesn't do something soon to
dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it could cost the country
$3.8 trillion annually from higher energy and water costs, real estate
losses from hurricanes, rising sea levels, and other problems.
According to the Apollo Alliance, a labor-environmental partnership,
investing $30 billion per year over 10 years would create 3.3 million
jobs and boost the Nation's GDP by $1.4 trillion. The Apollo Alliance
estimates that dollars invested in clean energy create more jobs than
those invested in traditional energy sources because renewable energy
is more labor intensive. It is possible for a Nation to grow while
being environmentally conscious. For
[[Page 11775]]
example, the British economy grew by about 40 percent since 1990 while
their greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 14 percent.
The science is undeniable that human activities are changing the
world we know and love and depend on for our well being. We are already
seeing the effects on our oceans, our forests, our crops, and our
wildlife--and unless we act, I am afraid the worst is yet to come.
We will only succeed in combating climate change if we work together,
across the aisle here in Congress, across our States with their very
different greenhouse gas profiles, and across the world. By working
together we can find a path forward to solve this greatest of
challenges. And if we do it right, the solutions we create will also
help address other pressing needs such as providing more clean and
renewable energy sources, high-wage manufacturing jobs, and new export
markets.
Our Nation and the world is waiting for us to take action--and the
lead in preventing and mitigating the catastrophic effects of global
climate change. Our children and their children and all of the world's
citizens' future depends on it. I look forward to continuing this
dialog with my friends on both sides of the aisle.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia is
recognized.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 5 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. I object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a
period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted
to speak for up to 10 minutes each, and that Senator Chambliss be the
first to be recognized.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, but I
will not object, I ask to have printed in the Record a statement by
Senator McCain. If he were here, he would have voted for cloture.
Mr.McCAIN. Mr. President, today, Senator John McCain released
the following statement on S. 3036, the Lieberman-Warner Climate
Security Act of 2008:
Global climate change is the most important environmental
challenge facing not only our nation, but the entire world. I
am confident that given the will, the federal government can
be a lead advocate for ensuring that America is doing its
part to reduce global warming, and join in the global effort
that is needed to address this world-wide environmental
issue.
Like many of my colleagues, I believe this legislation
needs to be debated, amended, improved, and ultimately,
enacted. While my schedule precludes me from being in
Washington, DC, tomorrow to cast my vote, if I were able, I
would vote to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment.
That does not mean I believe the pending bill is perfect, and
in fact, it is far from it. For example, the provisions to
impose Davis Bacon mandates should be removed. Most
importantly, it must include provisions championed by Senator
Graham and myself that would ensure that nuclear power, a
proven and clean energy source, is included among the
technologies supported in our efforts to address global
warming. Nuclear energy is an emission-free source of
electricity for the nation, which is why it simply must be
part of the comprehensive solution to addressing climate
change, and if it is not, I could not support the
legislation's final passage.
Unfortunately, despite the commitment and tireless efforts
of the bill sponsors, Senators Lieberman and Warner, it
appears that for now, the Senate, at the direction of the
Majority Leader, will choose to put politics above policy,
and Congress will fail to act yet again on this critical
issue. But rest assured, we will not give up until we finally
succeed in enacting needed, comprehensive cap and trade
legislation to address this urgent problem.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank our colleagues. I wish to say, in
addition to the names Senator Warner put in yesterday, we had
statements from Senators Obama, Clinton, Biden, and Kennedy, which
means if all had been here, the vote would have been 54 votes. We are
very pleased with this and we thank them very much.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia.
____________________
64TH ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today, June 6, 2008, the 64th
anniversary of D-day, to commend our Armed Forces for their ongoing
contributions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries where they are
currently deployed, as well as their history of service and sacrifice
for our country and for the causes of freedom and democracy worldwide.
Yesterday, I had the privilege of attending the Board of Visitors
meeting for the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation,
which is located at Fort Benning, GA. WHINSEC, as it is called,
provides security cooperation and strategic partnerships with countries
in the Western Hemisphere in order to support democracy and human
rights, and they have made a tremendous contribution since WHINSEC's
inception in 2000.
The chairman of the Board of Visitors of WHINSEC, who is a Roman
Catholic bishop, commented that members of the military are ``agents of
mercy.'' He is correct, and ultimately that is the role our military
has played in the world in the 64 years since U.S. and Allied forces
landed on the beaches of Normandy.
No one joins the military to get rich and famous, since the life of
military personnel almost always takes place behind the scenes and out
of the headlines. Many people join the military to achieve a better way
of life and associate with a bigger cause than themselves. The military
has provided a way for countless numbers of Americans to improve their
own quality of life and learn the skills they need to succeed. We
should be proud of the positive effect the military has on those who
serve in its ranks.
But there is one thing everyone who serves in the military has in
common, they join to serve. They join, realizing their service makes
the lives of their fellow Americans better and more secure. But also,
they know their service makes the lives in other countries safer and
more prosperous.
Without question, that is the result of the service of our military
personnel over the last 64 years in places such as Germany, France,
Bosnia, Kosovo, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Grenada, Panama, Haiti,
Vietnam, and countless other locations where U.S. military personnel
have served and sacrificed. These countries are more prosperous today
because of the commitment of our Nation's military personnel.
No military, and no institution for that matter, is perfect. However,
we should not be surprised that year after year the United States
Military remains one of the most trusted professions. They deserve that
position based on their commitment to a cause greater than themselves,
their integrity, and their commitment to excellence. Today, there are
1.4 million personnel serving on Active Duty in our Nation's military,
along with 1.2 million serving in the Reserve components. All of them
deserve our appreciation and gratitude for their service, their
sacrifice, and their contribution to our Nation's security and
contributions to freedom and democracy around the world.
I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing thanks for them and for
the key role they have played and continue to play in serving and
sacrificing for our country and for those in other countries where they
are serving.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio.
____________________
CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to address an environmental issue,
an economic issue, and a moral issue. Future generations will look back
on global warming as the defining issue of our time. Our children,
their children, and their children will look back on this issue and
judge us on how we confronted it.
[[Page 11776]]
If we treat global warming politically, as so many of the other side
of the aisle did today, if we abdicate our responsibility, if we ignore
reality, if we twiddle our thumbs as the destructive effects of global
warming intensify, we will lose our chance to shape the future because,
simply put, we will be squandering it.
I applaud Senator Boxer, the chairwoman of the Environment and Public
Works Committee, a tireless advocate for clean air, safe drinking
water, and healthy families.
This was not an easy vote. This entire week I have listened to the
speeches on the Senate floor, and I have listened to my colleagues
speak eloquently on the need for global climate change legislation. I
fully agree with the environmental goals of this bill--mandatory caps,
the science-based timeline. This, as I said, is the moral question of
our generation. I have the utmost respect for my colleagues who have
worked so long and so hard to craft this historic legislation and for
environmental advocates in Ohio and across the country. I am 100
percent committed to passing a robust, mandatory cap-and-trade policy.
However, while we have been debating climate policy, Ohioans have been
getting bad news.
This has been a particularly tough week for my State. In the last 7
days, Ohioans learned that our State may soon lose another 10,000 jobs.
Those are not just jobs. They are the building blocks, the foundation
for individual achievement, family security, and community
survivability. They are about health care, they are about opportunity,
they are about sending kids to college, they are about admission to the
middle class.
Now that foundation is crumbling--10,000 good-paying jobs in 1 week.
Since 2001, Ohio has lost more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs.
We have, to be sure, a moral obligation to our planet. For me, that
obligation stems from Scripture which makes each of us a steward of our
planet, of this Earth. We also have an opportunity and obligation to
Ohioans and to all Americans. We have the opportunity and the
obligation to write global warming policy that is sustainable,
equitable, beneficial, both domestically and globally, both
environmentally and economically. We can do that. We can write a bill
to do that. We can write a law to do that or we can settle for a work
that I believe is still in progress.
I cannot settle and could not settle a moment ago in my vote for this
legislation because it needlessly may hurt my State because it fails to
protect against what could be a policy that exports emissions rather
than eliminating emissions.
I submitted five amendments to this bill that were designed to
produce a final bill that would combat global warming without
undermining American families, without hurting families from Galion to
Gallipolis, from Cincinnati to Ashtabula. Unfortunately, after today's
cloture vote, there was no opportunity to debate and vote on those
amendments. Given the chance, I would have fought to redistribute the
financial burden imposed by this bill so Ohio would receive a fair
share, rather than the short end of the stick.
I would have fought to provide sufficient transition assistance for
energy-intensive manufacturing so our Nation does not lose those
crucial national-security oriented, in many cases, crucial jobs. I
would have fought to ensure domestic manufacturers a level playing
field with companies from countries without global warming
requirements.
A plant shuts down in Steubenville or Lima, OH, a plant that has
followed Ohio and national environmental law over the years, and moves
to China. We lose our jobs, and emissions get even greater because the
Chinese do not have the environmental laws we do. That is part of the
problem with U.S. trade policy. That is another time for another speech
and another day. But if we don't take this right step to ensure
domestic manufacturers a level playing field with companies from
countries without global warming requirements, we might as well throw a
going-away party for the steel industry, the cement industry, the glass
industry, aluminum industry, the chemical industry, for foundry after
foundry after foundry in Ravenna, Chillicothe, Mansfield, and Marion.
We might as well pray for a miracle when it comes to global warming
because as we export those jobs to countries that have weak
environmental laws, we will be exporting emissions so they come in
quantities of twice as much from smokestacks in China than they come
from smokestacks in Ohio.
I would have fought for greater capital investment in emerging green
businesses and manufacturing. We need to go green to achieve our goals.
We need to rebuild our manufacturing sector to remain a self-sufficient
nation and the strongest economy on the planet.
We can pass legislation that can be a jobs legislation, energy
legislation, environmental legislation if we do the right thing and
encourage our companies and our investors to build solar panels and
solar cells, to build fuel cells, to build wind turbines, to move
forward on all the kinds of biomass energy production that we know how
to do in this country.
Why wouldn't we invest in the research, infrastructure, job training,
and the commercialization needed to secure our independence from
foreign oil, to fight global warming, to revitalize our economy? Mr.
President, why wouldn't we?
I would have fought for resources to help coal communities diversify
their economies. If we ignore these communities, we breed poverty. Go
with me to southeast Ohio and look at the number of people who are
lining up in food pantries, lining up for food to get through the week,
to get through the month, to get through the winter and now the spring,
as most people in those families hold jobs, often full time, often part
time. They don't pay enough because of what has happened to coal miners
and what has happened to industry in southeast Ohio.
We, in moral terms and practical terms, cannot let that happen. If we
ignore these communities, as I said, we breed more poverty. That is not
a prediction, that is a fact.
I was not given the opportunity to offer my amendments. I will have
the opportunity to push for legislation that capitalizes on our
Nation's strengths, that leaves a legacy of which we can be proud for
future generations.
We can do it, we must do it, and with Senator Boxer's leadership, we
will do it.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
____________________
64TH ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise for two purposes. One is to speak
for a couple minutes about today's anniversary of D-day and then also
to talk about a Pennsylvanian who lost his life in Iraq and was this
week awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I, first, wish to speak
about D-day.
We observe this anniversary today, 64 years, but we have to think
today about how we do that. We know what happened on D-day. For so many
Americans, prior to just a number of years ago, it was a piece of
history we read about in the history books. We learned a bit about it
in school, but for a new generation of Americans, D-day has meant what
we saw in the movie ``Saving Private Ryan.'' Thank goodness for that
film because it captured so much of the horror, so much of the
sacrifice and the valor of our troops.
So we remember those Americans who gave their lives that day to save
the world--literally to save the world from the horror that could have
befallen the world if the axis powers were successful, and if D-day did
not go as well as it did, they might have been successful.
I am remembering today not just a generation of Americans, the
``greatest generation'' of Americans as we know them now, who
sacrificed so much, but I am thinking of people from my home State. I
think Pennsylvania had more Medal of Honor winners in World War II than
any other State. One of them was in my home area, Lackawanna County,
Geno Merli, who served in Europe, in that theater of the war, and
[[Page 11777]]
was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor and passed away a couple
of years ago. So when I think of D-day, and I think of those
sacrifices, I am thinking of heroes such as Geno Merli and so many
others who gave the ultimate sacrifice. His Medal of Honor pertained to
his combat not on D-day but in a related theater of war.
We think about those who came back. We think about those who served
and came back, many of them wounded permanently and irreparably, just
as we see today with some of our troops in Iraq, and it brings to mind
Abraham Lincoln's words in two contexts. One is the context of those
who have served. He talked about the soldier--him who has borne the
battle--that we must care for him who has borne the battle. And I think
one way to honor those who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan or around
the world or in wars like World War II is to remember something my
father said years ago when he was serving as Governor of Pennsylvania,
and he talked about praying for our troops, as important as that is,
but he also talked about praying for ourselves; that we may be worthy
of their valor.
I believe the only way we can be worthy of the valor of those who
served in World War II on D-day or served in Iraq or Afghanistan or
anywhere around the world--in Vietnam, in the Korean War, whatever the
conflict was--we can't just honor them by remembering and commemorating
and talking about battles and all of the information that we can impart
about war. We have to, if we are going to be worthy of their valor, do
the right thing today, not just when we commemorate D-day but every
day.
There are at least two things we can do to pay tribute to those who
served and to be worthy of their valor. One way is to make sure those
who survive a war and come back to the United States have not just some
health care but the best health care. And we have to fund it.
Fortunately, in the last two budgets we have been doing that. We have
been meeting or exceeding the budget on veterans health care.
The second thing we must do, at the very least, is make sure anyone
who serves in combat has an opportunity to be educated as best we can
provide. That is why the vote on the GI bill recently was so essential,
so central to meeting that basic obligation, so caring, as Abraham
Lincoln said, for him--and increasingly her--who has borne the battle,
and making sure they have an education.
Today, when we remember the service of those who gave their lives,
and in some cases gave sacrifice and survived D-day, I think we have to
meet the obligation that service imposes on us in the Senate and as
citizens.
____________________
HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES
SPECIALIST Ross A. McGinnis
Mr. CASEY. Finally, I want to speak for a couple of moments about a
Pennsylvanian. As I have mentioned before, there are more World War II
Medal of Honor winners from Pennsylvania than anywhere else. We did
some research, and you can go down the list of people who have served
from Pennsylvania, who have been awarded the Congressional Medal of
Honor, and we note that 378 Pennsylvanians have received the Medal of
Honor out of about 3,467 overall, so a high percentage.
We had 25 Medal of Honor winners from World War II and in Operation
Iraqi Freedom; one is the person I want to spend a couple of moments
talking about. Operation Iraqi Freedom has only four, I am told, four
Medal of Honor winners across the Nation, so Pennsylvania has one of
those four, and his name is Specialist Ross A. McGinnis, 1st Platoon, C
Company, 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat
Team, 1st Infantry Division.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a two-page document entitled, ``The Story of PFC Ross A. McGinnis,'' as
well as a news story from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette from this week.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I will not read all of it, but I wanted to
read the description of his sacrifice and the reason he was awarded the
Congressional Medal of Honor, so rare for any soldier to be so awarded.
Here is part of the official report. This is December 4, 2006.
During the course of the patrol, an unidentified insurgent
positioned on a rooftop nearby threw a fragmentation grenade
into the Humvee. Without hesitation or regard for his own
life, McGinnis threw his back over the grenade, pinning it
between his body and the Humvee's radio mount. McGinnis
absorbed all lethal fragments and the concussive effects of
the grenade with his own body. McGinnis, who was a private
first class at the time, was posthumously promoted to
specialist. Specialist McGinnis's heroic actions and tragic
death are detailed in the battlescape section of this website
and in his Medal of Honor Citation.
He was a young man from Knox, PA, 19 years old, when he gave, as
Abraham Lincoln also said, ``The last full measure of devotion to his
country.'' And I have used that line a lot because it applies so well
to those who have given their lives in Iraq or Afghanistan and other
places around the world, but at no time--at no time--that I have used
that line from Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address has it applied
better than it does in this instance, for Ross. A McGinnis, 19 years
old, born June 14, 1987, in Meadville, PA, though he grew up in Knox,
PA. He was a 2005 graduate of Keystone Junior-Senior High School, and
his parents were with President Bush this week when he was awarded the
Congressional Medal of Honor.
So we are thinking of him today, on D-day, but we should make sure
those memories we have of his service, and all those who have served in
any conflict, be the inspiration for our hard work in the Senate, to
make sure we are doing everything we can to earn the valor they gave so
heroically for our country. And that has to be about making sure our
troops are given what they need when they are on the battlefield, but
also ensuring that when they come home, the help doesn't stop at the
shoreline; that they are given the best health care and the best
educational opportunities.
So, Mr. President, I will conclude with this: We pay tribute to those
who have served our country, especially today, in remembering those who
served on D-day, but in a special way we are thinking of Ross A.
McGinnis, his service, his sacrifice, and we are praying for his
family.
Exhibit 1
The Story of PFC Ross A. McGinnis
1st Platoon, C Company, 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, 2nd
Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division
Spc. McGinnis' dedication to duty and love for his fellow
Soldiers were embodied in a statement issued by his parents
shortly after his death:
``Ross did not become our hero by dying to save his fellow
Soldiers from a grenade. He was a hero to us long before he
died, because he was willing to risk his life to protect the
ideals of freedom and justice that America represents. He has
been recommended for the Medal of Honor . . . That is not why
he gave his life. The lives of four men who were his Army
brothers outweighed the value of his one life. It was just a
matter of simple kindergarten arithmetic. Four means more
than one. It didn't matter to Ross that he could have escaped
the situation without a scratch. Nobody would have questioned
such a reflex reaction. What mattered to him were the four
men placed in his care on a moment's notice. One moment he
was responsible for defending the rear of a convoy from enemy
fire; the next moment he held the lives of four of his
friends in his hands. The choice for Ross was simple, but
simple does not mean easy. His straightforward answer to a
simple but difficult choice should stand as a shining example
for the rest of us. We all face simple choices, but how often
do we choose to make a sacrifice to get the right answer? The
right choice sometimes requires honor.''
Ross Andrew McGinnis was born June 14, 1987 in Meadville,
PA. His family moved to Knox, northeast of Pittsburgh, when
he was three. There he attended Clarion County public
schools, and was a member of the Boy Scouts as a boy. Growing
up he played basketball and soccer through the YMCA, and
Little League baseball. Ross was a member of St. Paul's
Lutheran Church in Knox, and a 2005 graduate of Keystone
Junior-Senior High School.
Ross's interests included video games and mountain biking.
He was also a car enthusiast, and took classes at the Clarion
County Career Center in automotive technology. He
[[Page 11778]]
also worked part-time at McDonald's after school.
His mother, Romayne, said Ross wanted to be a Soldier early
in life. When asked to draw a picture of what he wanted to be
when he grew up, Ross McGinnis, the kindergartner, drew a
picture of a Soldier.
On his 17th birthday, June 14, 2004, Ross went to the Army
recruiting station and joined through the delayed entry
program.
After initial entry training at Fort Benning, Georgia,
McGinnis was assigned to 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry
Regiment in Schweinfurt, Germany. According to fellow
Soldiers, he loved Soldiering and took his job seriously, but
he also loved to make people laugh. One fellow Soldier
commented that every time McGinnis left a room, he left the
Soldiers in it laughing.
The unit deployed to Eastern Baghdad in August 2006, where
sectarian violence was rampant. Ross was serving as an M2 .50
caliber machine gunner in 1st Platoon, C Company, 1st
Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment in support of operations
against insurgents in Adhamiyah, Iraq.
According to the official report, on the afternoon of Dec.
4, 2006, McGinnis' platoon was on mounted patrol in Adhamiyah
to restrict enemy movement and quell sectarian violence.
During the course of the patrol, an unidentified insurgent
positioned on a rooftop nearby threw a fragmentation grenade
into the Humvee. Without hesitation or regard for his own
life, McGinnis threw his back over the grenade, pinning it
between his body and the Humvee's radio mount. McGinnis
absorbed all lethal fragments and the concussive effects of
the grenade with his own body. McGinnis, who was a private
first class at the time, was posthumously promoted to
specialist. Spc. McGinnis's heroic actions and tragic death
are detailed in the battlescape section of this website and
in his Medal of Honor Citation.
Army Decorations: Medal of Honor (to be presented to Tom
and Romayne McGinnis at a June 2, 2008 White House Ceremony),
Silver Star (awarded for valor exhibited during the events of
Dec. 4, 2006, pending processing and approval of Medal of
Honor), Bronze Star, Purple Heart, Army Good Conduct Medal,
National Defense Service Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, Global
War on Terrorism Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas
Service Ribbon, and Combat Infantryman Badge.
____
[From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette]
(By Milan Simonich)
Medal of Honor Presented to Family of a Hero
Washington.--President Bush yesterday awarded the Medal of
Honor to a fallen Clarion County soldier, calling him an
ordinary guy who did the extraordinary to save the lives of
four buddies in Iraq.
Spc. Ross McGinnis used his body to cover a grenade that an
insurgent threw from a rooftop into an Army Humvee. By
turning himself into a human shield, he gave his life to
protect the other men in his crew.
Mr. Bush presented the Medal of Honor, America's highest
military decoration, to Tom and Romayne McGinnis, parents of
the 19-year-old soldier. About 300 people--including the four
soldiers who survived the grenade blast--attended the
ceremony in the East Room of the White House. It ended with
everybody standing and applauding for Spc. McGinnis.
By then, Mrs. McGinnis was fighting back tears. Mr. Bush
turned and kissed her on the cheek, causing her to smile.
Then he escorted her from the room.
Afterward, Mrs. McGinnis said the president had told her he
might cry if she did.
Tom McGinnis said his son, a restless and below-average
student until his senior year of high school in Knox, would
have savored this day of acclamation had he lived to see it.
``He'd have had a great time. He'd have enjoyed the
spotlight,'' Mr. McGinnis said.
In an earlier interview, he said he is certain his son
never thought of medals or glory. Friendships and
relationships were all that motivated his son, Mr. McGinnis
said.
Sgt. Ian Newland, the only soldier to be seriously injured
in the explosion, walks with a cane now. At 28, he said his
goal is to run again, though doctors tell him he won't. He
wants to accomplish all he can each day--his only way of
repaying Spc. McGinnis.
In a news conference after the ceremony, Sgt. Newland said
each moment of the grenade explosion is burned into his
memory. Even so, he said, it took a few days of reflection
for him to fully grasp the magnitude of Spc. McGinnis'
sacrifice.
The crew was rolling through a Baghdad neighborhood the
morning of Dec. 4, 2006. Spc. McGinnis rode atop the Humvee
in a hatch, manning a .50-caliber machine gun.
A man on a roof threw a grenade that dropped straight
through the hatch and into the Humvee, where the other four
soldiers essentially were trapped.
Spc. McGinnis could have dived onto the street to safety.
Instead, he jumped back inside the Humvee and pinned the
grenade between his back and the vehicle.
It exploded a second or two later, piercing Spc. McGinnis'
body armor and blowing the doors off the Humvee. Shrapnel
tore into Sgt. Newland's head and all four limbs.
As he looks back on that day, Sgt. Newland said he focuses
on two things: ``The pain. The grief.''
The other three soldiers--Sgt. 1st Class Cedric Thomas,
Sgt. Lyle Buehler and Spc. Sean Lawson--were not hurt
physically. Sgt. Buehler said survivor's guilt weighs on him.
Had the grenade rolled in front of him, he would have been in
the position to cover it. As it happened, only Spc. McGinnis
knew where the grenade was.
The others say Spc. McGinnis took little seriously except
soldiering.
``The first time I met him, he had me laughing,'' Spc.
Lawson said.
In his combat team in the 1 st Battalion, 26 Infantry
Regiment, Spc. McGinnis developed a reputation for doing
impressions, the soldiers said. So spot-on were his
imitations that a drill instructor even laughed when he was
the object of one of them.
The youngest man in his unit, Spc. McGinnis looked out for
his crew as though they were brothers. Sgt. Thomas offers the
most succinct description of the 6-foot, 136-pound beanpole,
saying: ``He is a hero.''
Mr. McGinnis said his son knew that four lives were more
valuable than one, so he instinctively reacted to save the
others.
He remembers his son as an ordinary kid who made plenty of
mistakes, then got interested in military service and
fulfilled his potential in the Army.
``It wasn't an exciting story until right to the end,'' Mr.
McGinnis said.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO CINDY HAYDEN
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to bid farewell to my chief
counsel on the Judiciary Committee, Cindy Hayden, who is with me today.
We all depend so much on our staff. They give of themselves, they give
of their time, they are committed to their beliefs, and serve America,
and we are never able to say thank you to all of them, but on special
occasions, I think it is important to do so. In saying my thanks to
her, I am saying thanks to all my staff, and to all the staff of the
Senate, who serve us so well, often without ever receiving credit.
I am pleased for her because she will be starting a new chapter in
her professional life, though her departure will be a tremendous loss
to my staff and the Senate at large. I am glad she will be in DC,
working close by, so we can call on her when we need her help.
Cindy Hayden is an exceptional person. I feel a great loss at her
departure. Each day that we have worked together, she has shown an
unwavering dedication to our shared values, to her State, and to her
Nation. Her passion for the law is unmatched, and her commitment to the
rule of law is unwavering. I trust her judgment, her political
instincts, and her values. I have relied on her to manage my Judiciary
staff and the multitude of important issues that committee handles.
With so many issues arising on a daily basis, it is sometimes not
possible for me to personally be aware of them all. In everything from
judicial nominations, immigration, and any number of constitutional
issues, Cindy has exhibited an intellectual capacity, a tenacity to
principle, a strong work ethic, and a professional integrity that is
above reproach.
Before joining my staff, she had a distinguished academic career at
my undergraduate school, Huntington College, and the University of
Alabama School of Law. At Huntington, Cindy had an outstanding record
of academic excellence, receiving degrees in both chemistry and
political science. I think chemistry is pretty impressive and would
certainly get your attention when you looked at a resume. She then went
to law school at the University of Alabama, where she graduated cum
laude and served as managing editor of the Journal of Legal Profession
and was a member of the moot court board. While in law school, she
clerked in the office of the Alabama Attorney General under my
successor, now Eleventh Circuit Judge Bill Pryor, a brilliant legal
mind himself.
Immediately after taking the bar, Cindy started working as counsel on
my staff, and for the past 6 years worked her way up to chief counsel.
Her work on the Senate Judiciary Committee has been extraordinary, and
I believe the committee is a better place for her service. The
committee takes on an enormous number and wide variety of complex and
sometimes controversial issues. It is one of the most
[[Page 11779]]
demanding committees in the Senate. To be successful as an attorney on
that committee you must not only be hard working and intelligent and
someone who works very long hours, but you must also be a strong
negotiator, able to frame arguments in a passionate, respectful, and
intellectually honest way. She has done all that with seemingly
effortless skill.
I would note that the Judiciary Committee has attracted, and has
right now, a host of superior attorneys who serve all of us. They are
an excellent team, indeed. I would be remiss not to mention her stellar
work on immigration. Since she arrived in my office, Cindy has worked
tirelessly to protect the rule of law in this country, and as it turned
out, she found herself at the center of a national debate on how to fix
the broken immigration system in our country. Those of you who have
worked on either side of the issue have certainly had to deal with
Cindy and her relentless advocacy as she became the go-to person on
immigration, providing a wealth of information and knowledge for all
involved.
Indeed, her ``alerts'' that were sent out--always meticulously
accurate--were picked up routinely all over the country by media
outlets as accurate depictions of developments, as they were occurring
so rapidly during that intense debate. So whether you were for her or
against her in principle, everyone can certainly agree she handled
herself with dignity, courage, tenacity, and capability during that
debate.
Evidence of her dedication and influence on the committee and its
staff can be seen by what some of her colleagues have had to say about
her. And this is a good team, indeed. Ed Haden, my former chief
counsel, who hired her, said:
Cindy immediately made a difference when she started on the
committee. Her intelligence, work ethic, initiative, and
willingness to stand up and defend her position made her a
great asset. Her unflinching integrity and solid core values
made her a success as a lawyer and as a friend.
And I would add that she was raised right. She has great values, as a
product of Cullman, AL. She grew up in the heart of Alabama and was
raised in an outstanding way.
William Smith, my former chief counsel and current executive director
of the Americans for Limited Government Research Foundation, said the
following:
I have met and worked with a number of great lawyers. Cindy
Hayden is in a category more select than great. She is one of
the few superior lawyers I have met. I was privileged to
serve with her on the Judiciary Committee and I count her a
true confidant. Our motto in the office was, ``we work from
sun to sun; our work is never done.'' Cindy has lived up to
and surpassed that calling. On top of this, she is a great
American. The only group I know that will truly celebrate her
departure will be illegal aliens.
That is what William Smith said. Brian Darling, director of Senate
Relations for the Heritage Foundation said this:
Cindy has been a hero to conservatives nationwide who
believe in the rule of law. Without Cindy and ``Team
Sessions''' tireless efforts to educate the American public
on the contents of the secretly drafted amnesty bill, the
bill may have become law.
Wendy Fleming, General Counsel for the Senate Steering Committee
says:
Cindy Hayden is a great American, a smart lawyer, and a
wonderful friend. During her time on the Judiciary Committee,
Cindy has displayed unwavering devotion to Senator Sessions,
the people of Alabama, and her conservative principles. I am
honored to have had the opportunity to work with Cindy.
Brooke Bacak, former Counsel for me and current Chief Counsel for
Senator Coburn says:
I have had the privilege of knowing Cindy for 10 years.
Having first met in College Republicans, I learned about her
conservative convictions very early in our friendship. Cindy
has proven to be a true patriot, and I am grateful for the
role that she has played in the U.S. Senate. But beyond our
political and professional association, Cindy has become a
true friend. She and her husband, Matt, are two of the most
generous people I know. From birthdays to illnesses, the
Haydens always make time to be with their friends. Their
kindness has made a difference to me and many others. I wish
Cindy the very best in her new job and hope she knows how
much she will be missed.
Joe Matal, Counsel for Senator Kyl says:
If you look closely at the corpse of last year's
immigration bill, you will find a series of small squares
holes in its back. Those holes were produced by Cindy's
heels, stomping that bill to death.
Rita Lari Jochum, Chief Counsel for Senator Grassley, says:
Cindy Hayden has served Senator Sessions, Alabama and our
country extremely well. A committed advocate for conservative
principles, Cindy has been tenacious in her drive to do what
is right. We all are going to miss a great friend and skilled
colleague.
Lauren Petron, Chief Counsel for Senator Brownback, says:
Cindy is a principled conservative, a tireless advocate, a
talented lawyer, a trusted colleague, and a dear friend. She
is truly a person who lives out her values and beliefs. I
feel privileged to have worked with her on the Judiciary
Committee, and I am certain that she will be a great success
in all her future endeavors.
John Abegg, Counsel for Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:
Cindy continued a long line of outstanding chief counsels
for Senator Sessions. She is smart, principled, and tough,
but has a kind heart as well. She worked tirelessly to serve
Senator Sessions' Alabama constituents and the people of the
United States, and she did so with distinction.
Alan Hanson, my Legislative Director says:
Cindy is a serious and accomplished professional with a big
heart and disarming wit. While I will miss being her
colleague in the Senate, I know Cindy will do well in all her
endeavors and wish her the best.
Ajit Pai, Deputy General Counsel for the FCC says:
Staffers on both sides of the aisle would agree that Cindy
Hayden brings to the table a welcome combination of
intelligence, dedication, and likeability. It was my
privilege to have worked with her on Senator Sessions' staff,
and it will always be my privilege to call her a friend.
Bradley Hayes, my Senior Counsel says:
I have had the honor to work with both talented
professionals and close, personal friends. In Cindy Hayden,
I've had the rare privilege to work with an individual who
encompasses both. I have had the pleasure to work with Cindy
since the day I started in the Senate almost three years ago.
On a daily basis, I have been able to battle liberals with a
person whom I not only respect and admire, but someone whose
friendship I will value long after her departure. From her
first day in the Senate, Cindy has worked tirelessly to
promote conservative principles and has been a tremendous
asset for both Senator Sessions and the U.S. Senate. The
State of Alabama and the nation as a whole are better because
of her selfless work these past six years. Though she leaves
us to carry on the fight, the lessons she has taught me, and
others who have worked with her, will ensure that Cindy's
legacy of fidelity to the rule of law and conservative
principles will continue for years to come.
These are just some of the statements from the staffers whom Cindy
has worked with that reflect their respect for her.
I will just conclude personally by saying I never had a staffer to be
more involved than Cindy in as sustained and intense a period of debate
as we find ourselves in on the immigration debate. It was a constant
every day struggle, and things were always rapidly changing.
We believe the bill on the floor, though it had a lot of support and
many good things in it, was not the right approach to solving our
illegal immigration problems in America. We decided someone had to be
active in that and raise those issues. Cindy was just fabulous, and I
depended on her. Day after day, her work and the respect she engendered
throughout the country played a big role in the final result, in which
the bill was pulled down without passage in that form.
Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to share these words. As
I speak about her, again I want to note I share my thoughts and these
comments about so many of our staffers who serve America in the Senate.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
[[Page 11780]]
____________________
CLIMATE CHANGE
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I come before our body today because we
are dealing with such an incredibly important issue. It is an issue
that is full of technicalities but also a lot of passion, a lot of
incredible passion about how we take care of this incredible blessing
of a planet we have been given, take care of its climate and its
environment and all of the incredible things it does for us, and what
we have a responsibility to do in return.
As a daughter of an Arkansas farmer, I was taught at an early age in
life to be a good steward of the land we have been given, to understand
there will be future generations who will need it, who will cherish it,
and who will learn from it. Today, my husband Steve and I continue to
instill those principles in our twin boys through all kinds of
different activities, whether it is the Scouts they have participated
in, whether it is their athletics, whether it is the fishing and
hunting they love to do, whether it is the canoeing and camping we do
on the beautiful rivers of Arkansas in the great outdoors--being
together and sharing time, being together and being respectful of this
great environment we have been given.
Since the issue of global climate change first came before the
Senate, it has become abundantly clear to me and I think to millions of
Americans as well as those in this body that we have to take action on
this issue if we have any hope of correcting it. We have had our heads
in the sand for quite some time. It is important that we get busy. It
is important that we get busy in making a difference, in changing our
culture in many ways in order to be better equipped to deal with the
problems we have in this environment.
But it is also abundantly clear that we also have to make sure that
our head is not in the clouds and that we are being realistic about the
economy we have created, about the number of people on the face of this
Earth who depend on this economy, and how critically important it is to
provide the kind of partnership and empowerment to our existing culture
to make the transition from what we have to what we want to have in
terms of dealing with our climate through the economic engines we have
in this great land, in this great country.
As many of my colleagues have mentioned, the environmental impact of
inaction threatens our coastline, the polar icecaps, weather patterns,
and animal migration, but it also threatens our ability to be
competitive in the world marketplace and to grow the kinds of jobs we
truly want to grow if we ignore the opportunities that exist if we do
this correctly. If we do this correctly, we can not only provide the
kind of move in the right direction that will be positive for our
environment, but we can also seize the opportunity to empower industry
and our economy in a way that we can grow jobs at the same time.
While the environmental danger that climate change poses is so
considerable, I am also very concerned about many aspects of this bill.
The reality is that the bill we have here before us today cannot pass.
We cannot pass this legislation and believe the problem is going to be
fixed because there are multiple problems. It is not just the climate
and not just the environment, it is all of the things that contribute
to it. As we move forward, it is the hard-working Americans who
participate in this economy whom we have to consider.
The pathway to saving the planet will require that we partner with
the business community and empower them to transition from an old
energy economy and energy technologies dating back centuries, to the
emerging energy economy and the emerging energy technologies needed for
a new, cleaner economy and a new, cleaner environment. Failure to do so
could lead to the loss of jobs in communities all across our Nation.
But it could also lead to a failed environmental policy because the
fact is, if we do not get this right now, we could spend the next 2 or
3 years dealing with legislation that might not work, is not going to
have all of the intricacies and all of the matters dealt with that need
to be dealt with. And 3 years down the road, what happens? We repeal
it? We have wasted 3 precious years, 3 or 4 precious years, where we
could have been working productively to reach the goal of strengthening
our economy and preserving our environment.
Another concern is the unintended hardships the bill might place on
the elderly and working families, particularly in my State. I am sure
other Senators have those same concerns.
In a State with a median income level of $37,420, ranking Arkansas
48th among all States, many of my constituents live paycheck to
paycheck absolutely every week. I am rightfully concerned about a bill
that could drive up utility rates, with the costs being passed on to
consumers. And for my constituents, even a $15-per-month increase in
their energy bills would be devastating. Now, for some of us, $15 we
will notice, but it might not make a difference between whether we are
going to sign our kids up for Little League or whether we are going to
be able to help our grandparents or our parents with their prescription
drugs or even put food on the table. But for some hard-working
Americans, those kinds of increases could mean an awful lot. That is
why it is all the more important that we get this bill right.
I want to support climate change legislation. That is something I
feel very passionate about. I want to because I believe it is
ultimately our responsibility to preserve and protect our planet for
future generations. I truly believe we can no longer afford to put our
heads in the sand about this issue. We have to move forward. We have to
express the importance and the urgency of this issue. But I also echo
that it is critically important we get it right. That is why I say the
devil is in the details.
As we move forward in these discussions on what we are doing, we have
to pay critical attention to the details of this bill. It is why we
cannot afford to have, as I said, our heads in the clouds about the
realities of the issues that are associated without fully understanding
the impact of this bill as we have looked at it today, as currently
written, on industry and working families of this country.
I dedicate myself to making sure not only that we passionately look
at this issue for all the right reasons of preserving our environment
but that we also equally as passionately look at this bill to make sure
the mechanisms that partner us with the economy and the engines of
economy we get right.
I am committed to working closely with the sponsors of the
legislation as well as the industries in my State and all across this
Nation. We have an obligation, an obligation and a responsibility not
only to protect this environment but also to protect the incredible
working families whom we represent, the hard-fought jobs they work in
day-in and day-out to care for their families, and the good corporate
citizens that are trying their best to make sure those jobs stay in
this country.
I believe we can craft a proposal that will appropriately balance the
needs of business and consumers, especially those most vulnerable to an
increase in energy costs or a shift in our culture of energy, to
protect our environment for our children and our grandchildren but also
to keep that balance in recognition with how important that impact is
on our communities across our States and across this great country.
I do so appreciate all of the hard work, the enormous effort so many
Senators have put into this bill. Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner
and, of course, Chairman Boxer have all invested a tremendous amount of
time in this bill. As we continue to move forward in looking at this
issue, in looking for solutions, I hope that in their leadership they
will embrace all of the Senators who have great ideas in terms of how
we can move forward in making this a success, in preserving our
environment but ensuring that the working people of this country and
the hard-fought industries that are here providing the jobs we want to
see stay in this great country, that they are going to have a seat at
the table and come up with a bill that will benefit everybody.
While I still have some questions about what we are dealing with and
the
[[Page 11781]]
debate we had and will continue to have, I want to keep my door open. I
want to work with my colleagues to address the real and the long-term
issues of climate change in the weeks and months ahead. But I also want
to make sure our focus does not lose sight of the other consequences
that come from this bill.
I appreciate the debate we have had, and I look forward to the coming
months as we will continue to refocus ourselves, rededicate our time to
making sure--making sure that any bill we come up with that we come to
the floor and ask one another to give a final vote on will be a bill
that we have embraced from all different perspectives of finding the
solutions we need.
This underlying bill is clearly not that bill, and many of us have
grave concerns about where the priorities are in this bill and how we
make those priorities more positive in all directions. I look forward
to regaining our time and energy and being able to come back and talk
about these issues and really solve all of the problems, all of the
consequences that come with our ultimate passion of wanting to ensure
that we do take a stand on climate change and that we do embrace our
opportunity to make sure we do not make it irreversible in terms of
what climate change is; that we will work hard to ensure that our
children and our grandchildren will have an incredible planet to be
able to live on, to work on, and again to reach their every potential
and their every possibility.
____________________
RECESS
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
stand in recess until 11:30.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 10:22 a.m., recessed until
11:30 a.m., and reassembled when called to order by the ACTING
PRESIDENT pro tempore.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer for
coming to the chair a little early in order to allow me a chance to
make a statement. It was a considerable courtesy and one that is much
appreciated.
I will open my remarks by saying: Well, here we go again. I have come
to the floor several times already to warn of what appears to be a loss
of integrity and legal scholarship at the once proud Office of Legal
Counsel at the Department of Justice.
First, back in December, I pointed out the, shall we say,
``eccentric'' theories that arose out of the OLC's analysis that
greenlighted President Bush's program for warrantless wiretapping of
Americans. Those opinions had been secret. These theories came to light
after I plowed through a fat stack of classified opinions held in
secret over at the White House and pressed to have the particular
statements declassified.
My colleagues may recall that these theories included the following:
An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no
constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new
executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms
of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an
executive order, the President has instead modified or waived
it.
As the Presiding Officer well knows, Executive orders have the force
of law. A theory like this allows the Federal Register, where the
executive orders are assembled, to become a screen of falsehood behind
which illegal programs can operate in violation of the very executive
order that purports to control the executive branch. So that was a fine
one.
Here is another:
The President, exercising his constitutional authority
under Article II--
That is the section of the Constitution that provides for the
Presidency and the executive branch of Government. Article I
establishes the Congress; article II establishes the executive branch--
can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the
President's authority under Article II.
I think the expression for that is ``pulling yourself up in the air
by your own bootstraps,'' and it runs contrary to widely established
constitutional principle. The seminal case of Marbury v. Madison, which
every law student knows, says it is emphatically the province and the
duty of the judiciary to say what the law is. And none other than the
great Justice Jackson once observed:
Some arbiter is almost indispensable when power . . . is .
. . balanced between different branches, as the legislature
and the executive. . . . Each unit cannot be left to judge
the limits of its own power.
Yet this was the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel.
Here is the one I found perhaps most personally nauseating:
The Department of Justice is bound by the President's legal
[opinions.].
A particularly handy little doctrine for the White House, when it is
the legality of White House conduct that is at issue. Wouldn't it be
nice if you could come into the courts of America or face the laws of
America with a principle that the law-determining body has to follow
your instruction? If criminals had that, no one would ever go to jail.
It is inappropriate in our system of justice.
So I found these theories pretty appalling. I found them to be,
frankly, fringe theories from the outer limits of legal ideology. They
started me worrying about what is going on at the Office of Legal
Counsel.
Then we came to the OLC opinions the Bush administration used to
authorize waterboarding of detainees. Then, again, I came to the floor
because I was flabbergasted, horrified to discover that to reach its
conclusions, the Office of Legal Counsel totally overlooked two highly
relevant legal determinations and then went and drew language out of
health care reimbursement law--health care reimbursement law--in order
to justify allowing the administration to torture and waterboard
prisoners.
What were the highly relevant legal determinations the Office of
Legal Counsel overlooked? Well, one was that it was American
prosecutors and American judges who in military tribunals after World
War II prosecuted Japanese soldiers for war crimes, for torture, on
evidence of their waterboarding American prisoners of war. Missed it.
The other major thing the OLC overlooked was that the Department of
Justice itself prosecuted a Texas sheriff as a criminal for
waterboarding prisoners in 1984. The sheriff's conviction went up on
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, one row
under the U.S. Supreme Court, and the appeals court, in a public
opinion, described the technique as ``water torture.'' The opinion used
the term ``torture'' over and over again. All a legal researcher has to
do is type the words ``water torture'' into the legal search engines,
Lexus or Westlaw, and this case comes up: United States v. Lee, 744 F2d
1124.
How did the wide-ranging legal analysis that ranged as far afield as
health care reimbursement law for guidance miss a case that is bang on
point, that was prosecuted by the Department of Justice itself, that is
reported in a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, that describes
this exact technique as ``water torture''? How, indeed.
After this, I began to refer to whatever it is that the Office of
Legal Counsel has now become as George Bush's ``Little Shop of Legal
Horrors.''
Now we have this. The FISA statute contains what is called an
exclusivity provision. The FISA statute of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act is the law that governs our surveillance authority on
foreign intelligence matters. It is an active issue before this body
right now, and the exclusivity provision is actively being discussed.
Here is how it reads:
[FISA] shall be the exclusive means by which electronic
surveillance . . . and the
[[Page 11782]]
interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic
communications may be conducted.
``Exclusive means.'' It seems pretty clear. And exclusivity
provisions such as this in statutes are not uncommon. More on that
later.
But let's look at what the Office of Legal Counsel said about that
language. This is language Senator Feinstein and I have had
declassified. Similar to the others, it was buried in a classified
opinion:
Unless Congress made a clear statement in the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act that it sought to restrict
presidential authority to conduct wireless searches in the
national security area--which it has not--
``Which it has not''--
then the statute must be construed to avoid such a reading.
Well, this is particularly devilish because we have had a long
argument through the FISA debate with the administration over the
exclusivity provision. Senator Feinstein has led the charge on this,
with strong bipartisan support from Senators Hagel and Snowe, and never
once, in all these discussions, have I heard the administration say:
Oh, there is a problem with the exclusivity language in the FISA bill.
There is a loophole in it. It is not as strong as it could be. There is
something Congress did in the exclusivity clause that would open a way
for the President to wiretap Americans without a warrant.
Never once been said. But behind the scenes, in secret opinions, they
proclaimed that some loophole exists. I do not see the loophole: FISA
``shall be the exclusive means . . . .'' Where are you going to
challenge it? Are you going to say: Well, maybe the hole is that they
referenced the national security area? But the national security area
is where our foreign intelligence surveillance exists. Well, maybe it
has to do with wireless searches? No, wireless searches are precisely
what the FISA act is all about. Maybe it has to do with Presidential
authority? Well, who else wiretaps? We do not in Congress. The judges
do not. Of course, it is the executive branch.
So maybe it is that they do not think it was a clear enough
statement? Well, let's take a look at that and start with a case from
the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was discussing a statute that
gave the Court ``exclusive'' jurisdiction. Chief Justice Rehnquist
wrote for the Supreme Court that this was ``uncompromising language.''
He continued:
[T]he description of our jurisdiction as ``exclusive''
necessarily denies jurisdiction of such cases to any other
federal court.
Chief Justice Rehnquist said:
This follows from the plain meaning of ``exclusive.''
The Chief Justice then cited to Webster's New International
Dictionary for that plain meaning. My Webster's defines ``exclusive''
as ``single, sole,'' ``excluding others from participation.'' That
sounds clear to me. The ``single'' means, the ``sole'' means, the means
that excludes others from participation.
Lower courts have discussed the FISA statute's own exclusivity
provision directly. Chief Justice Rehnquist was talking about a
different exclusivity provision. The FISA exclusivity provision was the
subject of a case called United States v. Andonian, cited 735 F. Supp.
1469. The court said this. Let me read three sentences talking about
the exclusivity language in FISA.
[This language] reveals that Congress intended to sew up
the perceived loopholes through which the President had been
able to avoid the warrant requirement. The exclusivity clause
makes it impossible for the President to ``opt-out'' of the
legislative scheme by retreating to his ``inherent''
Executive sovereignty over foreign affairs . . . . The
exclusivity clause . . . assures that the President cannot
avoid Congress' limitations by resorting to ``inherent''
powers as had President Truman at the time of the ``Steel
Seizure Case.''
By using this exclusivity clause, the court concluded:
Congress denied the President his inherent powers outright.
Tethering Executive reign, Congress deemed that the
provisions for gathering intelligence in FISA and Title III
were ``exclusive.''
Now, there still may be a constitutional question about whether the
President's Article II powers exist, no matter whether Congress has
passed a particular statute. But there can be no real question about
the intention or the effect of FISA's exclusivity provision.
I have sat and stared at FISA's exclusivity provision and the OLC
language side by side, and I cannot make sense of how they came to that
conclusion. Congress says, plain as day, FISA is the exclusive means,
and OLC says Congress did not say that.
So I wonder, maybe there is some strange legal use of the term
``exclusive'' that I missed in my 25 years of lawyering. Then I find
this Court decision that says this very language in the FISA statute
means Congress ``intended to sew up the perceived loopholes,'' that
this language ``makes it impossible for the President to `opt-out' ''
of the FISA requirements; that it ``assures that the President cannot
avoid Congress's limitations,'' and that by this language ``Congress
denied the President his inherent powers outright.''
Then I thought, maybe that is just a district court decision. That is
a lower court. But here is the Supreme Court of the United States
looking at an exclusivity clause in another statute and calling it
``uncompromising language,'' taking that word ``exclusive'' at its
plain dictionary meaning. There is literally no way I can see to
reconcile OLC's statement with the clear, plain language of Congress.
I have, in the past, expressed the fear that the Office of Legal
Counsel, under veils of secrecy, immune from either public scrutiny or
peer review, became a hothouse of ideology, in which the professional
standards expected of lawyers were thrown to the winds, all in order to
produce the right answers for the bosses over at the White House.
Well, as I said at the beginning, here we go again. Oh, one more
thing. When the Department of Justice sent me the letter acknowledging
that there was nothing that needed to be classified about this phrase,
they also said this phrase was now disclaimed--their opinion was now
disclaimed; not just declassified but disclaimed--by the Department of
Justice.
The letter reads:
[A]s you are aware from a review of the Department's
relevant legal opinions concerning the NSA's warrantless
surveillance activities, the 2001 statement addressing FISA
does not reflect the current analysis of the Department.
But that does not answer this: What went wrong at the OLC? What led
to this disclaimed opinion in the first place, and other opinions I
have had to come to the floor about? Has it been put right? This is an
important question because this is an important institution of our
Government, and we need to be assured it is working for the American
people, that it is of integrity and that it is back to the standards of
legal scholarship that long characterized the once-proud reputation of
that office.
We do not have that assurance. There is a continuing drumbeat of what
appears to be incompetence, and we need the reassurance. We are
entitled to the reassurance. Something has to be done.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Department's letter
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Legislative Affairs,
Washington, DC, May 13, 2008.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein and Senator Whitehouse: This
responds to your letter, dated April 29, 2008, which asked
about a particular statement contained in a classified
November 2001 opinion of the Department's Office of Legal
Counsel addressing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
The statement in question asserted that unless Congress had
made clear in FlSA that it sought to restrict presidential
authority to conduct warrantless surveillance activities in
the national security area, FlSA must be construed to avoid
such a reading. The statement also asserted the view in 2001
that Congress had not included such a clear statement in
FlSA. As you know, and as is set forth in the Department of
Justice's January 2006 white paper concerning the legal basis
[[Page 11783]]
for the Terrorist Surveillance Program, the Department's more
recent analysis is different: Congress, through the
Authorization for Use of Military Force of September 18,
2001, confirmed and supplemented the President's Article II
authority to conduct warrantless surveillance to prevent
catastrophic attacks on the United States, and such authority
confirmed by the AUMF can and must be read consistently with
FlSA, which explicitly contemplates that Congress may
authorize electronic surveillance by a statute other than
FlSA.
We understand you have been advised by the Director of
National Intelligence that the statement in question,
standing alone, may appropriately be treated as unclassified.
We also would like to address separately the substance of the
statement and provide the Department's views concerning
public discussion of the statement.
The general proposition (of which the November 2001
statement is a particular example) that statutes will be
interpreted whenever reasonably possible not to conflict with
the President's constitutional authorities is unremarkable
and fully consistent with the longstanding precedents of OLC,
issued under Administrations of both parties. See, e.g.,
Memorandum for Alan Kreczko, Legal Adviser to the National
Security Council, from Walter Dellinger, Assistant Attorney
General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Applicability of 47
U.S.C. section 502 to Certain Broadcast Activities at 3 (Oct.
15, 1993) (``The President's authority in these areas is very
broad indeed, in accordance with his paramount constitutional
responsibilities for foreign relations and national security.
Nothing in the text or context of [the statute] suggests that
it was Congress's intent to circumscribe this authority. In
the absence of a clear statement of such intent, we do not
believe that a statutory provision of this generality should
be interpreted so to restrict the President constitutional
powers.''). The courts apply the same canon of statutory
interpretation. See, e.g., Department of Navy v. Egan, 484
U.S. 518,530 (1988) (``[U]nless Congress has specifically
provided otherwise, courts traditionally have been reluctant
to intrude upon the authority of the Executive in military
and national security affairs.'').
However, as you are aware from a review of the Department's
relevant legal opinions concerning the NSA's warrantless
surveillance activities, the 2001 statement addressing FISA
does not reflect the current analysis of the Department.
Rather, the Department's more recent analysis of the relation
between FISA and the NSA's surveillance activities
acknowledged by the President was summarized in the
Department's January 19, 2006 white paper (published before
those activities became the subject of FISA orders and before
enactment of the Protect America Act of 2007). As that paper
pointed out, ``In the specific context of the current armed
conflict with al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations,
Congress by statute [in the AUMF] had confirmed and
supplemented the President's recognized authority under
Article II of the Constitution to conduct such surveillance
to prevent further catastrophic attacks on the homeland.''
Legal Authorities Supporting the Activities of the National
Security Agency Described by the President at 2 (Jan. 19,
2006). The Department's white paper further explained the
particular relevance of the canon of constitutional avoidance
to the NSA activities: ``Even if there were ambiguity about
whether FlSA, read together with the AUMF, permits the
President to authorize the NSA activities, the canon of
constitutional avoidance requires reading these statutes to
overcome any restrictions in FISA and Title III, at least as
they might otherwise apply to the congressionally authorized
armed conflict with al Qaeda.'' Id. at 3.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that if you wish to
make use of the 2001 statement in public debate, you also
point out that the Department's more recent analysis of the
question is reflected in the passages quoted above from the
2006 white paper.
We hope that this information is helpful. If we can be of
further assistance regarding this or any other matter, please
do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
Brian A. Benczkowski,
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer again
for his courtesy and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New
Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank you. I will not take long.
____________________
D-DAY AND THE GREATEST GENERATION
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today is a noteworthy anniversary. It
is the anniversary of D-day, the day the largest invasion force in the
history of man landed on the beaches of Normandy.
They came from across the world--133,000 brave soldiers, sailors, and
airmen--from England, Canada, and the United States. On that particular
day, more than 10,000 soldiers died, giving their lives so that their
families, their country, and the rest of the world could live in peace
and be free.
The bravery and honor of those men has come to be known with three
simple words: ``the greatest generation.'' Their sacrifice in battle
and their continued service once they got home defined everything that
was good and right about America. We honored their service and
sacrifice with parades and public ceremonies and memorials to the
fallen, but it was also honored in another way. We gave them the chance
to go to college and pursue an education. We gave them the chance to
build a better future for themselves and their families. Those of us
who served in that terrible war got the chance to begin the innovation
that drove America into the future. We received the GI bill for our
service.
Many veterans of World War II have served in the Senate, many of whom
were honored by medals of valor. We still have someone who served in
World War II who earned the Medal of Honor--Senator Dan Inouye from
Hawaii--for his incredible bravery in World War II, for his bravery
under fire.
I am who I am today because of the GI bill. One of my dreams was to
go to college--a dream that came true because of that bill, the GI
bill. Eight of the sixteen million World War II veterans got an
education because of that bill. It was paid for, and it even carried a
small stipend for the expenses that one had as a college student. Now
we need to start to build a new greatest generation. I want the
veterans of the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan to have the same
opportunity--an opportunity that enables them to contribute to their
families and our Nation.
A college education is a key to that opportunity, but college costs
have jumped so high--57 percent just in the last 6 years. The current
GI bill does not cover those costs. So our brave veterans are forced to
pay for their tuition and books out of their own pockets, watch their
debts get worse and worse, and some cannot get to college at all.
We often say we honor our veterans, but now is the time to show them
what we mean. That is exactly what our new GI bill does. Our bill
closes the gap between the cost of college and the amount the veteran
pays for their education. I am proud to be working with my colleagues.
The occupant of the President's chair right now, Senator Jim Webb of
Virginia, started this process--this bill--16 months ago. Others,
including Senator Chuck Hagel, Senator John Warner, and I, and more
than half of the Senate, are fighting to get them the benefits they
earned. They deserve no less.
The Senate has voted. The House has voted. Now we plead with
President Bush to join with the majority of the Congress, all of the
leading veterans organizations, and the American public in support of
our bill. Since the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, more
than 1.5 million Americans have worn the uniform and served our Nation
with honor and distinction. Now it is time for us to stand with our
veterans who have served since 9/11 so they, too, can build a future
for their families.
After D-day, Americans recognized the sacrifice our troops made and
came together to honor that service. Now is the time for us to stop
playing politics and come together once again.
Our veterans have earned a new GI bill. On this D-day anniversary,
let's give them the respect and the benefits they deserve.
I close with once again commending our colleague, Senator Jim Webb,
who has himself a distinguished military record and insisted from his
earliest days that we take care of our veterans so they can take care
of America and regain the leadership this country has lost and will
retrieve.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Webb). The Senator from North Dakota is
recognized.
____________________
GI BILL
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Lautenberg from New
[[Page 11784]]
Jersey, just described something that is very important. He described
the role of himself and others, and particularly the occupant of the
chair as Presiding Officer, in working on the new GI bill. I was proud
to be a cosponsor. I join him in hoping that President Bush will agree
with the majority of the House and the Senate to look favorably upon
this bill and agree to sign legislation that includes this bill. We owe
it to America's veterans. I appreciate the comments made by my
colleague from New Jersey.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO ROBERT KENNEDY
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to talk just for a moment today
about the cloture vote on climate change legislation earlier today, but
first, while I am getting some charts together, I wanted to mention
also that this is the 40th anniversary that was yesterday of the death
of Robert Kennedy.
I was driving to the Capitol listening to a news report about that
day 40 years ago when Robert Kennedy was assassinated in Los Angeles,
CA, and I was thinking about the fact that I was a very young man back
then working on the Robert Kennedy Presidential campaign in my State
when I heard that he had been assassinated. It was such an unbelievable
blow to me and to all of the others who worked on the campaign and to
so many other Americans who believed his campaign for the Presidency
held such great promise.
Most young people in this country today know nothing about a 1968
Presidential campaign by Robert F. Kennedy. It was an extraordinary
time, and he was an extraordinary man. I wish to read just a couple of
comments by the late Robert F. Kennedy, who was, by the way, a Senator
and served in this body, as well as served as Attorney General of this
country.
He gave a speech once that I have often quoted. It was a speech he
gave in South Africa. Many will know these words. In his speech he said
this:
Few will have the greatness to bend history; but each of us
can work to change a small portion of the events, and in the
total of all these acts will be written the history of a
generation . . . it is from numberless diverse acts of
courage and belief that human history is thus shaped. Each
time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot
of others, or strikes out against injustice, they send forth
a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million
different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a
current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of
oppression and resistance.
He gave that speech June 6, 1966, at the University of Cape Town in
South Africa. People often talk about those ripples of hope that can
sweep down the mightiest walls of resistance and oppression, and that
passion and that dream and belief still exist today.
I reread this morning the speech Robert Kennedy gave during his
Presidential campaign in Indianapolis, IN, on the evening of April 4,
1968, when Martin Luther King was assassinated. The crowd that had
gathered for Robert Kennedy's appearance did not know that Dr. Martin
Luther King had been assassinated and Robert Kennedy came to that area
of Indianapolis. He was asked not to go because of concerns about his
safety. He went anyway and he gave one of the most wonderful speeches.
It was without a note, just an extemporaneous speech that had so much
passion. I shall not read it today, but I ask unanimous consent that it
be printed in the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Ladies and Gentlemen--I'm only going to talk to you just
for a minute or so this evening. Because . . .
I have some very sad news for all of you, and I think sad
news for all of our fellow citizens, and people who love
peace all over the world, and that is that Martin Luther King
was shot and was killed tonight in Memphis, Tennessee.
Martin Luther King dedicated his life to love and to
justice between fellow human beings. He died in the cause of
that effort. In this difficult day, in this difficult time
for the United States, it's perhaps well to ask what kind of
a nation we are and what direction we want to move in.
For those of you who are black--considering the evidence
evidently is that there were white people who were
responsible--you can be filled with bitterness, and with
hatred, and a desire for revenge.
We can move in that direction as a country, in greater
polarization--black people amongst blacks, and white amongst
whites, filled with hatred toward one another. Or we can make
an effort, as Martin Luther King did, to understand and to
comprehend, and replace that violence, that stain of
bloodshed that has spread across our land, with an effort to
understand, compassion and love.
For those of you who are black and are tempted to be filled
with hatred and mistrust of the injustice of such an act,
against all white people, I would only say that I can also
feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling. I had a member
of my family killed, but he was killed by a white man.
But we have to make an effort in the United States, we have
to make an effort to understand, to get beyond these rather
difficult times.
My favorite poet was Aeschylus. He once wrote: ``Even in
our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon
the heart, until, in our own despair, against our will, comes
wisdom through the awful grace of God.''
What we need in the United States is not division; what we
need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the
United States is not violence and lawlessness, but is love
and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling
of justice toward those who still suffer within our country,
whether they be white or whether they be black.
(Interrupted by applause)
So I ask you tonight to return home, to say a prayer for
the family of Martin Luther King, yeah that's true, but more
importantly to say a prayer for our own country, which all of
us love--a prayer for understanding and that compassion of
which I spoke. We can do well in this country. We will have
difficult times. We've had difficult times in the past. And
we will have difficult times in the future. It is not the end
of violence; it is not the end of lawlessness; and it's not
the end of disorder.
But the vast majority of white people and the vast majority
of black people in this country want to live together, want
to improve the quality of our life, and want justice for all
human beings that abide in our land.
(Interrupted by applause)
Let us dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many
years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the
life of this world.
Let us dedicate ourselves to that, and say a prayer for our
country and for our people. Thank you very much. (Applause)--
Robert F. Kennedy, April 4, 1968.
____________________
CLIMATE SECURITY
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the vote this morning was a vote dealing
with climate change. This vote, however, was not a yes or no on climate
change legislation; the vote was on a cloture motion to invoke cloture.
I voted against invoking cloture. I wish to make sure those who have
worked so hard on the legislation we were considering do not feel that
vote diminishes the work they have done.
I believe there is something happening to the climate of this planet.
I believe there is something dealing with global warming that threatens
our future. I believe we have a responsibility to address it. I commend
those who worked on the legislation and brought it to the floor of the
Senate. It was a good start. It was not perfect and needed amendments
in my judgment. A tangled web was created on the floor of the Senate
through no fault of the majority leader who brought this to the floor.
He indicated at the first moment that he wished this to be an open
process with open debate and open opportunity for amendments. The
tangled web that then ensued was a web that led us to a cloture motion
and the filing of a cloture motion. Voting for cloture meant that we
would be prevented from offering an amendment post cloture. I did not
believe I wanted to put myself in that position because I have two
amendments that have been filed. I had two amendments which I wished to
offer and get them pending. Because of procedural hurdles, I was
prevented from doing so because I was prevented from calling up
amendments, even though they were filed. I wasn't very interested in
supporting a cloture motion which would then prevent me from having the
amendments considered by the Senate as we move forward to finish the
piece of legislation. So that represents my view of why I would not
support cloture.
I filed an amendment dealing with additional funding for coal and
carbon capture and storage programs. I think we need to do a couple of
things if we are going to have a global climate
[[Page 11785]]
change bill work. First of all, at the front end, for the first 5, 10,
12 and 14 years, we have to have a kind of Manhattan Project in which
we decide for renewable, efficiency and clean coal energy resources
that we are going to break out of the box and move forward very, very,
very aggressively.
If we are going to deal with this issue, we have to move solar and be
serious about developing substantial capabilities in solar energy. That
requires a massive amount of research and development. We have to be
serious about wind energy and geothermal and biomass as well. We have
to be serious about a whole range of renewable energy resources.
We have not been serious in this country. In 1916 we said to oil and
gas companies: If you want to go find oil and gas, good for you, God
bless you. We want to provide big tax breaks for you for doing it.
These permanent tax breaks have lasted forever regarding oil and gas.
What did we do with those who were pursuing renewable energy? In 1992
we said: We will give you some tax incentives. By the way, they will be
temporary and kind of shallow, and we will extend them five times for a
very short term, and we will let them expire three times. That is a
pathetic, anemic response for a country that ought to, in my judgment,
gallop full speed ahead toward the use of renewable energy. But you
have to have conservation and renewable energy research and development
commitments to achieve that goal.
In addition to that, we are going to have to continue to use coal in
our future. Forty-eight percent of our electricity comes from coal. We
are not in a position where we can simply say we are not going to use
coal. At the front end of this bill, we need to create a substantial
amount of resources to engage in the research and development,
demonstration and commercial deployment of projects that allow us to
use coal to produce electricity without injuring our environment. That
means capturing carbon and sequestering carbon. That is central to the
future use of coal and other fossil fuels.
Now, it is not as if it can't be done. We are doing it in some areas,
but we need so much more work on the research and development end.
This is a plant in North Dakota. It is the only one like it in North
America. We produce synthetic natural gas from lignite coal. We take
pieces of coal, and we produce synthetic gas from it. It works very
well. In fact, it is one of the world's largest demonstrations for
capturing and storing carbon. We capture 50 percent of the carbon from
this plant; put it in a pipeline; move it to Saskatchewan, Canada; and
invest it underground into Canadian oil wells to pump up and produce
more oil.
Most oil that is drilled from underground pools only provides about
30 percent of its potential. The rest remains in the ground. If you can
use CO2 from fossil fuels at electric power plants and other
facilities, that CO2 would not be released into the
atmosphere to impact the climate. At the same time, you can use that
CO2 instead for beneficial purposes and invest into an oil
well. Thus, you not only put the CO2 underground and
sequester it, you also enhance domestic oil development and production.
There are a lot of things going on. But the underlying bill didn't
have nearly enough funding at the front end, in my judgment, for the
research and development component. My filed amendment would shift $20
billion in funding in the bill to say we are going to get serious. This
is going to be a Manhattan-type project to find ways to continue to use
our most abundant resource and do so without spoiling our environment.
There is research going on but not nearly enough. I can give you a
couple of examples.
A Texas company came to see me. They are taking coal for electricity.
They have a couple of small demonstration projects which burn coal to
produce electricity. They are treating the effluent that comes from the
plant chemically, and as it comes out of the plant, they are capturing
the CO2 and producing byproducts, including hydrogen,
chloride, and baking soda. The baking soda contains CO2. In
fact, this company brought me some cookies and said these come from
coal. They are making the point that, by capturing the CO2
from a coal plant, you can end up with baking soda used for baking
cookies. It is a clever way to describe that there are innovative ways
to capture CO2 and protect our environment, even as we use
our most abundant domestic resource.
This photo is of single-cell pond scum, called algae. I was in
Arizona recently and saw a demonstration plant that is producing algae
by taking CO2 off of a plant and putting it in greenhouses
that produce algae. Algae is produced in water which need sunlight and
CO2 to grow. So it consumes CO2 by producing
algae, single celled pond scum. It grows quickly, increasing its bulk
in hours. They can harvest it for diesel fuel. So you actually capture
the CO2 and produce a beneficial use which is a biodiesel
fuel. There are ways for us to do this.
My point is that if we are going to have a bill that works, you need
to have dramatic funding commitment for research, development and
demonstration up front. That was not the case with the pending bill. I
know some will argue that it is. This is known as the kick-start fund
for coal and is largely for demonstration and deployment. That is
different from the massive need for additional research we need. We
need a Manhattan Project to make these investments. That is a different
kind of funding than the research and technology we need if we are
going to decide that we are going to unlock the mystery and use our
most abundant resource in the future. We continue to need investments
in research and development as well as demonstration and deployment
programs for coal to thrive in a carbon constrained world.
I am also a fan of wind energy, energy from the wind, for producing
electricity. It makes sense. That doesn't contribute environmental
problems like emitting greenhouse gases. Also, there is geothermal and
biomass, the production of ethanol, and hopefully cellulosic ethanol in
the future.
I was visited by Dr. Craig Venter the other day who is working to
create microbes and bacteria that would essentially eat the coal or
convert it into liquid fuels as it is being processed by these microbes
while underground. That is pretty exciting. I also mentioned the other
day that we are studying termites in the science area of our
Government. These are the kinds of things people might ridicule. They
say why are we spending all this money to study termites. Termites eat
your house. When they eat wood, we understand now they produce methane
gas, as a lot of living things do. We are trying to figure out what in
the 200 microbes in the gut of a termite might allow them to eat your
house. If we can figure out how to break down woody products, it is
important in terms of producing future energy from cellulosic ethanol.
There is a lot to do. If we are going to be serious about climate
change and global warming--and we should be, in my judgment--two things
are necessary: One, we need to have kind of a Manhattan Project that in
a very short period of time is going to find ways to dramatically
increase the use of renewables. Second, we are going to dramatically
accelerate our effort to determine how we can use coal and other fossil
fuels and still protect our environment by capturing and sequestering
carbon or providing a beneficial use of carbon. That is expensive, but
we can get that done. That was the amendment I had, which would shift
$20 billion to the front end of this to say: Let's do this in a serious
manner.
I wanted to indicate that my vote on cloture earlier today should not
diminish the work and effort and intent of others with respect to
climate change. I think something is happening in our climate. Most of
us believe we will be seeing climate change legislation passing through
the Congress at some point in the near future--perhaps as early as next
year. When it is done, it needs to be done in a manner that is
reflective of all of strengths and resources of our country to move
ahead in unison in doing the right thing in the right way.
[[Page 11786]]
____________________
PRICE OF GASOLINE
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I spent part of this morning visiting with
some experts about the issue of energy speculation and the price of
gasoline. I am very concerned about the price of gasoline. I come from
a State that not only produces a lot of energy but uses a lot of
petroleum products. We are a farm State and a big State with a sparse
population. North Dakota is spread over the equivalent of 10
Massachusettses in landmass. We use a lot of energy per capita. When
the price does what it has been doing recently, it is very harmful to a
rural State that does a lot of family farming and requires people to
travel a lot because of its sheer size.
Here is what happened to oil prices in the last year: They have
doubled. There is no justification for that--none. There is no
justification for this at all. Get this, crude oil futures hit a record
$139 per barrel today.
I used to teach a little economics in college--not in a serious way.
I taught the supply and demand intersection and what happens to price.
I understand all that. If we take a look at supply and demand, there is
nothing that justifies what is happening in the futures market with
respect to oil prices.
Now back up 14 months, in fact, to the time prior to the price of oil
doubling and ask yourself what happened in this world. Were we
oblivious then to the fact that India and China were going to want more
fuel in their economies? I understand there are probably 150 million
Chinese who want to drive cars. Where are they going to get the fuel? A
lot of folks in India want to drive cars too. I understand all of that.
These signals were already in the market 16 and 18 months ago. That is
not different.
Here is also what I understand. Since the first part of this year,
our inventories of petroleum stocks have been going up in this country
and use has been going down. People are driving slightly less and using
less. So what is happening to price? It has doubled.
I will tell you what I think is happening. On the oil commodity
markets, we have a dramatic orgy of speculation and carnival of greed.
Are all of the speculators who are neck deep in these markets there
because they want oil or want to hold oil? Have they tried to lift a
42-gallon drum? I don't think so. They want to make money speculating.
As a result all of this excess speculation, they are driving up the
price of a commodity. That damages this country and injures most
Americans.
This is what has happened to speculation. This Congress and this
President have a responsibility to stop it. When excess speculation
damages an economy, damages the country and its people, we have a
responsibility to stop excess speculation.
This is a picture of NYMEX, where they trade commodities. Most people
have seen pictures of the floor of a trading session like this. In
fact, I think it was 80 years ago when Will Rogers talked about these
guys buying things they will never get from people who never had it. At
NYMEX, they trade futures contracts.
Let me describe what one fellow testified before the Energy
Committee. By the way, he has had 30 or 35 years as an executive
analyst in these markets. Fadel Gheit said this:
There is absolutely no shortage of oil. I am absolutely
convinced that oil prices shouldn't be a dime above $55 a
barrel. I called it the world's largest gambling hall. It's
open 24/7. Unfortunately, it is totally unregulated. This is
like a highway with no cops and no speed limits, and
everybody is going 120 miles an hour.
Mr. President, the New Jersey Star Ledger wrote:
Experts, including the former head of ExxonMobil, say
financial speculation in the energy markets has grown so much
over the last 30 years that it now adds 20 to 30 percent to
the cost of a barrel of oil.
The president of Marathon Oil, Clarence Cazalot, Jr., said:
$100 oil isn't justified by the physical demand in the
market.
Here is an oil executive saying this price isn't justified.
Stephen Simon, a senior vice president at Exxon, said on April 1,
2008:
The price of oil should be about $50 to $55 per barrel.
Mr. President, how did we get here? On December 15, 2000, in this
Chamber, one of our colleagues, Senator Gramm from Texas, stuck a
little provision into the Commodity Futures Modernization Act which was
included in a very big piece of legislation that was being enacted. I
believe it was the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000, a large
supplemental bill being done. That little provision changed everything.
Prior to that time, prior to Senator Gramm from Texas putting this
provision into law, every futures contract in this country was subject
to regulation and oversight. Senator Gramm stuck a provision in a very
big piece of legislation that said essentially certain commodity
provisions need not be subject to regulation and oversight. Then it
started. That was called the Enron loophole.
I know something about that because I chaired the hearings at which
the late Ken Lay, the CEO and president of Enron Corporation,
testified. He raised his hand, took an oath, sat down, and then took
the fifth amendment. He ran one of the biggest energy companies in this
country. We found out that at least part of it was a criminal
enterprise. It benefitted greatly by the actions of the Congress, and
only a few in the Congress knew what they were trying to do. That
created this loophole by which Enron and others down the road could
create an energy market that was unregulated, outside of the view of
regulators and of the grasp of regulators.
So now, going forward from December 15, 2000, to today, what is
happening is that we have seen, outside of the purview of regulators, a
dramatic amount, an obscene amount of speculation in energy markets.
I have met with experts who have said that there is no speculation
here. Yesterday, I met with a person yesterday, someone who is an
expert in this area and runs a major corporation, who said there is no
speculation here. That is just wrong. That is false on its face. All
one has to do is look at what is happening in these markets. Can
anybody, anyplace, anytime, anywhere tell us that something has
happened in the last 14 months in terms of the market fundamentals that
justifies doubling the price of oil or gasoline? There is nothing that
justifies that.
This Congress cannot sit around any longer. I know the President and
the Vice President opposed responding to the electricity crisis out
West when they first came to office. I recall when some of us in
Congress were trying to take some action against what was happening to
hijack wholesale electric prices on the West Coast by the Enron
Corporation that they stood by idly. I and others pushed and pushed.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said there is nothing going on
there. Dick Cheney made fun of us, saying these markets are working, we
just don't like markets. The President didn't want to do anything. We
finally found out what was something illegal happening. Every day was
criminal. They were manipulating supply in a criminal way, and there
are people sitting in prison for it. Ken Lay died beforehand, but he
was on his way to prison because it was a criminal enterprise he was
conducting. And the Vice President was belittling those of us in
Congress who were trying to do something about it. The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission was dead asleep, very content to do nothing.
That cannot continue to be replicated now. We have to do something to
soak the speculation out of these futures markets. There needs to be a
futures market for energy, I support that. There are legitimate hedging
requirements, I understand that. There needs to be liquidity, I
understand that. But when you have excessive speculation that damages
this country and runs up the price of oil to double the price when, in
fact, the market fundamentals do not justify it. Hedge funds,
investment banks, and many others rush into these markets in order to
make profits through speculation and the public be damned. It doesn't
matter what it does to the country, then something is wrong, and it is
the responsibility of the Congress to act. It is our responsibility and
requirement. We cannot sit around and ignore this any longer.
[[Page 11787]]
I had a call from the owner of a trucking company in North Dakota the
other day. They have been running a trucking firm for years. His dad
ran it, and his family has been running it for four or five decades. He
said: I don't think we can continue. We can't afford the price of
diesel fuel.
I understand we have had 12 airlines that have gone into bankruptcy.
I know of five in the last 6 or 8 weeks. The fact is, this country
cannot exist without a vibrant aviation industry. We have to have
airline companies that are able to move Americans back and forth across
the country. The price of jet fuel is even worse than the description I
just offered with respect to gasoline and oil.
We need to work on this issue in a very aggressive and urgent way,
and we need to do something that shuts down this speculation. I
indicated yesterday that I am working on legislation to try to do that
and to try to make certain we have a completely regulated system with
respect to the trading of these contracts.
First of all, they ought to be regulated. Some say that, if we try to
regulate them here, they will move offshore. We ought to be able to
regulate it. If you are in this country, you want to play games in the
commodities markets as a speculator, if you are picking up a telephone
and trade commodities in this country, as far as I am concerned, you
ought to be regulated with respect to your order of commodities
contract.
A lot of work is being done. As I said, I spent part of this morning
with experts who understand the complexities and the vagaries of these
commodity markets and especially the oil markets and the speculation
that is occurring. I side with those who believe there is excessive
speculation and that there is a requirement that we do something about
it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary
procedure we are in?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in a period of morning business.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, if I may be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
____________________
HIGH GAS PRICES
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we are getting ready to
consider the gasoline bill next week and all its ramifications for the
American public who are suffering under $4 and $4-plus gas.
A few days ago, this Senator showed a photograph of a town in north
Florida, Madison, FL, in Madison County, downtown, the local Shell Oil
station. Regular in the State of Florida, reflected in that photograph
of a few days ago, was at $4.10 a gallon.
It goes without saying that our people are hurting. And I can tell
you, having had 18 townhall meetings last week all over my State, that
hurting has turned into frustration, and that frustration is turning
into anger.
Now, there is a new poll out this week that reflects the increasing
number of Americans who believe it is the supply and demand of oil that
is driving these prices to record highs--just the supply and demand. We
know we have a very tight world oil market, and we know places such as
India and China in fact are consuming more oil, and their demand is
higher. We understand that makes the world's oil markets all the more
tight. And believe it or not, because of that, and because of this
constant amount of information coming out from the oil sector about
supply and demand creating the tight oil market, the American people
are believing that is the cause of these record oil prices, believing
that translates into these very high gasoline prices.
It is interesting because it is just at a time that the Senate has
voted to close the so-called Enron loophole, which is perhaps the real
culprit to blame in the shocking runup of the oil prices.
Now, what is the Enron loophole? Back in the year 2000, legislation
was passed that exempted oil and metals from being regulated on the
commodity futures exchange. That meant that as contracts for future
purchase of oil and metals are being traded, there is no government
oversight, no government regulation of how much those can go up. So as
long as the participants bidding for those futures contracts continue
to bid the price of those oil contracts higher and higher, in fact the
price of that oil on the world market continues to go higher and
higher, much over and above what normal supply and demand would cause
the price to be.
This closing of that Enron loophole has just occurred. It is still in
the works because even though it was added to the farm bill, the farm
bill was vetoed by the President. The veto was then overridden and,
therefore, it came into law immediately upon the override.
Nevertheless, we found that we omitted a section of the farm bill, so
we are going back and redoing that all over again. We just passed the
farm bill again in its entirety in the Senate yesterday, last night. It
does have the Enron loophole closure in the bill. Presumably, that will
be passed by the House, go down to the President for signature, he will
veto it again, and then it will come back to both Houses for
overriding, like we did before about 2 or 3 weeks ago, and the Enron
loophole will be closed. There are a bunch of us, including this
Senator, who were cosponsors of this provision. Hopefully, it is going
to address this loophole.
But what happened in the past? It was enacted back in 2000--in
December of 2000. I believe that loophole, when enacted, was exploited
by energy traders. This is based on the mounting evidence that we see
over and over. It is at least a partial cause of the huge runup in the
gas prices.
Well, I think we need to do more on this Enron loophole. There have
been some commentaries by some experts that say we should be closing it
further. And if we need to do that, this Senator is certainly ready to
do it. But right now what needs further examination is how we got to
this point in the first place. How did this provision in law, leaving
this huge hole big enough to drive a Mack truck through get to this
point where it essentially exempted the trading of oil futures from
Federal commodities regulation? How did that become the law of the
land? What was the role of lobbyists and oil companies and investment
banks and commodity speculators? We need answers to those questions.
We have seen through testimony to the Congress and from other reports
that unchecked commodities trading plays a very significant role in
rising gasoline prices. We know high gas prices are not merely a
function of supply and demand in the marketplace. In fact, we ought to
know this from several years ago.
A subcommittee, led by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, found that
supplies were mostly adequate, but it found something else was missing.
What was the role that caused these prices to be jacked up? Just a few
days ago, financier George Soros told our Senate Commerce Committee--in
fact, just this past Tuesday--that a dramatic increase in commodities
trading in recent years has contributed to the oil bubble and its
``harmful economic consequences.''
Indeed, loosely regulated speculators appear to have bid up oil
prices to these unrealistic highs. There are also links between oil
companies and investment banks in the oil futures trading. And this is
what these reports are showing. The Senate investigations subcommittee,
in a bipartisan way, under the leadership of Senator Levin, released a
report finding that there was lax Federal oversight of oil and gas
traders due to the loophole slipped into the law in 2000, and it was
slipped in at the behest, according to the Levin report, of the now
infamous Enron Corporation, along with oil companies and
[[Page 11788]]
investment banks. That is according to the Levin report.
Other links between soaring oil prices and vast sums of money now
flowing through these commodity markets were uncovered by a Homeland
Security panel and our colleague, Independent-Democrat Senator Joe
Lieberman. In fact, a top oil executive for a major oil company
recently testified before a House panel that crude oil, under normal
supply and demand, ought to be around $55 a barrel, based on the rule
of supply and demand. Yet last week it went up to $135, and it is
somewhere in the $130-a-barrel range today.
Mr. President, I think those investigations into the cause of the
runup of the price of oil ought to continue. An estimated one-third of
the amount of the runup of the price of oil can be blamed on
speculators having poured tens of billions of dollars into the
unregulated energy commodities markets in the wake of that so-called
Enron loophole that deregulated those commodities markets. In essence,
the loophole exempted electronic trading of energy and metal by large
traders--exempted them from Federal commodities regulation. Since then
the price of oil and natural gas has skyrocketed, and that is all
despite reports that the supplies are mostly adequate.
Next week we are going to try to take up legislation aimed at getting
at this situation of high gas prices. This Senator intends to address
this issue.
If, in fact, as that oil company executive said, supply and demand
ought to cause oil to be trading at $55, why is it trading in excess of
$130? What role do the unregulated commodities markets play, and how
did that get into law? How much of that capital out there is flowing
into that because those markets are unregulated, thereby driving up
that price to what we have today?
We see one Federal agency that otherwise regulates futures trading
has said it will investigate allegations of short-term manipulation of
crude oil prices. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission also said it
would work with British regulators to monitor large trades of crude oil
by a London futures exchange known as ICE, Intercontinental Exchange.
Some of the founding members of that intercontinental exchange, it has
been reported, were instrumental in getting the Enron loophole through
Congress back in the year 2000. It was ill-conceived public policy at
best, and it should be reversed. Next week we are going to have a
chance to do something about it because we have legislation on the
price of gasoline coming to the Senate floor.
By having greater oversight and regulation on oil trading, we
obviously have to go beyond that and look to our commitment to a
comprehensive national energy policy. Fifty percent of the oil we use
goes into transportation, and most of that is for our personal
vehicles. So it should not take a rocket scientist to realize we must
focus on conservation measures like 40 miles per gallon as a fleet
average for our vehicles. We finally broke through and got through the
Senate 35 miles per gallon phased in over the next 12 years. Maybe we
ought to accelerate that.
We ought to look at providing bigger tax breaks for hybrid and plug-
in hybrid vehicles. Ultimately, we must look to the research and
development of electric and hydrogen-powered cars.
All of this is going to fall in the lap of the next President. The
next President is going to have to urge us--and I hope we will support
the next President--to enact a national energy program to transition us
from gasoline to alternative, synthetic, and renewable fuels to power
much of this economic engine of America.
President Kennedy led us on such a monumental task, and that was the
task to escape the bonds of Earth within a decade, to go to the Moon,
and return safely. We did that. We must act with the same urgency now.
While we are at it, we are going to have to make ethanol from things
that we do not eat. While we are at that, we are going to have to pay
attention to how we power, not just our cars and trucks, but our homes
and our industries.
We need to develop solar and wind and thermal energy and safe nuclear
power. The world is begging for change. One of the most enormous
changes that needs to be brought about is how we utilize and how we
create energy and how we are going to utilize and create energy for the
future. We have a chance to do that next week when we take up this
legislation about the high price of gasoline.
I yield the floor.
____________________
IN REMEMBRANCE OF JAMES BYRD, JR.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to remember a life that was
untimely taken and to recall a horrific hate crime that shocked a
nation. Ten years ago this week James Byrd, Jr., was dragged 3 miles--
chained to the back of pickup truck--on a rural road in Jasper County,
TX, to his death. It was said that a blood trail of body parts and
personal effects stretched over 2 miles, with Byrd's severed head,
right arm, and neck found almost a mile from where his tattered torso
was discarded. Byrd's face had been spray painted black.
James Byrd was a victim of the cruelest form of racial intolerance.
He was murdered for no other reason than for the color of his skin. To
think that such a senseless crime could occur in the wake of so many of
our Nation's civil rights milestones is disheartening. It is also a
stark reminder that much work remains to be done in protecting
minorities and ending intolerance.
No American should have to live in fear because of their sexual
orientation, race, gender, national origin, or disability. As a nation,
we cannot afford to become complacent. We must forever strive to reach
the golden rings of democracy--that is, equality, opportunity, freedom
and tolerance. We must also remain vigilant and guard against
individuals and groups that seek to marginalize and terrorize whole
groups of individuals. That is why, as I have done many times before, I
come to the floor to urge my colleagues to enact Federal hate crimes
legislation this year. We must pass this legislation and send a message
that crimes of intolerance and hate are especially deplorable.
The Government's first duty is to defend its citizens and to defend
them against violence and harm associated with intolerance and hate. I
have introduced legislation, the Matthew Shepard Act, with my colleague
Senator Ted Kennedy, to ensure that the Government has all the
resources necessary to investigate and prosecute hate-motivated crimes.
The Matthew Shepard Act would better equip the Government to fulfill
its most important obligation of protecting all of its citizens.
On this anniversary of the death of James Byrd, let us renew our
Nation's commitment to protecting all Americans regardless of their
sexual orientation, race, religion, national origin, gender,
disability, or color by passing the Matthew Shepard Act.
____________________
PAKISTAN
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, during the Senate recess at the end of
last month, I visited the central front in our Nation's fight against
al-Qaida: Pakistan. During my 4-day stay, I met with a broad range of
political officials from numerous parties, including the Pakistan
People's Party of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and the PLM-N of
former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, as well as with President Pervez
Musharraf, Pakistani intelligence officials, the ousted chief justice,
and representatives of Pakistan's civil society. Outside of Islamabad,
my visit included a trip to Peshawar, in the tumultuous Northwest
Frontier Province, where I met with local officials, and Kashmir, where
the United States has funded numerous successful humanitarian and
development programs in the wake of the devastating 2005 earthquake.
The breadth of this trip was commensurate with the critical
importance of Pakistan to our country's national security. Despite
recent claims by CIA Director Michael Hayden that al-Qaida is now on
the defensive, including in its
[[Page 11789]]
safe haven in Pakistan, I traveled there because it is out of that
country that we face our most serious national security threat. As the
intelligence community has said again and again, the fight against al-
Qaida begins in Pakistan. According to the State Department's 2007
terrorism report which was released this past April, al-Qaida and
associated networks remain the greatest terrorist threat to the United
States. That threat emanates from the reconstitution of some of al-
Qaida's pre-9/11 capabilities ``through the exploitation of Pakistan's
Federally Administered Tribal Areas.'' The report added that
instability in Pakistan, ``coupled with the Islamabad brokered cease-
fire agreement in effect for the first half of 2007 along the Pakistan-
Afghanistan frontier, appeared to have provided AQ leadership greater
mobility and ability to conduct training and operational planning,
particularly that targeting Western Europe and the United States.''
During my visit, I conducted extensive discussions with Pakistani
leaders about ceasefire negotiations, in the Federally Administered
Tribal Areas, FATA, as well as in the Swat region of the NWFP. I remain
skeptical about those negotiations and am particularly concerned that
those in the FATA region will give al-Qaida room to plot against our
troops in Afghanistan and our citizens here in the United States. The
new civilian-led Government in Pakistan is seeking a different approach
from that of President Musharraf, and that is understandable--it has,
in fact, been mandated by the people of Pakistan, and it is high time
they have a responsive government that heeds their call. A key part of
this new approach will require success in reining in the military
apparatus, which has historically controlled much of Pakistan's foreign
policy--sometimes overtly with a military dictator running the country
and other times more discreetly from behind a screen of a civilian-led
government. But as Pakistan's new Government seeks to reconcile these
complex, multilayered issues, it must not do so at the expense of the
grave threats emanating from the border region. We must address those
threats head-on because what happens in the terrorist safe haven of
FATA is central to our national security, and we cannot afford to be
distracted or complacent. To do so would be to the detriment of our
safety and security as well as that of our friends and allies.
At the same time, any long-term counterterrorism strategy in the FATA
must include serious economic reforms, legal political party
development, and initiatives to integrate FATA with the rest of
Pakistan. This will not be easy, but it is long overdue and will help
ensure we are using all the tools at our disposal to fight al-Qaida and
associated terrorist threats. The growing extremism and creation of a
terrorist safe haven in FATA has emerged out of decades of political
marginalization and ensuing poverty. In working closely with the FATA
political agents and local law enforcement, as well as the Government
of Pakistan, we need to help create sustainable development strategies
that provide opportunities for engagement while ensuring sufficient
financial resources are allocated to those in need now and in the years
to come.
This must include not only traditional development projects but
institution building and political engagement in a region long deprived
of such opportunities. The people of the FATA must have alternative
livelihood options that help facilitate opposition to terrorists and
extremists.
At the same time, we must find Osama Bin Laden and his senior
leaders, and we must work to neutralize forces that plot or carry out
attacks against Americans. But that cannot be our only goal. This fight
runs much deeper than a simple manhunt--if we are serious about
countering al-Qaida, and preventing another Bin Laden from emerging, we
must shift our assistance to be more aligned with the needs of the
local population and expand our development assistance throughout a
country where poverty and anti-Western sentiment are pervasive.
This administration's policies toward Pakistan have been highly
damaging to our long-term national security. By embracing and relying
on a single, unpopular, antidemocratic leader--namely, President
Musharraf--President Bush failed to develop a comprehensive
counterterrorism strategy that transcends individuals. He also
encouraged Pakistanis to be skeptical about American intentions and
principles. The recent elections provide a window of opportunity as the
people of Pakistan soundly rejected President Musharraf's leadership in
favor of political parties that promised a new direction. Although
domestic politics remain fragile, we have an opportunity to reverse our
history of neglect and mixed signals by expanding our relationships and
supporting fundamental democratic institutions instead of one strong
man--something the President may still be reluctant to do. We must do
this so that our counterterrorism partnership can withstand the ups and
downs of Pakistan's domestic politics, reflecting a more wide-ranging
approach that does not ratchet up the already high levels of anti-
American sentiment in that country.
Any enduring counterterrorism partnership must recognize that
Pakistan, despite the coups and military dictatorships that have marred
its history, has a democratic tradition, a vibrant civil society, and a
large and educated middle class whose interests and values frequently
coincide with ours. By working with those Pakistanis and supporting
their desire to promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law,
we align ourselves with the moderate forces that are critical to the
fight against extremism. Supporting the Pakistani people as they seek
to strengthen democratic institutions is not just an outgrowth of our
values--it is in our national security interests. The counterterrorism
efforts we need from Islamabad must be serious and sustained in a way
that only democratic processes can ensure.
For these reasons, I have been deeply disappointed by the Bush
administration's failure to condemn the illegal dismissal of the chief
justice of Pakistan and scores of other judges and its refusal to call
for their reinstatement. The ousting of the judges has become a cause
celebre for Pakistan's civil society. It prompted the creation of a
``Lawyers' Movement''--a moderate, democratic uprising that Americans
should embrace. During my time in Pakistan, I visited with the chief
justice and shortly thereafter called for the judges to be reinstated
because it is a clear violation of the basic tenets of the rule of law.
I was asked whether I had made such a call in support of a particular
political party and whether I also sought the removal of President
Musharraf. I responded that those are issues for the Pakistanis to
determine, and I continue to believe that is the case. Indeed, while
the political landscape in Pakistan remains turbulent and fragile, I
have no intention of meddling in domestic affairs. Nonetheless, it is
unacceptable for the United States to sit back in the face of such
fundamentally undemocratic actions. We cannot be selective in the
democratic principles we support--that is not consistent with our
values, and it is shortsighted in terms of our national security.
Mr. President, the emergence of a new civilian leadership in Pakistan
provides an opening for us to develop a new approach--a new
relationship--that includes a sustainable, comprehensive
counterterrorism partnership. We must seize this opportunity because,
despite a great deal of anti-American sentiment, in many areas the
Pakistanis are ready and willing to work with us. This is not to say
that this process will be free from challenges--there are already
serious hurdles that must be dealt with, including negotiations in the
FATA and NWFP, both of which are cause for concern. In the end, we must
recognize that the new leadership reflects a broad cross-section of
Pakistan, and by fully engaging them, we can take an important step
toward defending our national security interests in the central front
in the fight against al-Qaida.
[[Page 11790]]
____________________
FREIGHT RAIL INDUSTRY
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to address the impact the
freight rail industry has on reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.
According to a recent Department of Transportation study, freight
traffic is expected to increase 67 percent by 2020--against a backdrop
of concerns about global climate change, the stringency of clean air
standards, increased traffic congestion, high energy prices, and the
need for greater energy independence. Freight rail is the most energy
efficient and environmentally friendly mode of land transportation.
Today, freight rail can move a ton of freight 436 miles on a single
gallon of diesel. U.S. freight railroads have significantly reduced
their carbon intensity and fuel efficiency. In 1980, 1 gallon of diesel
fuel moved 1 ton of freight by rail an average of 235 miles. In 2007,
the same amount of fuel moved 1 ton of freight by rail an average of
436 miles roughly equivalent to the distance from Boston to Baltimore
and an 80-percent increase over 1980. Depending upon the type of cargo
being transported and the number of cars, a single freight train is
capable of being as productive as 500 trucks.
I am pleased that CSX is working with Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina,
West Virginia, and Pennsylvania on the National Gateway. The National
Gateway is a plan to create a more efficient rail route linking Mid-
Atlantic ports with midwestern markets, improving the flow of rail
traffic between these regions by increasing the use of double-stack
trains. This public-private partnership will upgrade tracks, equipment
and facilities, and provide clearance allowing double-stack intermodal
trains.
The National Gateway proposes preparing three major rail corridors
for double-stack clearance: I-95 corridor between North Carolina and
Baltimore, MD, via Washington, DC; I-70/I-76 corridor between
Washington, DC, and northwest Ohio via Pittsburgh, PA; and Carolina
corridor between Wilmington, NC and Charlotte, NC. The result will be
thousands of new jobs, improved railway reliability, and the diversion
of heavy trucks from crowded highways leading to reduced emissions and
highway maintenance costs and improved road safety.
Since the I-70/I-76 corridor between Washington, DC, and northwest
Ohio is a highly traveled route, it is well-located to become an
efficient link between the east coast and midwestern markets. Expansion
of rail infrastructure in Columbus, OH, and North Baltimore, OH, will
help alleviate some of the freight congestion in the Chicago,
Cincinnati and Cleveland areas. The National Gateway project would
build a new rail terminal in North Baltimore, OH, and expand intermodal
capacity in Columbus, creating thousands of new jobs. I look forward to
working with the Virginia, North Carolina, West Virginia, and
Pennsylvania delegations to make this partnership a reality.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
TRIBUTE TO KELLY CONE AND LISA SCHWARTZ
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, last month, I was contacted by SFC
John Cone and CPT David Schwartz, both forward deployed in Iraq at
Tactical Psychological Operations headquarters. For each of these
soldiers, this is their second deployment in support of the global war
on terror. While both of these soldiers are dedicated and decorated
servicemembers as well as public servants serving as civilian law
enforcement officers at home, I want to honor in the Record of the
Senate today their devoted and compassionate spouses back home.
Prior to their deployment in January 2008 with the 310th Tactical
Psychological Operations Company, Detachment 1620 at Fort Gillem, their
spouses, Kelly Cone and Lisa Schwartz, established a family readiness
group to help support the deployed soldiers and their families back
home. While Mrs. Cone and Mrs. Schwartz are both caring and devoted
mothers at home with many other responsibilities, they took it upon
themselves to create a Web page for their Family Readiness Group and
began conducting regular information meetings and monthly ``coffee
chat'' sessions with the families and spouses of the deployed soldiers.
These sessions not only kept the families inspired but also kept them
informed regarding the details surrounding the deployment of their
loved ones. Attendance has been high and the families receptive, each
of the members providing input and assistance as needed. I was simply
amazed to learn of all of their efforts and accomplishments in keeping
the information channels and support networks fully functioning. For
example, the Family Readiness Group recently mobilized to assist one of
its members, a young woman who had gone into labor, and helped
coordinate the redeployment of her husband from Iraq.
These two determined spouses did not stop with their Family Readiness
Group efforts alone and have set about to aid in the establishment of a
Family Readiness Group for the remainder of the 310th Company, set to
deploy in the summer of 2009. They will host a Family Day in August to
bring the new and old members together.
Mrs. Cone and Mrs. Schwartz serve as shining examples of today's Army
spouses. Today's military spouses understand and seek to support their
loved ones who have been called up and deployed into harm's way. It is
my hope that the efforts of Kelly Cone and Lisa Schwartz will serve as
a model for other families with deployed loved ones. It gives me a
great deal of pleasure and it is a privilege to recognize on the Senate
floor these dedicated and loving spouses for their outstanding efforts,
patriotism, and selfless achievements.
____________________
CONGRATULATING ALAN F. HARRE ON HIS RETIREMENT
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I wish to extend my heartfelt
congratulations to Alan Harre on the occasion of his retirement from
the presidency of Valparaiso University in Valparaiso, IN.
I have known Alan for many years and have greatly valued his
insightful guidance. He is a man of singular character and faith whose
leadership has been an important cornerstone for Valparaiso University
and the community in which it resides since his arrival there in 1988.
As the University's 17th president, Dr. Harre has overseen an
exciting two decades of growth and expansion on campus. With his
support a center for the arts was built, as was the Kade-Duesenberg
German House and Cultural Center, the Christopher Center for Library
and Information Resources, and the Kallay-Christopher Hall. In
addition, several renovation and structural expansion projects owe
their success to Dr. Harre's commitment and vision toward making
Valparaiso a world-class collegiate environment.
But perhaps President Harre's most impressive achievements have very
little to do with mere brick and mortar building projects. They include
a considerable expansion of the university's nationally ranked graduate
programs, greater enrollment of minorities and international students,
the establishment of 11 endowed chairs and professorships to attract
and retain high caliber instructors, and technological upgrades that
offer students 21st century tools and skill-sets.
While President Harre will be dearly missed back in Valparaiso, I am
confident that the legacy he leaves behind will continue to be a great
boon for this lauded institution of learning. I wish Alan every success
as he pursues new challenges and adventures.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO HENRY AND HOMER MONTGOMERY
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish today, June 6, 2008, the
64th anniversary of the Allied Powers' invasion of Normandy, to pay
tribute to Henry and Homer Montgomery, two brothers who answered their
Nation's call to duty. These brothers, like so many of their peers,
gave up the comforts of home to go to an unfamiliar land to fight in
defense of our Nation.
[[Page 11791]]
Henry Montgomery, now 92, hit the beach at Normandy on June 7, 1944.
He served in the European theater as an artilleryman and motorcycle
courier, walking much of the way between Normandy and Berlin. This
journey of nearly 1,000 miles was so arduous that when he arrived in
Berlin, he was medically discharged and returned to our shores on a
hospital ship.
Homer Montgomery, now 82, served in the Pacific theater toward the
end of World War II halfway around the world from his brother. He was a
Military Police officer who served through the end of the war.
The contributions made by these two brothers are an excellent example
of the sacrifices made by our greatest generation. They were able to
see our nation and our allies emerge from the war victorious and return
home unlike so many of their brothers in arms. Their commitment to this
struggle and that of their comrades was critical to securing our
liberties, and our nation is forever indebted to them.
And so, Mr. President I am honored to pay tribute to these two great
American patriots. May they greatly enjoy the freedom they have secured
for all of us.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
At 11:26 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H.R. 3021. An act to direct the Secretary of Education to
make grants to State educational agencies for the
modernization, renovation, or repair of public school
facilities, and for other purposes.
H.R. 5540. An act to amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative
Act of 1998 to provide for the continuing authorization of
the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.
H.R. 5940. An act to authorize activities for support of
nanotechnology research and development, and for other
purposes.
____________________
MEASURES REFERRED
The following bill was read the first and the second times by
unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
H.R. 5940. An act to authorize activities for support of
nanotechnology research and development, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
____________________
MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR
The following joint resolution was read the second time, and placed
on the calendar:
H.J. Res. 92. A joint resolution increasing the statutory
limit on the public debt.
____________________
MEASURES READ THE FIRST TIME
The following bills were read the first time:
S. 3098. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other
purposes.
S. 3101. A bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social
Security Act to extend expiring provisions under the Medicare
program, to improve beneficiary access to preventive and
mental health services, to enhance low-income benefit
programs, and to maintain access to care in rural areas,
including pharmacy access, and for other purposes.
____________________
EXECUTIVE REPORT OF COMMITTEE
The following executive report of a nomination was submitted:
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER for the Select Committee on
Intelligence.
*Michael E. Leiter, of the District of Columbia, to be
Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Office of
the Director of National Intelligence.
*Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed
subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear
and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
S. 3096. A bill to amend the National Cave and Karst
Research Institute Act of 1998 to authorize appropriations
for the National Cave and Karst Research Institute; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Biden, and
Mr. Lugar):
S. 3097. A bill to amend the Vietnam Education Foundation
Act of 2000; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Grassley,
Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Roberts):
S. 3098. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other
purposes; read the first time.
By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Dorgan,
and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 3099. A bill to prohibit the use of funds by the
Department of Defense for propaganda purposes within the
United States not otherwise specifically authorized by law;
to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. NELSON of Florida:
S. 3100. A bill to require early voting in Federal
elections, to prohibit restrictions on absentee voting in
Federal elections, to establish a grant program to promote
voting by mail, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Rules and Administration.
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Rockefeller,
and Mr. Smith):
S. 3101. A bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social
Security Act to extend expiring provisions under the Medicare
program, to improve beneficiary access to preventive and
mental health services, to enhance low-income benefit
programs, and to maintain access to care in rural areas,
including pharmacy access, and for other purposes; read the
first time.
By Mr. NELSON of Florida:
S.J. Res. 39. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States to abolish the
electoral college and to provide for the direct popular
election of the President and Vice President of the United
States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Barrasso, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Levin, Mr.
Coleman, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kyl, Ms. Collins, Mr.
Isakson, Mr. Specter, and Mr. Voinovich):
S. Res. 588. A resolution honoring Dr. Feng Shan Ho, a man
of great courage and humanity, who saved the lives of
thousands of Austrian Jews between 1938 and 1940; considered
and agreed to.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 1492
At the request of Mr. Inouye, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms.
Snowe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1492, a bill to improve the
quality of federal and state data regarding the availability and
quality of broadband services and to promote the deployment of
affordable broadband services to all parts of the Nation.
S. 1906
At the request of Mr. Baucus, the name of the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1906, a bill to
understand and comprehensively address the oral health problems
associated with methamphetamine use.
S. 2035
At the request of Mr. Specter, the name of the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Webb) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2035, a bill to maintain the
free flow of information to the public by providing conditions for the
federally compelled disclosure of information by certain persons
connected with the news media.
S. 2504
At the request of Mr. Nelson of Florida, the name of the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2504, a bill to
amend title 36, United States Code, to grant a Federal charter to the
Military Officers Association of America, and for other purposes.
S. 2760
At the request of Mr. Leahy, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2760, a bill to
amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the
[[Page 11792]]
national defense through empowerment of the National Guard, enhancement
of the functions of the National Guard Bureau, and improvement of
Federal-State military coordination in domestic emergency response, and
for other purposes.
S. 2795
At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from New Mexico
(Mr. Bingaman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2795, a bill to amend the
Public Health Service Act to establish a nationwide health insurance
purchasing pool for small businesses and the self employed that would
offer a choice of private health plans and make health coverage more
affordable, predictable, and accessible.
S. 2885
At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms.
Collins) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2885, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the availability of industrial
development bonds to facilities manufacturing intangible property.
S. 2928
At the request of Mr. Schumer, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Ms. Klobuchar) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2928, a bill to ban
bisphenol A in children's products.
S. 3005
At the request of Mr. Menendez, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3005, a bill
to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish procedures
for the timely and effective delivery of medical and mental health care
to all immigration detainees in custody, and for other purposes.
S. 3012
At the request of Mr. Leahy, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Reed) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3012, a bill to amend
title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to
extend the authorization of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant
Program through fiscal year 2012.
S. 3038
At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3038, a bill
to amend part E of title IV of the Social Security Act to extend the
adoption incentives program, to authorize States to establish a
relative guardianship program, to promote the adoption of children with
special needs, and for other purposes.
S. 3095
At the request of Mr. Baucus, the name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Tester) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3095, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to expand the Medicare Rural Hospital
Flexibility Program to increase the delivery of mental health services
and other health services to veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom and
Operation Iraqi Freedom and to other residents of rural areas, and for
other purposes.
S.J. RES. 37
At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the names of the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. Bingaman) and the Senator from Washington (Ms. Cantwell)
were added as cosponsors of S.J. Res. 37, a joint resolution expressing
the sense of Congress that the United States should sign the
Declaration of the Oslo Conference on Cluster Munitions and future
instruments banning cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to
civilians.
S. CON. RES. 80
At the request of Mr. Thune, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
Con. Res. 80, a concurrent resolution urging the President to designate
a National Airborne Day in recognition of persons who are serving or
have served in the airborne forces of the Armed Services.
S. RES. 580
At the request of Mr. Bayh, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 580, a
resolution expressing the sense of the Senate on preventing Iran from
acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.
AMENDMENT NO. 4823
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 4823 intended to be proposed to S. 3036, a bill to direct
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a
program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other
purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 4836
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 4836 intended to be proposed to S. 3036, a bill to direct
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a
program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other
purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 4844
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 4844 intended to be proposed to S. 3036, a bill to direct
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a
program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other
purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 4857
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 4857 intended to be proposed to S. 3036, a bill to direct
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a
program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other
purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 4867
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 4867 intended to be proposed to S. 3036, a bill to direct
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a
program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other
purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 4871
At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the names of the Senator from
Washington (Ms. Cantwell) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin)
were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 4871 intended to be proposed
to S. 3036, a bill to direct the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to establish a program to decrease emissions of
greenhouse gases, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 4877
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 4877 intended to be proposed to S. 3036, a bill to direct
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a
program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other
purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 4900
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 4900 intended to be proposed to S. 3036, a bill to direct
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a
program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other
purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 4901
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 4901 intended to be proposed to S. 3036, a bill to direct
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a
program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other
purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 4929
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 4929 intended to be proposed to S. 3036, a bill to direct
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a
program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other
purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 4935
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 4935 intended to be proposed to S. 3036, a bill to direct
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a
program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other
purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 4937
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 4937 intended to be proposed to S. 3036, a bill to direct
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a
program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other
purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 4940
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, his name was added as a cosponsor of
[[Page 11793]]
amendment No. 4940 intended to be proposed to S. 3036, a bill to direct
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a
program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other
purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 4949
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 4949 intended to be proposed to S. 3036, a bill to direct
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a
program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other
purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 4952
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 4952 intended to be proposed to S. 3036, a bill to direct
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a
program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other
purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 4955
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 4955 intended to be proposed to S. 3036, a bill to direct
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a
program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other
purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 4968
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 4968 intended to be proposed to S. 3036, a bill to direct
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a
program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other
purposes.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hatch,
and Mr. Roberts):
S. 3098. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; read the first
time.
Mr. McCONNELL. 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. 3098
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE; TABLE OF
CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
``Alternative Minimum Tax and Extenders Tax Relief Act of
2008''.
(b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly
provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is
expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a
section or other provision, the reference shall be considered
to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
(c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; amendment of 1986 Code; table of contents.
TITLE I--ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF
Sec. 101. Extension of alternative minimum tax relief for nonrefundable
personal credits.
Sec. 102. Extension of increased alternative minimum tax exemption
amount.
TITLE II--INDIVIDUAL TAX PROVISIONS
Sec. 201. Deduction for State and local sales taxes.
Sec. 202. Deduction of qualified tuition and related expenses.
Sec. 203. Deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary
school teachers.
Sec. 204. Tax-free distributions from individual retirement plans for
charitable purposes.
Sec. 205. Treatment of certain dividends of regulated investment
companies.
Sec. 206. Stock in RIC for purposes of determining estates of
nonresidents not citizens.
Sec. 207. Qualified investment entities.
TITLE III--BUSINESS TAX PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Extension and modification of research credit.
Sec. 302. New markets tax credit.
Sec. 303. Subpart F exception for active financing income.
Sec. 304. Extension of look-thru rule for related controlled foreign
corporations.
Sec. 305. Extension of 15-year straight-line cost recovery for
qualified leasehold improvements and qualified restaurant
improvements.
Sec. 306. Enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of food
inventory.
Sec. 307. Extension of enhanced charitable deduction for contributions
of book inventory.
Sec. 308. Modification of tax treatment of certain payments to
controlling exempt organizations.
Sec. 309. Basis adjustment to stock of S corporations making charitable
contributions of property.
Sec. 310. Increase in limit on cover over of rum excise tax to Puerto
Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Sec. 311. Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa.
Sec. 312. Extension of mine rescue team training credit.
Sec. 313. Extension of election to expense advanced mine safety
equipment.
Sec. 314. Extension of expensing rules for qualified film and
television productions.
Sec. 315. Deduction allowable with respect to income attributable to
domestic production activities in Puerto Rico.
Sec. 316. Extension of qualified zone academy bonds.
Sec. 317. Indian employment credit.
Sec. 318. Accelerated depreciation for business property on Indian
reservation.
Sec. 319. Railroad track maintenance.
Sec. 320. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track
facility.
Sec. 321. Expensing of environmental remediation costs.
Sec. 322. Extension of work opportunity tax credit for Hurricane
Katrina employees.
TITLE IV--EXTENSION OF CLEAN ENERGY PRODUCTION INCENTIVES
Sec. 401. Extension and modification of renewable energy production tax
credit.
Sec. 402. Extension and modification of solar energy and fuel cell
investment tax credit.
Sec. 403. Extension and modification of residential energy efficient
property credit.
Sec. 404. Extension and modification of credit for clean renewable
energy bonds.
Sec. 405. Extension of special rule to implement FERC restructuring
policy.
TITLE V--EXTENSION OF INCENTIVES TO IMPROVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Sec. 501. Extension and modification of credit for energy efficiency
improvements to existing homes.
Sec. 502. Extension and modification of tax credit for energy efficient
new homes.
Sec. 503. Extension and modification of energy efficient commercial
buildings deduction.
Sec. 504. Modification and extension of energy efficient appliance
credit for appliances produced after 2007.
TITLE VI--EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND MARGINAL PRODUCTION
Sec. 601. Percentage depletion for marginal well production.
Sec. 602. Credits for biodiesel and renewable diesel.
Sec. 603. Credit for alternative fuels.
TITLE VII--TAX ADMINISTRATION
Sec. 701. Permanent authority for undercover operations.
Sec. 702. Permanent disclosures of certain tax return information.
Sec. 703. Disclosure of information relating to terrorist activities.
TITLE I--ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF
SEC. 101. EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF FOR
NONREFUNDABLE PERSONAL CREDITS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 26(a) (relating
to special rule for taxable years 2000 through 2007) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``or 2007'' and inserting ``2007, or
2008'', and
(2) by striking ``2007'' in the heading thereof and
inserting ``2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 102. EXTENSION OF INCREASED ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX
EXEMPTION AMOUNT.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 55(d) (relating
to exemption amount) is amended--
(1) by striking ``($66,250 in the case of taxable years
beginning in 2007)'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting
``($69,950 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2008)'',
and
(2) by striking ``($44,350 in the case of taxable years
beginning in 2007)'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting
``($46,200 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2008)''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
[[Page 11794]]
TITLE II--INDIVIDUAL TAX PROVISIONS
SEC. 201. DEDUCTION FOR STATE AND LOCAL SALES TAXES.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (I) of section 164(b)(5) is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting
``January 1, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 202. DEDUCTION OF QUALIFIED TUITION AND RELATED
EXPENSES.
(a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 222 (relating to
termination) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 203. DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN EXPENSES OF ELEMENTARY AND
SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (D) of section 62(a)(2)
(relating to certain expenses of elementary and secondary
school teachers) is amended by striking ``or 2007'' and
inserting ``2007, 2008, or 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 204. TAX-FREE DISTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT
PLANS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (F) of section 408(d)(8)
(relating to termination) is amended by striking ``December
31, 2007'' and inserting ``December 31, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to distributions made in taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 205. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN DIVIDENDS OF REGULATED
INVESTMENT COMPANIES.
(a) Interest-Related Dividends.--Subparagraph (C) of
section 871(k)(1) (defining interest-related dividend) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2009''.
(b) Short-Term Capital Gain Dividends.--Subparagraph (C) of
section 871(k)(2) (defining short-term capital gain dividend)
is amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2009''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to dividends with respect to taxable years of
regulated investment companies beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 206. STOCK IN RIC FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING ESTATES OF
NONRESIDENTS NOT CITIZENS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 2105(d) (relating
to stock in a RIC) is amended by striking ``December 31,
2007'' and inserting ``December 31, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to decedents dying after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 207. QUALIFIED INVESTMENT ENTITIES.
(a) In General.--Clause (ii) of section 897(h)(4)(A)
(relating to termination) is amended by striking ``December
31, 2007'' and inserting ``December 31, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on January 1, 2008.
TITLE III--BUSINESS TAX PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF RESEARCH CREDIT.
(a) Extension.--Section 41(h) (relating to termination) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2009'' in paragraph (1)(B),
(2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3), and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph:
``(2) Termination of alternative incremental credit.--No
election under subsection (c)(4) shall apply to amounts paid
or incurred after December 31, 2007.''.
(b) Modification of Alternative Simplified Credit.--
Paragraph (5)(A) of section 41(c) (relating to election of
alternative simplified credit) is amended to read as follows:
``(A) In general.--
``(i) Calculation of credit.--At the election of the
taxpayer, the credit determined under subsection (a)(1) shall
be equal to the applicable percentage (as defined in clause
(ii)) of so much of the qualified research expenses for the
taxable year as exceeds 50 percent of the average qualified
research expenses for the 3 taxable years preceding the
taxable year for which the credit is being determined.
``(ii) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of the
calculation under clause (i), the applicable percentage is--
``(I) 14 percent, in the case of taxable years ending
before January 1, 2009, and
``(II) 16 percent, in the case of taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2008.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Subparagraph (D) of section
45C(b)(1) (relating to special rule) is amended by striking
``December 31, 2007'' and inserting ``December 31, 2009''.
(d) Technical Correction.--Paragraph (3) of section 41(h)
is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Computation for taxable year in which credit
terminates.--In the case of any taxable year with respect to
which this section applies to a number of days which is less
than the total number of days in such taxable year--
``(A) the amount determined under subsection (c)(1)(B) with
respect to such taxable year shall be the amount which bears
the same ratio to such amount (determined without regard to
this paragraph) as the number of days in such taxable year to
which this section applies bears to the total number of days
in such taxable year, and
``(B) for purposes of subsection (c)(5), the average
qualified research expenses for the preceding 3 taxable years
shall be the amount which bears the same ratio to such
average qualified research expenses (determined without
regard to this paragraph) as the number of days in such
taxable year to which this section applies bears to the total
number of days in such taxable year.''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 302. NEW MARKETS TAX CREDIT.
Subparagraph (D) of section 45D(f)(1) (relating to national
limitation on amount of investments designated) is amended by
striking ``and 2008'' and inserting ``2008, and 2009''.
SEC. 303. SUBPART F EXCEPTION FOR ACTIVE FINANCING INCOME.
(a) Exempt Insurance Income.--Paragraph (10) of section
953(e) (relating to application) is amended--
(1) by striking ``January 1, 2009'' and inserting ``January
1, 2010'', and
(2) by striking ``December 31, 2008'' and inserting
``December 31, 2009''.
(b) Exception to Treatment as Foreign Personal Holding
Company Income.--Paragraph (9) of section 954(h) (relating to
application) is amended by striking ``January 1, 2009'' and
inserting ``January 1, 2010''.
SEC. 304. EXTENSION OF LOOK-THRU RULE FOR RELATED CONTROLLED
FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 954(c)(6)
(relating to application) is amended by striking ``January 1,
2009'' and inserting ``January 1, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years of foreign corporations
beginning after December 31, 2007, and to taxable years of
United States shareholders with or within which such taxable
years of foreign corporations end.
SEC. 305. EXTENSION OF 15-YEAR STRAIGHT-LINE COST RECOVERY
FOR QUALIFIED LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENTS AND
QUALIFIED RESTAURANT IMPROVEMENTS.
(a) In General.--Clauses (iv) and (v) of section
168(e)(3)(E) (relating to 15-year property) are each amended
by striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting ``January 1,
2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 306. ENHANCED CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF
FOOD INVENTORY.
(a) In General.--Clause (iv) of section 170(e)(3)(C)
(relating to termination) is amended by striking ``December
31, 2007'' and inserting ``December 31, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to contributions made after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 307. EXTENSION OF ENHANCED CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR
CONTRIBUTIONS OF BOOK INVENTORY.
(a) Extension.--Clause (iv) of section 170(e)(3)(D)
(relating to termination) is amended by striking ``December
31, 2007'' and inserting ``December 31, 2009''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--Clause (iii) of section
170(e)(3)(D) (relating to certification by donee) is amended
by inserting ``of books'' after ``to any contribution''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to contributions made after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 308. MODIFICATION OF TAX TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PAYMENTS
TO CONTROLLING EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) In General.--Clause (iv) of section 512(b)(13)(E)
(relating to termination) is amended by striking ``December
31, 2007'' and inserting ``December 31, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to payments received or accrued after December
31, 2007.
SEC. 309. BASIS ADJUSTMENT TO STOCK OF S CORPORATIONS MAKING
CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS OF PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--The last sentence of section 1367(a)(2)
(relating to decreases in basis) is amended by striking
``December 31, 2007'' and inserting ``December 31, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to contributions made in taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 310. INCREASE IN LIMIT ON COVER OVER OF RUM EXCISE TAX
TO PUERTO RICO AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 7652(f) is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting
``January 1, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to distilled spirits brought into the United
States after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 311. EXTENSION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CREDIT FOR
AMERICAN SAMOA.
(a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 119 of division
A of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 is amended--
[[Page 11795]]
(1) by striking ``first two taxable years'' and inserting
``first 4 taxable years'', and
(2) by striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting ``January
1, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 312. EXTENSION OF MINE RESCUE TEAM TRAINING CREDIT.
Section 45N(e) (relating to termination) is amended by
striking ``December 31, 2008'' and inserting ``December 31,
2009''.
SEC. 313. EXTENSION OF ELECTION TO EXPENSE ADVANCED MINE
SAFETY EQUIPMENT.
Section 179E(g) (relating to termination) is amended by
striking ``December 31, 2008'' and inserting ``December 31,
2009''.
SEC. 314. EXTENSION OF EXPENSING RULES FOR QUALIFIED FILM AND
TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS.
Section 181(f) (relating to termination) is amended by
striking ``December 31, 2008'' and inserting ``December 31,
2009''.
SEC. 315. DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE WITH RESPECT TO INCOME
ATTRIBUTABLE TO DOMESTIC PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES
IN PUERTO RICO.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (C) of section 199(d)(8)
(relating to termination) is amended--
(1) by striking ``first 2 taxable years'' and inserting
``first 4 taxable years'', and
(2) by striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting ``January
1, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 316. EXTENSION OF QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY BONDS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 1397E(e) is
amended by striking ``and 2007'' and inserting ``2007, 2008,
and 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to obligations issued after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 317. INDIAN EMPLOYMENT CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 45A (relating to
termination) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 318. ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION FOR BUSINESS PROPERTY ON
INDIAN RESERVATION.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (8) of section 168(j) (relating
to termination) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2007''
and inserting ``December 31, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 319. RAILROAD TRACK MAINTENANCE.
(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 45G (relating to
application of section) is amended by striking ``January 1,
2008'' and inserting ``January 1, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to expenditures paid or incurred during taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 320. SEVEN-YEAR COST RECOVERY PERIOD FOR MOTORSPORTS
RACING TRACK FACILITY.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (D) of section 168(i)(15)
(relating to termination) is amended to read as follows:
``(D) Application of paragraph.--Such term shall apply to
property placed in service after the date of the enactment of
the Alternative Minimum Tax and Extenders Tax Relief Act of
2008 and before January 1, 2010.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 321. EXPENSING OF ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION COSTS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (h) of section 198 (relating to
termination) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to expenditures paid or incurred after December
31, 2007.
SEC. 322. EXTENSION OF WORK OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT FOR
HURRICANE KATRINA EMPLOYEES.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 201(b) of the
Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act of 2005 is amended by
striking ``2-year'' and inserting ``4-year''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to individuals hired after August 27, 2007.
TITLE IV--EXTENSION OF CLEAN ENERGY PRODUCTION INCENTIVES
SEC. 401. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY
PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT.
(a) Extension of Credit.--Each of the following provisions
of section 45(d) (relating to qualified facilities) is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2009'' and inserting
``January 1, 2010'':
(1) Paragraph (1).
(2) Clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (2)(A).
(3) Clauses (i)(I) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(A).
(4) Paragraph (4).
(5) Paragraph (5).
(6) Paragraph (6).
(7) Paragraph (7).
(8) Paragraph (8).
(9) Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (9).
(b) Production Credit for Electricity Produced From Marine
Renewables.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 45(c) (relating
to resources) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of
subparagraph (G), by striking the period at the end of
subparagraph (H) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at
the end the following new subparagraph:
``(I) marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy.''.
(2) Marine renewables.--Subsection (c) of section 45 is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(10) Marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy.--
``(A) In general.--The term `marine and hydrokinetic
renewable energy' means energy derived from--
``(i) waves, tides, and currents in oceans, estuaries, and
tidal areas,
``(ii) free flowing water in rivers, lakes, and streams,
``(iii) free flowing water in an irrigation system, canal,
or other man-made channel, including projects that utilize
nonmechanical structures to accelerate the flow of water for
electric power production purposes, or
``(iv) differentials in ocean temperature (ocean thermal
energy conversion).
``(B) Exceptions.--Such term shall not include any energy
which is derived from any source which utilizes a dam,
diversionary structure (except as provided in subparagraph
(A)(iii)), or impoundment for electric power production
purposes.''.
(3) Definition of facility.--Subsection (d) of section 45
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(11) Marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy
facilities.--In the case of a facility producing electricity
from marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy, the term
`qualified facility' means any facility owned by the
taxpayer--
``(A) which has a nameplate capacity rating of at least 150
kilowatts, and
``(B) which is originally placed in service on or after the
date of the enactment of this paragraph and before January 1,
2010.''.
(4) Credit rate.--Subparagraph (A) of section 45(b)(4) is
amended by striking ``or (9)'' and inserting ``(9), or
(11)''.
(5) Coordination with small irrigation power.--Paragraph
(5) of section 45(d), as amended by subsection (a), is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting ``the
date of the enactment of paragraph (11)''.
(c) Sales of Electricity to Regulated Public Utilities
Treated as Sales to Unrelated Persons.--Section 45(e)(4)
(relating to related persons) is amended by adding at the end
the following new sentence: ``A taxpayer shall be treated as
selling electricity to an unrelated person if such
electricity is sold to a regulated public utility (as defined
in section 7701(a)(33).''.
(d) Trash Facility Clarification.--Paragraph (7) of section
45(d) is amended--
(1) by striking ``facility which burns'' and inserting
``facility (other than a facility described in paragraph (6))
which uses'', and
(2) by striking ``combustion''.
(e) Effective Dates.--
(1) Extension.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall
apply to property originally placed in service after December
31, 2008.
(2) Modifications.--The amendments made by subsections (b)
and (c) shall apply to electricity produced and sold after
the date of the enactment of this Act, in taxable years
ending after such date.
(3) Trash facility clarification.--The amendments made by
subsection (d) shall apply to electricity produced and sold
before, on, or after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 402. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF SOLAR ENERGY AND FUEL
CELL INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT.
(a) Extension of Credit.--
(1) Solar energy property.--Paragraphs (2)(A)(i)(II) and
(3)(A)(ii) of section 48(a) (relating to energy credit) are
each amended by striking ``January 1, 2009'' and inserting
``January 1, 2017''.
(2) Fuel cell property.--Subparagraph (E) of section
48(c)(1) (relating to qualified fuel cell property) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2008'' and inserting
``December 31, 2016''.
(3) Qualified microturbine property.--Subparagraph (E) of
section 48(c)(2) (relating to qualified microturbine
property) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2008'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2016''.
(b) Allowance of Energy Credit Against Alternative Minimum
Tax.--Subparagraph (B) of section 38(c)(4) (relating to
specified credits) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end
of clause (iii), by striking the period at the end of clause
(iv) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end the
following new clause:
``(v) the credit determined under section 46 to the extent
that such credit is attributable to the energy credit
determined under section 48.''.
(c) Repeal of Dollar Per Kilowatt Limitation for Fuel Cell
Property.--
[[Page 11796]]
(1) In general.--Section 48(c)(1) (relating to qualified
fuel cell), as amended by subsection (a)(2), is amended by
striking subparagraph (B) and by redesignating subparagraphs
(C), (D), and (E) as subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D),
respectively.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 48(a)(1) is amended by
striking ``paragraphs (1)(B) and (2)(B) of subsection (c)''
and inserting ``subsection (c)(2)(B)''.
(d) Public Electric Utility Property Taken Into Account.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (3) of section 48(a) is amended
by striking the second sentence thereof.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Paragraph (1) of section 48(c), as amended by this
section, is amended by striking subparagraph (C) and
redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C).
(B) Paragraph (2) of section 48(c), as amended by
subsection (a)(3), is amended by striking subparagraph (D)
and redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (D).
(e) Effective Dates.--
(1) Extension.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Allowance against alternative minimum tax.--The
amendments made by subsection (b) shall apply to credits
determined under section 46 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 in taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act and to carrybacks of such credits.
(3) Fuel cell property and public electric utility
property.--The amendments made by subsections (c) and (d)
shall apply to periods after the date of the enactment of
this Act, in taxable years ending after such date, under
rules similar to the rules of section 48(m) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (as in effect on the day before the date
of the enactment of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990).
SEC. 403. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF RESIDENTIAL ENERGY
EFFICIENT PROPERTY CREDIT.
(a) Extension.--Section 25D(g) (relating to termination) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2008'' and inserting
``December 31, 2009''.
(b) No Dollar Limitation for Credit for Solar Electric
Property.--
(1) In general.--Section 25D(b)(1) (relating to maximum
credit) is amended by striking subparagraph (A) and by
redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as subparagraphs (A)
and (B), respectively.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 25D(e)(4) is amended--
(A) by striking clause (i) in subparagraph (A),
(B) by redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) in subparagraph
(A) as clauses (i) and (ii), respectively, and
(C) by striking ``, (2),'' in subparagraph (C).
(c) Credit Allowed Against Alternative Minimum Tax.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (c) of section 25D is amended
to read as follows:
``(c) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax; Carryforward of
Unused Credit.--
``(1) Limitation based on amount of tax.--In the case of a
taxable year to which section 26(a)(2) does not apply, the
credit allowed under subsection (a) for the taxable year
shall not exceed the excess of--
``(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in
section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
``(B) the sum of the credits allowable under this subpart
(other than this section) and section 27 for the taxable
year.
``(2) Carryforward of unused credit.--
``(A) Rule for years in which all personal credits allowed
against regular and alternative minimum tax.--In the case of
a taxable year to which section 26(a)(2) applies, if the
credit allowable under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation
imposed by section 26(a)(2) for such taxable year reduced by
the sum of the credits allowable under this subpart (other
than this section), such excess shall be carried to the
succeeding taxable year and added to the credit allowable
under subsection (a) for such succeeding taxable year.
``(B) Rule for other years.--In the case of a taxable year
to which section 26(a)(2) does not apply, if the credit
allowable under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation imposed
by paragraph (1) for such taxable year, such excess shall be
carried to the succeeding taxable year and added to the
credit allowable under subsection (a) for such succeeding
taxable year.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 23(b)(4)(B) is amended by inserting ``and
section 25D'' after ``this section''.
(B) Section 24(b)(3)(B) is amended by striking ``and 25B''
and inserting ``, 25B, and 25D''.
(C) Section 25B(g)(2) is amended by striking ``section 23''
and inserting ``sections 23 and 25D''.
(D) Section 26(a)(1) is amended by striking ``and 25B'' and
inserting ``25B, and 25D''.
(d) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007.
(2) Application of egtrra sunset.--The amendments made by
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (c)(2) shall be
subject to title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 in the same manner as the
provisions of such Act to which such amendments relate.
SEC. 404. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF CREDIT FOR CLEAN
RENEWABLE ENERGY BONDS.
(a) Extension.--Section 54(m) (relating to termination) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2008'' and inserting
``December 31, 2009''.
(b) Increase in National Limitation.--Section 54(f)
(relating to limitation on amount of bonds designated) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``, and for the period beginning after the
date of the enactment of the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of
2008 and ending before January 1, 2010, $400,000,000'' after
``$1,200,000,000'' in paragraph (1),
(2) by striking ``$750,000,000 of the'' in paragraph (2)
and inserting ``$750,000,000 of the $1,200,000,000'', and
(3) by striking ``bodies'' in paragraph (2) and inserting
``bodies, and except that the Secretary may not allocate more
than \1/3\ of the $400,000,000 national clean renewable
energy bond limitation to finance qualified projects of
qualified borrowers which are public power providers nor more
than \1/3\ of such limitation to finance qualified projects
of qualified borrowers which are mutual or cooperative
electric companies described in section 501(c)(12) or section
1381(a)(2)(C)''.
(c) Public Power Providers Defined.--Section 54(j) is
amended--
(1) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Public power provider.--The term `public power
provider' means a State utility with a service obligation, as
such terms are defined in section 217 of the Federal Power
Act (as in effect on the date of the enactment of this
paragraph).'', and
(2) by inserting ``; Public Power Provider'' before the
period at the end of the heading.
(d) Technical Amendment.--The third sentence of section
54(e)(2) is amended by striking ``subsection (l)(6)'' and
inserting ``subsection (l)(5)''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to bonds issued after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
SEC. 405. EXTENSION OF SPECIAL RULE TO IMPLEMENT FERC
RESTRUCTURING POLICY.
(a) Qualifying Electric Transmission Transaction.--
(1) In general.--Section 451(i)(3) (defining qualifying
electric transmission transaction) is amended by striking
``January 1, 2008'' and inserting ``January 1, 2010''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall apply to transactions after December 31, 2007.
(b) Independent Transmission Company.--
(1) In general.--Section 451(i)(4)(B)(ii) (defining
independent transmission company) is amended by striking
``December 31, 2007'' and inserting ``the date which is 2
years after the date of such transaction''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall take effect as if included in the amendments made by
section 909 of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.
TITLE V--EXTENSION OF INCENTIVES TO IMPROVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY
SEC. 501. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF CREDIT FOR ENERGY
EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING HOMES.
(a) Extension of Credit.--Section 25C(g) (relating to
termination) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2009''.
(b) Qualified Biomass Fuel Property.--
(1) In general.--Section 25C(d)(3) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (D),
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (E)
and inserting ``, and'', and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(F) a stove which uses the burning of biomass fuel to
heat a dwelling unit located in the United States and used as
a residence by the taxpayer, or to heat water for use in such
a dwelling unit, and which has a thermal efficiency rating of
at least 75 percent.''.
(2) Biomass fuel.--Section 25C(d) (relating to residential
energy property expenditures) is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(6) Biomass fuel.--The term `biomass fuel' means any
plant-derived fuel available on a renewable or recurring
basis, including agricultural crops and trees, wood and wood
waste and residues (including wood pellets), plants
(including aquatic plants), grasses, residues, and fibers.''.
(c) Modifications of Standards for Energy-Efficient
Building Property.--
(1) Electric heat pumps.--Subparagraph (B) of section
25C(d)(3) is amended to read as follows:
``(A) an electric heat pump which achieves the highest
efficiency tier established by the Consortium for Energy
Efficiency, as in effect on January 1, 2008.''.
(2) Central air conditioners.--Section 25C(d)(3)(D) is
amended by striking ``2006'' and inserting ``2008''.
(3) Water heaters.--Subparagraph (E) of section 25C(d) is
amended to read as follows:
[[Page 11797]]
``(E) a natural gas, propane, or oil water heater which has
either an energy factor of at least 0.80 or a thermal
efficiency of at least 90 percent.''.
(4) Oil furnaces and hot water boilers.--Paragraph (4) of
section 25C(d) is amended to read as follows:
``(4) Qualified natural gas, propane, and oil furnaces and
hot water boilers.--
``(A) Qualified natural gas furnace.--The term `qualified
natural gas furnace' means any natural gas furnace which
achieves an annual fuel utilization efficiency rate of not
less than 95.
``(B) Qualified natural gas hot water boiler.--The term
`qualified natural gas hot water boiler' means any natural
gas hot water boiler which achieves an annual fuel
utilization efficiency rate of not less than 90.
``(C) Qualified propane furnace.--The term `qualified
propane furnace' means any propane furnace which achieves an
annual fuel utilization efficiency rate of not less than 95.
``(D) Qualified propane hot water boiler.--The term
`qualified propane hot water boiler' means any propane hot
water boiler which achieves an annual fuel utilization
efficiency rate of not less than 90.
``(E) Qualified oil furnaces.--The term `qualified oil
furnace' means any oil furnace which achieves an annual fuel
utilization efficiency rate of not less than 90.
``(F) Qualified oil hot water boiler.--The term `qualified
oil hot water boiler' means any oil hot water boiler which
achieves an annual fuel utilization efficiency rate of not
less than 90.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made this section shall
apply to expenditures made after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 502. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF TAX CREDIT FOR ENERGY
EFFICIENT NEW HOMES.
(a) Extension of Credit.--Subsection (g) of section 45L
(relating to termination) is amended by striking ``December
31, 2008'' and inserting ``December 31, 2010''.
(b) Allowance for Contractor's Personal Residence.--
Subparagraph (B) of section 45L(a)(1) is amended to read as
follows:
``(B)(i) acquired by a person from such eligible contractor
and used by any person as a residence during the taxable
year, or
``(ii) used by such eligible contractor as a residence
during the taxable year.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to homes acquired after December 31, 2008.
SEC. 503. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF ENERGY EFFICIENT
COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS DEDUCTION.
(a) Extension.--Section 179D(h) (relating to termination)
is amended by striking ``December 31, 2008'' and inserting
``December 31, 2009''.
(b) Adjustment of Maximum Deduction Amount.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 179D(b)(1)
(relating to maximum amount of deduction) is amended by
striking ``$1.80'' and inserting ``$2.25''.
(2) Partial allowance.--Paragraph (1) of section 179D(d) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``$.60'' and inserting ``$0.75'', and
(B) by striking ``$1.80'' and inserting ``$2.25''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 504. MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION OF ENERGY EFFICIENT
APPLIANCE CREDIT FOR APPLIANCES PRODUCED AFTER
2007.
(a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 45M (relating to
applicable amount) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Applicable Amount.--For purposes of subsection (a)--
``(1) Dishwashers.--The applicable amount is--
``(A) $45 in the case of a dishwasher which is manufactured
in calendar year 2008 or 2009 and which uses no more than 324
kilowatt hours per year and 5.8 gallons per cycle, and
``(B) $75 in the case of a dishwasher which is manufactured
in calendar year 2008, 2009, or 2010 and which uses no more
than 307 kilowatt hours per year and 5.0 gallons per cycle
(5.5 gallons per cycle for dishwashers designed for greater
than 12 place settings).
``(2) Clothes washers.--The applicable amount is--
``(A) $75 in the case of a residential top-loading clothes
washer manufactured in calendar year 2008 which meets or
exceeds a 1.72 modified energy factor and does not exceed a
8.0 water consumption factor,
``(B) $125 in the case of a residential top-loading clothes
washer manufactured in calendar year 2008 or 2009 which meets
or exceeds a 1.8 modified energy factor and does not exceed a
7.5 water consumption factor,
``(C) $150 in the case of a residential or commercial
clothes washer manufactured in calendar year 2008, 2009, or
2010 which meets or exceeds 2.0 modified energy factor and
does not exceed a 6.0 water consumption factor, and
``(D) $250 in the case of a residential or commercial
clothes washer manufactured in calendar year 2008, 2009, or
2010 which meets or exceeds 2.2 modified energy factor and
does not exceed a 4.5 water consumption factor.
``(3) Refrigerators.--The applicable amount is--
``(A) $50 in the case of a refrigerator which is
manufactured in calendar year 2008, and consumes at least 20
percent but not more than 22.9 percent less kilowatt hours
per year than the 2001 energy conservation standards,
``(B) $75 in the case of a refrigerator which is
manufactured in calendar year 2008 or 2009, and consumes at
least 23 percent but no more than 24.9 percent less kilowatt
hours per year than the 2001 energy conservation standards,
``(C) $100 in the case of a refrigerator which is
manufactured in calendar year 2008, 2009, or 2010, and
consumes at least 25 percent but not more than 29.9 percent
less kilowatt hours per year than the 2001 energy
conservation standards, and
``(D) $200 in the case of a refrigerator manufactured in
calendar year 2008, 2009, or 2010 and which consumes at least
30 percent less energy than the 2001 energy conservation
standards.''.
(b) Eligible Production.--
(1) Similar treatment for all appliances.--Subsection (c)
of section 45M (relating to eligible production) is amended--
(A) by striking paragraph (2),
(B) by striking ``(1) In general'' and all that follows
through ``the eligible'' and inserting ``The eligible'', and
(C) by moving the text of such subsection in line with the
subsection heading and redesignating subparagraphs (A) and
(B) as paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively.
(2) Modification of base period.--Paragraph (2) of section
45M(c), as amended by paragraph (1) of this section, is
amended by striking ``3-calendar year'' and inserting ``2-
calendar year''.
(c) Types of Energy Efficient Appliances.--Subsection (d)
of section 45M (defining types of energy efficient
appliances) is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Types of Energy Efficient Appliance.--For purposes of
this section, the types of energy efficient appliances are--
``(1) dishwashers described in subsection (b)(1),
``(2) clothes washers described in subsection (b)(2), and
``(3) refrigerators described in subsection (b)(3).''.
(d) Aggregate Credit Amount Allowed.--
(1) Increase in limit.--Paragraph (1) of section 45M(e)
(relating to aggregate credit amount allowed) is amended to
read as follows:
``(1) Aggregate credit amount allowed.--The aggregate
amount of credit allowed under subsection (a) with respect to
a taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed $75,000,000
reduced by the amount of the credit allowed under subsection
(a) to the taxpayer (or any predecessor) for all prior
taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007.''.
(2) Exception for certain refrigerator and clothes
washers.--Paragraph (2) of section 45M(e) is amended to read
as follows:
``(2) Amount allowed for certain refrigerators and clothes
washers.--Refrigerators described in subsection (b)(3)(D) and
clothes washers described in subsection (b)(2)(D) shall not
be taken into account under paragraph (1).''.
(e) Qualified Energy Efficient Appliances.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 45M(f) (defining
qualified energy efficient appliance) is amended to read as
follows:
``(1) Qualified energy efficient appliance.--The term
`qualified energy efficient appliance' means--
``(A) any dishwasher described in subsection (b)(1),
``(B) any clothes washer described in subsection (b)(2),
and
``(C) any refrigerator described in subsection (b)(3).''.
(2) Clothes washer.--Section 45M(f)(3) (defining clothes
washer) is amended by inserting ``commercial'' before
``residential'' the second place it appears.
(3) Top-loading clothes washer.--Subsection (f) of section
45M (relating to definitions) is amended by redesignating
paragraphs (4), (5), (6), and (7) as paragraphs (5), (6),
(7), and (8), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph
(3) the following new paragraph:
``(4) Top-loading clothes washer.--The term `top-loading
clothes washer' means a clothes washer which has the clothes
container compartment access located on the top of the
machine and which operates on a vertical axis.''.
(4) Replacement of energy factor.--Section 45M(f)(6), as
redesignated by paragraph (3), is amended to read as follows:
``(6) Modified energy factor.--The term `modified energy
factor' means the modified energy factor established by the
Department of Energy for compliance with the Federal energy
conservation standard.''.
(5) Gallons per cycle; water consumption factor.--Section
45M(f) (relating to definitions), as amended by paragraph
(3), is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(9) Gallons per cycle.--The term `gallons per cycle'
means, with respect to a dishwasher, the amount of water,
expressed in
[[Page 11798]]
gallons, required to complete a normal cycle of a dishwasher.
``(10) Water consumption factor.--The term `water
consumption factor' means, with respect to a clothes washer,
the quotient of the total weighted per-cycle water
consumption divided by the cubic foot (or liter) capacity of
the clothes washer.''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to appliances produced after December 31, 2007.
TITLE VI--EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND MARGINAL PRODUCTION
SEC. 601. PERCENTAGE DEPLETION FOR MARGINAL WELL PRODUCTION.
(a) In General.--Section 613A(c)(6)(H) (relating to
temporary suspension of taxable income limit with respect to
marginal production) is amended by striking ``January 1,
2008'' and inserting ``January 1, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 602. CREDITS FOR BIODIESEL AND RENEWABLE DIESEL.
(a) In General.--Sections 40A(g), 6426(c)(6), and
6427(e)(5)(B) are each amended by striking ``December 31,
2008'' and inserting ``December 31, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to fuel produced, and sold or used, after
December 31, 2008.
SEC. 603. CREDIT FOR ALTERNATIVE FUELS.
(a) In General.--Sections 6426(d)(4), 6426(e)(3), and
6427(e)(5)(C) are each amended by striking ``September 30,
2009'' and inserting ``December 31, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to fuel produced, and sold or used, after
September 30, 2009.
TITLE VII--TAX ADMINISTRATION
SEC. 701. PERMANENT AUTHORITY FOR UNDERCOVER OPERATIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 7608(c) (relating to rules
relating to undercover operations) is amended by striking
paragraph (6).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to operations conducted after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 702. PERMANENT DISCLOSURES OF CERTAIN TAX RETURN
INFORMATION.
(a) Disclosures To Facilitate Combined Employment Tax
Reporting.--
(1) In general.--Section 6103(d)(5) (relating to disclosure
for combined employment tax reporting) is amended--
(A) by striking ``reporting'' in the heading thereof and
all that follows through ``The Secretary'' in subparagraph
(A) and inserting ``reporting.--The Secretary'', and
(B) by striking subparagraph (B).
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to disclosures after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(b) Disclosures Relating to Certain Programs Administered
by the Department of Veterans Affairs.--
(1) In general.--Section 6103(l)(7)(D) (relating to
programs to which rule applies) is amended by striking the
last sentence.
(2) Technical amendment.--Section 6103(l)(7)(D)(viii)(III)
is amended by striking ``sections 1710(a)(1)(I), 1710(a)(2),
1710(b), and 1712(a)(2)(B)'' and inserting ``sections
1710(a)(2)(G), 1710(a)(3), and 1710(b)''.
SEC. 703. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION RELATING TO TERRORIST
ACTIVITIES.
(a) Disclosure of Return Information To Apprise Appropriate
Officials of Terrorist Activities.--Clause (iv) of section
6103(i)(3)(C) (relating to termination) is amended by
striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting ``December 31,
2009''.
(b) Disclosure Upon Request of Information Relating to
Terrorist Activities.--Subparagraph (E) of section 6103(i)(7)
(relating to termination) is amended by striking ``December
31, 2007'' and inserting ``December 31, 2009''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to disclosures after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 588--HONORING DR. FENG SHAN HO, A MAN OF GREAT
COURAGE AND HUMANITY, WHO SAVED THE LIVES OF THOUSANDS OF AUSTRIAN JEWS
BETWEEN 1938 AND 1940
Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Barrasso, Mrs. Boxer, Mr.
Bennett, Mr. Levin, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kyl, Ms. Collins,
Mr. Isakson, Mr. Specter, and Mr. Voinovich) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 588
Whereas, at great personal risk and sacrifice, Dr. Feng
Shan Ho authorized the issuance of Chinese visas to Jewish
persons so they could emigrate from Austria and escape the
horrors of the Holocaust;
Whereas it is necessary to honor Dr. Ho posthumously
because, in the ultimate demonstration of selfless
humanitarianism, Dr. Ho never sought recognition for his
courageous actions;
Whereas 70 years ago, Adolf Hitler's troops crossed into
Austria and announced the Anschluss (the annexation of
Austria to Germany), thereby applying all anti-Semitic
decrees to Austrian Jews;
Whereas the Nazis brutally persecuted more than 200,000
Austrian Jews, by forcibly segregating them, depriving them
of their citizenship and livelihoods, and interning them in
concentration camps;
Whereas the fierceness of the persecution in Austria became
the model for the future persecution of Jews in other Nazi-
conquered territories;
Whereas the Nazis initially assumed a policy of coerced
expulsion, with the goal of eventually removing all Jewish
persons from Europe;
Whereas most other foreign consulates, although besieged by
desperate Jews, offered no help;
Whereas a young Chinese diplomat in Vienna, Dr. Feng Shan
Ho, refused to stand by and witness the destruction of
innocent human beings, and authorized the issuance of visas
for all Jews who asked;
Whereas word spread quickly and Jewish persons formed long
lines in front of the Chinese Consulate to obtain the
lifesaving visas;
Whereas the Chinese ambassador in Berlin ordered Dr. Ho to
stop authorizing visas for Jews, but Dr. Ho nevertheless
continued, at risk to his career, to prepare the visas;
Whereas in 1939, the Nazis confiscated the Chinese
Consulate building, on the grounds that it was a Jewish-owned
building;
Whereas, when the Chinese government refused funds to
relocate the Consulate, Dr. Ho reopened the Consulate in
another building and personally paid all the expenses;
Whereas in May 1940, Dr. Ho left Vienna, having authorized
visas for thousands of Austrian Jews;
Whereas after 4 decades in diplomatic service to China, in
1973, Dr. Ho moved to the United States to join his children;
Whereas Dr. Ho became a United States citizen and lived in
San Francisco until September 28, 1997, when he passed away
at the age of 96;
Whereas the world only knows of Dr. Ho's courageous actions
because of a chance discovery among his diplomatic papers
after his death, and the full extent of Dr. Ho's heroism is
still being uncovered; and
Whereas in 2000, the State of Israel posthumously made Dr.
Ho an honorary citizen of Israel and granted him one of
Israel's highest honors, the title of Righteous Among the
Nations, ``for his humanitarian courage in issuing Chinese
visas to Jews in Vienna in spite of orders from his superior
to the contrary'': Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) honors and salutes the great courage and humanity of
Dr. Feng Shan Ho for acting at great personal risk to issue
Chinese visas to Jews in Vienna between 1938 and 1940; and
(2) recognizes his heroic deeds in saving the lives of
thousands of Jewish persons by allowing them to escape the
Holocaust.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 4976. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 3036, to direct the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to
establish a program to decrease emissions of greenhouse
gases, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 4977. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 3036, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 4978. Mr. REID (for Mr. Biden (for himself, Mr. Lugar,
Mr. Menendez, and Mr. Hagel)) submitted an amendment intended
to be proposed to amendment SA 4825 proposed by Mrs. Boxer
(for herself, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Lieberman) to the bill S.
3036, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4979. Mr. NELSON, of Florida (for himself, Mr. Hagel,
Mr. Sessions, and Mrs. Murray) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 3001, to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for military
activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of
Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such
fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie
on the table.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 4976. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 3036, to direct the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to establish a program to decrease
emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other purposes; which was
ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
Insert at the appropriate place the following:
[[Page 11799]]
TITLE __PROHIBITION ON EARMARKS
SEC. _01. PROHIBITION ON EARMARKS.
(a) In General.--It shall not be in order to consider a
bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that
proposes an earmark of funds provided or made available by
this Act.
(b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``earmark''
means a provision or report language included primarily at
the request of a Senator or a Member of the House of
Representatives providing, authorizing, or recommending a
specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit
authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan,
loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure
with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State,
locality, or Congressional district, other than through a
statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive
award process.
(c) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal.--This section may be
waived or suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote
of \3/5\ of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An
affirmative vote of \3/5\ of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain
an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order
raised under this section.
(d) Prohibition on Extra Legislative Earmarks.--None of the
funds provided or made available by this Act shall be
committed, obligated, or expended at the request of Members
of Congress or their staff through oral or written
communication for projects, programs, or grants to an entity,
or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional
district, other than through a statutory or administrative
formula-driven or competitive award process.
______
SA 4977. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 3036, to direct the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to establish a program to decrease
emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other purposes; which was
ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
Insert at the appropriate to place the following:
TITLE __PROHIBITION ON EARMARKS
SEC. _01. PROHIBITION ON EARMARKS.
(a) In General.--It shall not be in order to consider a
bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that
proposes an earmark of funds provided or made available by
this Act.
(b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``earmark''
means a provision or report language included primarily at
the request of a Senator or a Member of the House of
Representatives providing, authorizing, or recommending a
specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit
authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan,
loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure
with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State,
locality, or Congressional district, other than through a
statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive
award process.
(c) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal.--This section may be
waived or suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote
of \3/5\ of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An
affirmative vote of \3/5\ of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain
an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order
raised under this section.
______
SA 4978. Mr. REID (for Mr. Biden (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr.
Menendez, and Mr. Hagel)) submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 4825 proposed by Mrs. Boxer (for herself, Mr.
Warner, and Mr. Lieberman) to the bill S. 3036, to direct the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a
program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 44, line 10, strike ``; and'' and insert a
semicolon.
On page 44, line 11, strike the period at the end and
insert ``; and''.
On page 44, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
(vi) the Committee on Financial Services.
On page 44, line 14, strike ``subsection (c)(1)'' and
insert ``subsection (d)(1)''.
On page 44, strike lines 18 through 20 and insert the
following:
(A) is eligible to receive official development assistance
according to the guidelines of the Development Assistance
Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development; and
On page 45, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
(4) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the International Clean
Energy Deployment Fund established under subsection (c)(1).
On page 45, line 9, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.
On page 45, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
(c) International Clean Energy Deployment Fund.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of
the United States a fund, to be known as the ``International
Clean Energy Deployment Fund''.
(2) Use of funds.--All amounts in the Fund shall be made
available, without further appropriation or fiscal year
limitation, for purposes of this section.
On page 45, line 18, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
On page 46, line 23, strike ``; and'' and insert a
semicolon.
On page 47, line 2, strike the period at the end and insert
a semicolon.
On page 47, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
(D) no single country receives more than 15 percent of the
funds awarded during any 3-year period; and
(E) assistance is targeted at reducing or eliminating the
increased costs associated with deploying clean technologies
in place of traditional technologies.
Beginning on page 47, strike line 6 and all that follows
through page 48, line 2, and insert the following:
(5) Form of assistance.--
(A) In general.--Consistent with Federal and international
intellectual property law, assistance under this subsection
shall be provided--
(i) as direct assistance in the form of grants,
concessional loans, cooperative agreements, contracts,
insurance, or loan guarantees to or with qualified entities;
(ii) as indirect assistance to such entities through--
(I) funding for international clean technology funds
supported by multilateral institutions;
(II) support from development and export promotion
assistance programs of the United States Government; or
(III) support from international technology programs of the
Department of Energy; or
(iii) in such other forms as the Board may determine
appropriate.
(B) Oversight by the secretary of the treasury of
assistance for multilateral trust funds.--In the case of
assistance provided under subparagraph (A)(ii)(I) for a clean
technology fund or similar fund that is a multilateral trust
fund based at the World Bank, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States
to ensure that the assistance is used in accordance with the
purposes of this section.
On page 48, beginning on line 20, strike ``emissions
through Federal or State engagement'' and insert the
following: ``emissions in eligible countries.
(C) Funding for Federal or State engagement
On page 49, beginning on line 10, strike ``the date that is
30 days after the date on which the Board submits'' and
insert ``30 days after submitting''.
On page 50, line 15, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
On page 50, lines 17 and 18, strike ``President'' and
insert ``Board''.
On page 50, line 24, strike ``President'' and insert
``Board''.
On page 51, line 6, strike ``; and'' and insert a
semicolon.
On page 51, line 15, strike the period at the end and
insert ``; and''.
On page 51, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
(C) such information as may be necessary to provide for the
evaluation, not less frequently than once every three years,
of the performance of each international clean technology
fund provided assistance pursuant to paragraph (5)(A)(ii)(I).
On page 51, line 16, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.
On page 51, line 24, strike ``(f)'' and insert ``(g)''.
On page 52, line 3, strike ``(g)'' and insert ``(h)''.
On page 439, line 10, strike ``; and'' and insert a
semicolon.
On page 439, line 11, strike the period at the end and
insert ``; and''.
On page 439, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
(vi) the Committee on Financial Services.
On page 439, line 14, strike ``President'' and insert
``Board''.
On page 439, strike lines 15 through 17 and insert the
following:
(A) is eligible to receive official development assistance
according to the guidelines of the Development Assistance
Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development; and
On page 439, line 24, strike ``President'' and insert
``Board''.
______
SA 4979. Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Sessions,
and Mrs. Murray) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him
to the bill S. 3001, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009
for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of subtitle D of title VI, add the following:
[[Page 11800]]
SEC. 642. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT OF REDUCTION OF SBP SURVIVOR
ANNUITIES BY DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY
COMPENSATION.
(a) Repeal.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended as follows:
(A) In section 1450, by striking subsection (c).
(B) In section 1451(c)--
(i) by striking paragraph (2); and
(ii) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(2) and (3), respectively.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Such subchapter is further
amended as follows:
(A) In section 1450--
(i) by striking subsection (e);
(ii) by striking subsection (k); and
(iii) by striking subsection (m).
(B) In section 1451(g)(1), by striking subparagraph (C).
(C) In section 1452--
(i) in subsection (f)(2), by striking ``does not apply--''
and all that follows and inserting ``does not apply in the
case of a deduction made through administrative error.''; and
(ii) by striking subsection (g).
(D) In section 1455(c), by striking ``, 1450(k)(2),''.
(b) Prohibition on Retroactive Benefits.--No benefits may
be paid to any person for any period before the effective
date provided under subsection (f) by reason of the
amendments made by subsection (a).
(c) Prohibition on Recoupment of Certain Amounts Previously
Refunded to SBP Recipients.--A surviving spouse who is or has
been in receipt of an annuity under the Survivor Benefit Plan
under subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10, United States
Code, that is in effect before the effective date provided
under subsection (f) and that is adjusted by reason of the
amendments made by subsection (a) and who has received a
refund of retired pay under section 1450(e) of title 10,
United States Code, shall not be required to repay such
refund to the United States.
(d) Repeal of Authority for Optional Annuity for Dependent
Children.--Section 1448(d) of such title is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Except as provided in
paragraph (2)(B), the Secretary concerned'' and inserting
``The Secretary concerned''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``Dependent children.--'' and all that
follows through ``In the case of a member described in
paragraph (1),'' and inserting ``Dependent children annuity
when no eligible surviving spouse.--In the case of a member
described in paragraph (1),''; and
(B) by striking subparagraph (B).
(e) Restoration of Eligibility for Previously Eligible
Spouses.--The Secretary of the military department concerned
shall restore annuity eligibility to any eligible surviving
spouse who, in consultation with the Secretary, previously
elected to transfer payment of such annuity to a surviving
child or children under the provisions of section
1448(d)(2)(B) of title 10, United States Code, as in effect
on the day before the effective date provided under
subsection (f). Such eligibility shall be restored whether or
not payment to such child or children subsequently was
terminated due to loss of dependent status or death. For the
purposes of this subsection, an eligible spouse includes a
spouse who was previously eligible for payment of such
annuity and is not remarried, or remarried after having
attained age 55, or whose second or subsequent marriage has
been terminated by death, divorce or annulment.
(f) Effective Date.--The sections and the amendments made
by this section shall take effect on the later of--
(1) the first day of the first month that begins after the
date of the enactment of this Act; or
(2) the first day of the fiscal year that begins in the
calendar year in which this Act is enacted.
____________________
NOTICE OF HEARING
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the
information of the Senate and the public that a field hearing has been
scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Subcommittee on National Parks. The hearing will be held on Monday,
July 21, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., at the Destination Center at Blue Ridge
Parkway, 195 Hemphill Knob Road, Asheville, North Carolina.
The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding the All
Taxa Biodiversity Inventory of all species within the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park. Specifically, the hearing will address: (1)
How much has been learned up to this point and at what cost? (2) What
is left to be done and what is the estimated time and cost to complete
the inventory? (3) How has the data been used and are there other ways
to use it? (4) What changes, if any, should be made in the program and
(5) Should the program be expanded to include other National Parks?
Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may
testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written
testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC
20510-6150, or by e-mail to [email protected]
.gov.
For further information, please contact Kira Finkler at (202) 224-
5523 or Rachel Pastenack at (202) 224-0883.
____________________
HONORING DR. FENG SHAN HO
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the Senate now proceed to consideration of S. Res. 588, which was
submitted earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 588) honoring Dr. Feng Shan Ho, a man
of great courage and humanity, who saved the lives of
thousands of Austrian Jews between 1938 and 1940.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be
agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be
laid on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 588) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 588
Whereas, at great personal risk and sacrifice, Dr. Feng
Shan Ho authorized the issuance of Chinese visas to Jewish
persons so they could emigrate from Austria and escape the
horrors of the Holocaust;
Whereas it is necessary to honor Dr. Ho posthumously
because, in the ultimate demonstration of selfless
humanitarianism, Dr. Ho never sought recognition for his
courageous actions;
Whereas 70 years ago, Adolf Hitler's troops crossed into
Austria and announced the Anschluss (the annexation of
Austria to Germany), thereby applying all anti-Semitic
decrees to Austrian Jews;
Whereas the Nazis brutally persecuted more than 200,000
Austrian Jews, by forcibly segregating them, depriving them
of their citizenship and livelihoods, and interning them in
concentration camps;
Whereas the fierceness of the persecution in Austria became
the model for the future persecution of Jews in other Nazi-
conquered territories;
Whereas the Nazis initially assumed a policy of coerced
expulsion, with the goal of eventually removing all Jewish
persons from Europe;
Whereas most other foreign consulates, although besieged by
desperate Jews, offered no help;
Whereas a young Chinese diplomat in Vienna, Dr. Feng Shan
Ho, refused to stand by and witness the destruction of
innocent human beings, and authorized the issuance of visas
for all Jews who asked;
Whereas word spread quickly and Jewish persons formed long
lines in front of the Chinese Consulate to obtain the
lifesaving visas;
Whereas the Chinese ambassador in Berlin ordered Dr. Ho to
stop authorizing visas for Jews, but Dr. Ho nevertheless
continued, at risk to his career, to prepare the visas;
Whereas in 1939, the Nazis confiscated the Chinese
Consulate building, on the grounds that it was a Jewish-owned
building;
Whereas, when the Chinese government refused funds to
relocate the Consulate, Dr. Ho reopened the Consulate in
another building and personally paid all the expenses;
Whereas in May 1940, Dr. Ho left Vienna, having authorized
visas for thousands of Austrian Jews;
Whereas after 4 decades in diplomatic service to China, in
1973, Dr. Ho moved to the United States to join his children;
Whereas Dr. Ho became a United States citizen and lived in
San Francisco until September 28, 1997, when he passed away
at the age of 96;
Whereas, the world only knows of Dr. Ho's courageous
actions because of a chance discovery among his diplomatic
papers after his death, and the full extent of Dr. Ho's
heroism is still being uncovered; and
Whereas, in 2000, the State of Israel posthumously made Dr.
Ho an honorary citizen of Israel and granted him one of
Israel's highest honors, the title of Righteous Among the
Nations, ``for his humanitarian courage in issuing Chinese
visas to Jews in Vienna in spite of orders from his superior
to the contrary'': Now, therefore, be it
[[Page 11801]]
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) honors and salutes the great courage and humanity of
Dr. Feng Shan Ho for acting at great personal risk to issue
Chinese visas to Jews in Vienna between 1938 and 1940; and
(2) recognizes his heroic deeds in saving the lives of
thousands of Jewish persons by allowing them to escape the
Holocaust.
____________________
MEASURE PLACED ON THE CALENDAR--H.J. RES. 92
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I understand H.J. Res. 92 is at
the desk and due for a second reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (H.J. Res. 92) increasing the statutory limit
on the public debt.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I now object to any further
proceedings at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The bill will be placed on
the calendar.
____________________
MEASURE READ THE FIRST TIME--S. 3098
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I understand that S. 3098
introduced earlier today by Senator McConnell is at the desk, and I ask
for its first reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 3098) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other
purposes.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask for its second reading and object to my
own request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The bill will be read for the second time on the next legislative
day.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
CONSUMER-FIRST ENERGY ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO PROCEED
Mr. REID. Mr. President, today the price of oil is $132 a barrel. I
do not know how the stock market is going to wind up, but with the slap
in the face the economy got today with the unemployment rate
skyrocketing and the price of oil $132 a barrel, the stock market is
down about 300 points. How it is going to wind up today, I do not know.
Mr. President, on the global warming bill we just completed--and I
say ``completed''--we were unable to offer amendments, we were unable
to legislate on this most important piece of legislation. The
Republicans said what they wanted to do is anytime we mention ``global
warming,'' they would mention ``gas prices.''
Well, today, we do not have to guess what we are going to do next
because I am going to file cloture on the most important piece of
legislation dealing with gas prices we have done in some time.
So, Mr. President, we, as I have indicated, heard the Republicans
speak at length about the problem of high gas prices. In doing so, they
follow the lead of the majority who have been not just speaking about
high gas prices for months but now working to find some solutions. We
introduced something called the Consumer-First Energy Act. It was
blocked by the Republicans. But now maybe, with gas prices even higher
than they were a month ago, our Republican friends are finally ready to
join our pursuit of solutions. Perhaps now, after taking their gas
prices on the floor of the Senate for a week and talking about it and
talking about it, they are ready to back their words with action. So
next week they will have a chance--it will be Tuesday morning--to vote
on gas prices. We are going to return to that legislation that will
relieve the burden of record gas prices for American consumers, both in
the long term and the short term.
What is in this bill? The President will remember, one of the things
in the bill previously--we had five sections of the bill--one of them
said: Mr. President, with the gas prices as high as they are, why do
you continue to take this oil, the best oil there is--the sweet crude--
and pump it into the Petroleum Reserve when it is almost filled anyway?
So we did that, and that now is not happening anymore. He is not
pumping that because we peeled part of that off and passed it
individually.
So what is left in our legislation? First, it ends in billions of
dollars in tax breaks for oil companies--oil companies whose executives
have been hauling in record profits while we pay record prices for
gasoline. I don't know what it is in Virginia, but in Nevada the price
of gas is now more than $4 a gallon.
As I sat on the floor of the Senate earlier this week, a friend of
mine whom I went to high school with--his name is Ted Sandival and I
have done legal work for him over the years when I practiced law and we
have maintained a relationship--called me. I was wondering what was
wrong. In the whole conversation, the only thing he expressed to me
that he was concerned about was that he always wanted to buy a diesel
vehicle because they last so much longer. So he bought a diesel vehicle
and he said: Harry, I can't afford to put fuel in it anymore. I am
paying almost $5 a gallon for diesel fuel.
Well, the oil companies are making record profits. The oil executives
are making record salaries and bonuses and are getting record amounts
of compensation, and we don't think it is appropriate at this time for
the American taxpayers to continue paying billions of dollars in tax
breaks to the oil companies. We are going to vote on this Tuesday
morning.
The other section of our bill forces oil companies to do their part
by investing part of their profits in clean and affordable alternative
energy.
Third: We protect the American people from price gougers and greedy
oil traders who manipulate the market.
Finally, a bipartisan section of this bill. Senators Specter and Kohl
came to see me yesterday, both longtime members of the Judiciary
Committee who believe that OPEC and others who are colluding to keep
oil prices high should be subject to this Sherman Antitrust Act.
Senator Specter went through all the legal reasons, and as we all know,
he is a real legal scholar. So I am convinced he is right and we should
do this.
The Consumer First Energy Act does exactly what it promises: It ends
more than 7 years of the Cheney energy policy that has lined the
pockets of modern-day oil barons and left the American people to pay
the bill.
Finally, it puts consumers first. Is this a silver bullet ending all
the problems? Of course not. But it is a bill that will solve some of
the energy problems we have in our country today.
This legislation is an important step that will make a difference, as
I have said, in the long and the short run. So I hope the minority will
put their votes where their mouths have been all week. Passing this
smart, responsible bill will help put American families first and help
take another step on the road to a renewable revolution.
Cloture Motion
Mr. President, normally what we do is ask unanimous consent to move
forward on this legislation. We know the minority, if they were here,
would object. They are not here, so rather than embarrass anyone, I
will now move to proceed to Calendar No. 743, S. 3044, and send a
cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to S. 3044, the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008.
[[Page 11802]]
Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Charles E. Schumer, Sheldon
Whitehouse, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Patty Murray, Debbie
Stabenow, Benjamin L. Cardin, Daniel K. Akaka, Jack
Reed, Claire McCaskill, Christopher J. Dodd, Amy
Klobuchar, Patrick J. Leahy, Barbara A. Mikulski, Frank
R. Lautenberg, Carl Levin.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory
quorum be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I now withdraw the motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is withdrawn.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I filed cloture on the motion to proceed to
the legislation that I outlined, S. 3044, which is the Consumer First
Energy Act. I am going to shortly move to proceed to H.R. 6049, the
Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008. However, prior to doing
that, I was going to ask unanimous consent that if cloture were invoked
on the motion to proceed to S. 3044, that then the cloture motion on
H.R. 6049 would be withdrawn. Since there is no one from the Republican
side here to launch an objection, which I am told they would do, I am
not going to ask for unanimous consent today but will do so on Monday
when a Republican is here in the Senate.
____________________
RENEWABLE ENERGY AND JOB CREATION ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO PROCEED
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 767,
H.R. 6049, energy production and conservation, and I send a cloture
motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 767, H.R. 6049, the Renewable Energy
and Job Creation Act of 2008.
Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Sherrod Brown, Robert
Menendez, Kent Conrad, Daniel K. Inouye, Byron L.
Dorgan, Jon Tester, Richard Durbin, Patty Murray, Max
Baucus, John D. Rockefeller IV, Maria Cantwell, Frank
R. Lautenberg, John F. Kerry, Blanche L. Lincoln, E.
Benjamin Nelson.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory
quorum required under rule XXII be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--MEDICARE IMPROVEMENT FOR PATIENTS AND
PROVIDERS ACT OF 2008
Mr. REID. Mr. President, notwithstanding an adjournment of the Senate
today, June 6, I ask unanimous consent that the bill relating to the
Medicare Improvement for Patients and Providers Act of 2008, introduced
by Senators Boxer and Snowe, among others, be considered to have
received a first reading and objection made to further proceedings on
Friday, June 6; that it then receive its second reading on the next
legislative day; and that this request is only valid until 5 p.m.
today, Friday, June 6.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
ORDERS FOR MONDAY, JUNE 9, 2008
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 3:15
p.m., Monday, June 9; following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal
of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired,
the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the
day, and the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to
Calendar No. 728, S. 3044, the Consumer First Energy Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. REID. As I have said earlier, Mr. President, there will be no
rollcall votes on Monday. Senators should be prepared to vote Tuesday
morning.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL MONDAY, JUNE 9, 2008, AT 3:15 P.M.
Mr. REID. If there is no further business to come before the Senate,
I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous
order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 2:08 p.m., adjourned until
Monday, June 9, 2008, at 3:15 p.m.