Camp Ellis Beach Restoration Act

Mr. President, I would like to say, first of all, that I share some of the great concerns of my colleague from Texas.

Today, I rise to address the legislative proposal introduced by Senators Lieberman and Warner to address global climate change. Like many of my colleagues, I share the urgency to take proactive steps to address this challenge we have.

That said, I have serious reservations about the proposal. I think it is overly aggressive, vastly outpacing what technology can provide and thus ensuring enormous economic pain on the country, and it is overly bureaucratic and cumbersome in its implementation, representing an unprecedented expansion of Government power and a massive bureaucratic intrusion into American lives that will have a profound effect on businesses, communities, and families.

The EPA has stated in answer to a letter I sent them that this program will take between 300 and 400 people to implement, whereas the acid rain provision takes just under 30.

The major failure of this legislation is it fails to harmonize our country's economic energy and environmental objectives, and the consequences to American interests could be devastating.

The international aspect of this problem is particularly troublesome. The developing world is currently undertaking an intensive expansion of energy infrastructure and escalating industrial and commercial expansion to meet the demands of growing domestic and international markets. The developing nations' combined emissions shortly will exceed the developed nations' combined emissions.

In 2007, ``[t]he International Energy Agency issued a . . . report projecting global energy demand would increase by more than one-half by 2030, and that `Developing countries . . . contribute 74 percent of the increase in global primary energy use . . . China and India alone account for 45 percent of that increase.' ''

China puts on line two coal-fired plants every week--two coal-fired plants every week. In June, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency announced that China's 2006 CO2 emissions surpassed those of the United States by 8 percent. With this, China tops the list of CO2-emitting countries for the first time and, by the way, years ahead of the projections that were made a couple of years ago.

Much like China, those countries with large domestic reserves of coal--and that includes the United States--will continue to use it. It is unrealistic to assume that the world would turn its back on this abundant resource. We must take this reality into account, and this can be done by jump-starting the technology that is needed to produce the energy we need in an environmentally sound manner.

Recognizing the international dynamic of this problem, the Lieberman- Warner proposal attempts to impose a tariff-like requirement to hold carbon credits for goods entering the United States from countries that do not control their emissions. The U.S. Trade Representative has questioned the plan's efficacy, and China, Mexico, and Brazil have signaled that the policy could begin a trade war. Indeed, top officials from the European Union and the United Nations have also raised doubts about whether the U.S. trade penalties would harm the prospects of a new global warming agreement.

But even if the provision is WTO compliant, it will not address the underlying competitiveness issues the United States would face from the higher fuel, feedstock, and electricity prices the bill would impose on U.S. manufacturers.

A better approach is needed. Americans are already struggling with the increase in their cost of living due to higher prices for gasoline, home heating fuel, electricity, food, and health care, and this bill would only make things worse. I wish some of the sponsors would go back into their respective constituencies to hear the complaints from most people--middle-class people, poor, the retirees--whose standard of living is being reduced in the country today because of these costs.

We cannot tolerate policies that harm our economy and drive businesses overseas. If those businesses locate in countries that do not share our environmental objectives, then we are worse off on two counts: Fewer jobs in the United States and no benefits at all to the environment.

Over my strenuous objections, this bill was voted out of the Environment and Public Works Committee without an analysis of the economic impacts on the country from either the EPA or the Energy Information Office. Today, we have at least a dozen analyses of the bill from a wide variety of groups, and they are all about the same.

EPA's analysis predicts that by 2030, annual losses in gross domestic product could be as high as $983 billion, and by 2050, those losses would grow to $2.8 trillion. To put this into perspective,

CBO projects the Federal budget for this year will be $2.9 trillion. That means the potential impact losses from this legislation in 2050 would equal that spent on everything we intend to spend this year from Social Security to national defense. Think about it.

In order to meet the caps of the bill, the analysis assumes aggressive growth in nuclear and other clean energy technologies at rates that are widely regarded as unachievable and, from my perspective, unbelievable. For example, they predict a 150-percent increase in nuclear power by 2050. Today, there are 104 operating plants, meaning that we have to build up to another 150 new plants by 2050. The Energy Information Office said, when they did the analysis, that we would have to build 220 of them by 2030 in order for these caps to be realistic. These assumptions are unrealistic and mask the true cost of implementing the bill.

In regard to nuclear power, I recently published a paper in the Nuclear News on the steps we need to take to launch a nuclear renaissance. I am going to make certain that each Member receives a copy of this paper. But bringing vast amounts of new nuclear power on line will not be a layup shot. For example, there is only one company and one plant in the world that makes the vessels and forges for plants. Recently, we anticipated new plants would cost about $5 billion. The new cost is $7 billion per copy. Today, we have pending at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9 applications for 15 new plants that, if constructed, would not come on line until 2015, 2016, and 2017. Honestly, we are going to be lucky to have 30 new nuclear powerplants by 2030.

In regard to what we call capture carbon and sequestration--the technology that is needed--no commercial experience or testing at scale has been done. DOE says it will take 10 years before the seven large- scale demonstration tests are complete to look at sequestration. DOE said that a more robust geological assessment will not be complete until 2015. Liability and critical infrastructure issues remain unanswered, and DOE says commercial CCS may not be available for 20 years.

The connection between the costs of the program and the availability of clean energy technology is clear. As EIA points out:

The . . . timing of the development, commercialization, and

deployment of low-emissions electricity generating

technologies such as nuclear power, coal with CCS, and

dispatchable renewable power is a major detriment of the

energy and economic impacts of 2191.

I want to repeat that.

The . . . timing of the development, commercialization, and

deployment of low-emissions electricity generating

technologies such as nuclear power, coal with [carbon capture

sequestration], and dispatchable renewable power is a major

detriment of the energy and economic impacts of 2191.

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

The bill, as conceived, will just bore new holes into an

already battered economy. . . .

Coal-dependent states with partially deregulated energy

prices--Ohio, for instance--would take a double hit in

economic dislocations and electricity price spikes, with

barely any financial cushions to make the disruptions more

palatable. The bill also lacks the kind of consumer fairness

and flexibility necessary to avoid fuel-price shocks and

damage to manufacturing nationwide.

I ask unanimous consent to have this editorial printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the paper I have written on the nuclear renaissance.

Mr. President, while coal and manufacturing States pay their neighbors and the Government to stay in business, the bill establishes trillions of dollars in new entitlements, earmarks-- earmarks--with money flowing to over 30 new Government spending programs, constituting, as the Wall Street Journal recently pointed out, one of the largest tax-and-spend bills in the Nation's history.

Based on EPA's analysis, this bill would raise over $6 trillion from the allowance auction from owners and operators of utilities and factories that have to purchase allowances to stay in business. But the cost of purchasing these allowances would be passed on to consumers as higher prices, which will, as the CBO points out, amount to a regressive tax hitting low- and middle-income working families. In my State, they predict that by 2012, the cost of electricity will go up 50 percent, the cost of natural gas 80 percent, and the cost of gasoline will go up 30 percent. Some of my constituents say: How can the cost of gasoline go up? I point out to them that we have refineries that refine oil. With this bill, they are going to have to buy allowances, and those allowances will increase the cost of your gasoline 30 percent. Did you hear that? A 30-percent increase in gasoline costs as a result of this legislation. Give me a break.

Despite the severe economic damage Lieberman-Warner would impose on the U.S. economy, the policy would do little to address global climate change. EPA's--this is not some conservative group out there--analysis indicates the policy will reduce global concentrations of CO2 less than 5 percent by 2095.

Addressing climate change will require a technology revolution centered on the way we produce and use energy. The theory behind Lieberman-Warner is that the more painful it is on business, the faster CO2 reductions will occur. I believe the solution to this problem lies in our ability to increase access to clean energy. Instead of using the power of the Government to increase energy cost, we should use it to decrease barriers to investments and clean energy solutions.

The United States took a lot of flak from countries for our not signing Kyoto, but I am pleased the Bush administration has been moving forward with some new initiatives. And while we didn't sign Kyoto, we do have a base of international activities to build on, and one of them could provide the basis for becoming a multinational effort, giving all countries a vested interest in technology advancement and deployment.

The thing we have to remember is that, above all, the developing world desires sustained economic growth. Slowing down economic development to address climate change is not an option they are willing to pursue, and we cannot force it upon them. If we are going to be successful in addressing the challenge of climate change, we have to set a realistic vision for the developing world, using what Richard Armitage and Joseph Nye referred to as smart power. When they testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 24, 2008, they argued that the world:

. . . looks to the U.S. to put forward better ideas rather

than just walk away from the table.

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

They go on to say:

The United States needs to rediscover how to be a smart

power, which matches vision with execution and

accountability, and looks broadly at U.S. goals, strategies,

and influence in a changing world.

And they rightly conclude that our:

. . . challenges can only be addressed with capable and

willing allies and partners.

Without willing partners in China and India, we cannot be successful in addressing climate change. Technologies development and promotion should drive our national climate policy. It is the only rational path forward. It is the only way to deal with emissions from rapidly expanding coal-based economies such as China and India, that readily admit they have no intention of accepting binding emission targets.

The public interest and private sector communities agree that the crucial factor that will determine whether we have an effective climate policy is the extent that policy will encourage the development and deployment of needed technology. Regulation without sufficiently available technology will result in high cost for American consumers while offering little hope that developing nations will answer the call to reduce their emissions.

In conclusion, I agree that we need to act quickly to address climate change, but we must be smart about how we proceed. I am hoping after this year's debate, we can come together--come together--on a bipartisan basis, to draft a bill that doesn't impose unilateral actions that hurt our economy and drive jobs overseas but rather jump- starts technology, engages our international partners through collaborative multinational efforts to develop and deploy the clean energy technologies that everyone recognizes are necessary to solve this global environmental problem.

I appreciate the Chair giving me an extra minute.

Mr. President, I heard the distinguished majority leader criticize the Republicans for wanting to have a debate on this piece of legislation. Frankly, I think we would be remiss in our duties if we didn't discuss this important piece of legislation, as complex and difficult a topic as it is and, frankly, ask questions that I know our constituents would ask of us were

we to vote for or against this particular legislation.

I, for one, make no apologies for doing what I consider to be my duty, and I think all of us would do well to ask questions about this legislation, which proposes a $6.7 trillion pricetag--that is trillion; not billion, not million but trillion, $6.7 trillion.

We talk about what Congress has been doing. Let me mention what Congress has not been doing and what the Senate has not been doing.

It has been 109 days since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was not reauthorized, which has hampered our ability to listen in on terrorist-to-terrorist communications.

We have spent 560 days since American businesses and farmers have been disadvantaged by not taking up the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. For my State alone, it is roughly $2.3 billion a year. But my producers, farmers, and manufacturers are disadvantaged by tariffs on those goods when they are imported into Colombia, even though Colombian goods bear zero tariffs coming into the United States. We ought to fix that.

So it has been 560 days since that condition has existed. It has been 705 days since some judicial nominees have been waiting for a vote. It has been 771 days since Speaker Pelosi went campaigning before the 2006 election and said, if elected, the Democrats would deliver a commonsense solution to the price of gasoline and the pain consumers were feeling at the pump. That was 771 days ago. Yet there has been no proposal by our friends in the majority to actually come up with a commonsense solution to help ease the pain at the pump. Instead, we have a bill which--while I don't question the motivation for the bill since we are all concerned about the environment, I do think it is important that we ask questions about a bill that carries such a high pricetag and which will have the impact of actually increasing the cost of energy--gasoline and electricity--rather than reducing it.

I must say that last week, like all the rest of my colleagues, I went back home and had a chance to visit with a number of my constituents. Of course, high gasoline prices was the No. 1 issue on their minds. Even though my State is doing relatively well compared to the rest of the country, with about a 4.1-percent unemployment rate, we have seen some softening in the housing market, but generally speaking, my State is prospering. We are grateful for that. But even people who have jobs and feel as though they are doing pretty well otherwise are still feeling their paychecks shrink as a result of rising energy costs.

I am wondering why we are now on a piece of legislation that, rather than reducing the cost of their gasoline or electricity, will actually increase it. Right now, the average price of a gallon of gasoline across the country is right at $4 per gallon.

As I talked to my constituents last week around the State, they asked me: What is Congress going to do to finally take action to lower those prices?

Well, unfortunately, I had to tell them we only got 42 votes on a provision on a bill--the Domenici amendment--which would actually have increased our use of American energy and reduced our dependency on imported oil from some of our enemies, such as Hugo Chavez from Venezuela and Ahmed Amadi Nejad from Iran, which are part of OPEC.

By our inaction in Congress, we are driving up that cost because, since 1982, we have been putting vast American reserves of energy out of bounds through a moratorium that was enacted on the Outer Continental Shelf, through our unwillingness to explore and develop oil shale in the West and our unwillingness to allow the State of Alaska to develop its own energy reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. So it is easy for me to understand, seeing that disconnect between what my constituents are concerned about--high prices of energy, including gasoline--having to come back and debate a bill that will drive up those costs even further--it is easy to see why more and more people believe Congress is totally disconnected from reality. Congress appears to have very little relevance to the issue that concerns the American people the most, and that is the family budget.

I want to be clear about one matter though. The debate about our environment is one well worth having. Of course, we can all do better and should do better in being good stewards of the environment, conserving energy and reducing waste. Reducing dependency on foreign oil and bringing down prices at the pump are needed too. My fear is that this important issue is rapidly becoming just another tired political game.

Taking care of the environment is not a Republican versus Democrat issue. It should not be about partisan politics. Haven't we learned by now that the American people are fed up with the games in Washington and want real solutions?

Well, yesterday, the majority leader and the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Boxer, were criticizing the fact that we wanted to use some of the time today to ask questions about this important legislation so that we could educate ourselves and our constituents about what is in this very complex piece of legislation. But I do have some questions I hope will be answered in this week's debate.

First of all, how much will this bill cost? I have read estimates that this bill's pricetag is somewhere in the $6.7 trillion range. I fear that if that is correct, this is simply too costly of a burden to put on the American people. This is especially true when I believe more cost-effective solutions are available. I think we should balk at any piece of legislation that carries a pricetag of $6.7 trillion. Perhaps I have not been in Congress long enough to be jaded by such talk, and I hope I never am, but I still have trouble grasping the enormity of a number like $1 trillion. Now we are talking about $6.7 trillion. People in Congress tend to toss those numbers around like it is pocket change. But this is real money coming out of the budgets of real people--the American people.

I would like to know why $6.7 trillion, and what is that money going to be spent for?

Why do we have to opt for a cost in that range when there are more cost-effective solutions available, such as tax credits for developing renewable energy, clean energy, like solar energy and wind energy? Why aren't we doing more to develop our nuclear energy capacity to create electricity, which is carbon free? Why aren't we doing that instead of spending $6.7 trillion?

I want to know what the impact of this legislation would be on our economy and on the family budget. Already we have seen--as a result of the inaction of Congress over this last 771 days, since our Democratic colleagues said they had a commonsense plan to reduce the price of gasoline at the pump--the average American family lose $1,400 in increased gasoline costs as a result of the rise in gasoline prices over that same period of time.

Now, some estimates are that Texas families--my constituents--would pay an additional $8,000 if we pass this piece of legislation. That includes, some estimates say, a 145-percent increase in electricity costs and a 147-percent increase in gasoline costs. That is at least $5.30 a gallon at a time when gasoline is $3.98 a gallon.

Is it really true the proponents of this legislation want to raise that to $5.30 a gallon? It seems to me we are going in the wrong direction, not the right direction.

At the same time, it is estimated this legislation, if passed, would actually cause more than 300,000 Texans to lose their jobs. Overall, estimates indicate this bill could cost the economy in my State--one of the States that is actually doing very well from an economic point of view--more than $50 billion in additional costs.

Mr. President, we cannot afford another wet blanket on our economy caused by higher taxes and more expenses coming out of the family budget and more pressure on our job creators that provide people an opportunity to put food on the table.

Another question I have is, if the United States of America decides to impose this costly burden on ourselves, will China and India likewise impose the same burden on their energy industry? Of course, booming industrial giants such as China and India both have 1 billion- plus people. We know we are increasingly in a global competition and not only with India and China but the entire planet.

Why in the world would we impose a costly piece of legislation in the amount of $6.7 trillion on the American people and raise electricity costs and gasoline costs and depress the gross domestic product of this country, putting people out of work, if our major global competitors are going to get off scot-free and not likewise constrain their economy by imposing these sorts of burdens on themselves?

Finally, Mr. President, I would like to know on what basis do the proponents of the legislation believe this bill will have its intended effect? If human beings contribute to climate change, which I will not debate--I assume we do in some way or another--why have these targets been proposed? What is the science to justify those? What if those targets are reached, albeit at a cost of $6.7 trillion, with rising gas and electricity costs and a depression effect on our gross domestic product? How do we know, and where is the science that says, this bill will actually have its intended effect, particularly if China and India, our global competitors, don't participate?

The Wall Street Journal has dubbed this legislation ``the most extensive Government reorganization of the American economy since the 1930s.'' It seems to me this is something we should debate and examine and we should ask questions about so that we will know what the effect of this bill will be if it is passed.

We have already seen that Congress is not exactly omniscient when it comes to the energy area, where we have subsidized corn-based ethanol as an alternative to renewable sources of energy. The fact is, we found there are unintended consequences when we use food for fuel.

How do we know this particular bill, the Boxer climate tax bill, will not have unintended consequences? I fear it may not have the intended effect of reducing carbon emissions, and it may have some of the unintended and disastrous side effects I have already outlined.

If we are certain this is the right approach to protecting the environment, where is the evidence? Yesterday, the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and today the majority leader, complained about the fact that we want to use some time today to ask these questions and get answers. We should not be asked nor should the American people be asked to accept this on faith: Don't worry, trust us. It reminds me of the most fearsome words in the English language: We are from the Government, and we are here to help. If that is true, the American people ought to see the evidence that will justify this huge expenditure of their money, the huge increase in prices of energy, and the depressing effect on the economy, why that is necessary, and whether it will actually work as intended. Where is the evidence?

Senator Boxer, the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the rising cost would not be a problem because of tax offsets she has included in this bill. She assured us this bill contained almost $1 trillion of tax relief, so that if we do see some of the increases in energy costs in the early years-- electricity, for example--we can offset that. It almost boggles the imagination that the primary author of this legislation, Senator Boxer, would essentially concede that there will be rising energy costs as a result of this legislation and say we ought to spend $1 trillion more of the taxpayers' money to provide offsets for relief. This huge, complex bill deserves all the scrutiny we can give it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.