Floor Statements

Mr. President, I too rise in support of the cloture motion this morning and ask my colleagues if we are going to pass the Energy bill before the end of this year. I know the American consumer has gotten a wake-up call because they are paying higher gas prices at the pump. But the question is whether Congress and the White House have gotten the same wake-up call.

Fortunately, thanks to the hard work of Members on both sides of the aisle and many staff members we are within grasp of a very important solution. I am not even going to spend my time this morning talking about the important details of this bill because many of my colleagues, including the chairman of the Energy Committee, has extolled its virtues. Perhaps, if I have a minute at the end, I might elaborate on some of these. But it is time to get to the heart of the matter. And that is, the American people need serious relief from a future of high oil prices by making a transition this legislation would provide. That is we need to make sure we have an energy package that starts investing more aggressively in renewable energy and will actually get us competition at the gas pump and on our electricity grid.

I know some are saying the tax title in this bill must go. And some have even been bold enough to say that it's an increase in taxes. That is an interesting position because these are really tax subsidies for the oil industry. They are not a tax increase on consumers. When we passed similar tax provisions in the 2005 energy bill no one on the other side called that a tax increase.

In fact, when the President put broader subsidies in his budget this year, reducing some of the same subsidies, it was called a modification. So do not tell us now that cancelling a subsidy for the oil industry is somehow raising taxes on consumers. What we are really doing is continuing to make consumers pay more at the gas pump because we are not giving them true competition. At the heart of the matter is the fact that of the energy subsidies and investments that our country makes--that is, using American tax dollars to invest in energy strategies that will help our country--right now 75 percent of them is going to the fossil fuel industry. Only about 15 percent is going to clean energy.

Now, I ask my colleagues, when the United States only has 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, is it smart to continue to have the 75 percent investment in fossil fuels? I would say that we should pass this legislation and make more investments in renewable and energy efficiency.

If someone says that somehow this is going to impact the oil industry, I would like to refer them to a quote from Lee Raymond, the former ExxonMobil CEO who said on ``Fox News'' when asked whether Exxon was taking advantage of the new legislation that became law to speed up the development of refineries and capacity here in the U.S., he said ``it will not have a major impact.''

So I do not know why we are so concerned about keeping these subsidies when the industry itself, the big five oil companies are saying it has had a negligible impact. What it has had an impact on is consumers. And even the Joint Economic Committee has pointed out that the removal of these tax breaks are going to have very little impact on consumers. In fact, another third party observer, the Joint Tax Committee, basically said this $300 million in subsidies from the big five oil companies in 2008 that would be taken away would be less than 1 percent. In fact, it would have only a one-quarter of 1 percent impact on their profits.

That is right. They made $120.8 billion in profit in 2006, so taking this subsidy away from them it will have a negligible impact. So what are we holding this up for? Why are we going to hold up the Energy bill because someone does not want to take more subsidies away from the oil industry and put them toward clean energy?

Even President Bush recognized that the oil industry does not need more subsidies. President Bush, in April of 2005, said:

I will tell you with $55 oil we don't need incentives to

oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of

incentives.

I couldn't agree with the President more. He said that at $55 a barrel. Now that we are at $90, we need to move faster in changing these incentive programs. We all know that fossil fuels will continue to be a big part of the energy mix for decades and that there is a great deal of economic benefit from the incentives in oil and gas today. But what we have to realize is we cannot continue in this same direction. We have to change course. We have to level the playing field and take away subsidies from very mature, very profitable industries and make investments in renewables instead.

I know the President also agrees with that because when he signed the 2005 bill, he said:

The bill offers new incentives to promote clean, renewable

geothermal energy . . . When you hear us talking about less

dependence on foreign sources of energy, and one of the ways

to become less dependent is to enhance the use of renewable

sources of energy.

Again, I couldn't agree with the President more. But this is about getting a package that will help us give consumers the confidence that they are going to have true competition over the price at the pump.

The Energy and Finance Committees had hearing after hearing talking to the experts. I know some people on the other side of the aisle would say that

some of these tax incentives don't expire until the end of 2008. But this is about giving predictability to energy investment strategies. We heard in the Finance Committee testimony after testimony from experts saying: If you want to get more investment in renewable energy, you need to have more predictable energy tax credits. That is why we can see from our failed policies in the past that countries such as Denmark have made more headway, because they made more investment in renewables. Countries such as Japan have made more headway in solar energy because they made the investments. If we want to get beyond petroleum, we have to stop subsidizing it.

The impact of this morning's vote is that our colleagues are going to say we should take out the Finance package and that somehow will be a completion of an energy strategy. I tell my colleagues, nothing could be more important than getting the long-term fundamentals right for investment so that America can get off our dependence on foreign oil.

This legislation does represent nearly a 20-percent reduction in our current CO2 output and a 35-percent reduction in our foreign oil dependence. But to get those savings, we not only have to pass CAFE, we also have to pass incentives for renewable energy and do it for more than just 1 year so that we have predictable investment in these energy strategies and reap the economic benefits in jobs for America.

I thank the staff and all Members who have worked so hard on this legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if I could respond to a couple of things my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said because this is an important debate. If there are people who want to continue to debate the farm proposal we are going to be voting on this morning, I will be happy to yield the floor. But not seeing that, I am happy to continue the discussion on the Energy bill.

Both Senators from New Mexico have played an incredible leadership role in energy, and the 2005 Energy bill was a bipartisan effort. I certainly know what it is like to take half a loaf. That was not the bill I would have written myself, but I voted for that legislation. I think it started us on a course of making investments in renewable energy technology that was beneficial.

In particular I happen to disagree that the 2005 tax provisions, as they related to more subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, have been a big benefit for us. We even had an executive of an oil company say they did not think they were going to have much impact. So now consumers in my State are paying over $3 at the pump, and home heating oil prices are up 35 percent. So I do not think those subsidies to the oil industry have had any kind of magnificent impact that my colleague from Texas was saying.

What we do know is the investment we started in the 2005 bill in renewable energy is having an incredible impact. The question is whether we are going to give predictability to that industry. I would hate to think this is a vote--whether it is on this bill or any future bill; and this Senator would certainly take these provisions and put them on lots of different vehicles. It does not have to always be in this precise fashion--but the fact is, this bill and these tax incentives will generate over 50,000 megawatts of new, clean energy supply and efficiencies. That is right, it does create new generation.

Mr. President, 50,000 megawatts, in case anybody wants to know, is the same amount of electricity that is used in 26 States today. So the question is whether we are going to have a 1-year extension--that is, until 2008--for renewable energy, or whether we are going to give them 2, 3, 4 years of predictability so we can get that generation, as I said, that will produce enough electricity for 26 States out of renewable and efficiency generation, instead of continuing to use those tax subsidies for the oil industry that, even by their own account, they say are not having a significant impact.

So I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I have heard what the President has said. We have heard all along that he thinks these particular provisions are raising revenues on one industry. The President included in his own budget a broader reduction in the subsidies that we had previously passed, and nowhere did he call that raising revenue. So by his own account, it is hypocrisy to now start claiming these are somehow different.

What we need is to pass this Energy bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion on many of the provisions that are in this legislation that will diversify us off of fossil fuel and get us into renewables and biofuels, so we can lower the price at the pump for consumers.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, clearly this energy bill points us in a new direction. This is a much greener energy bill than we have seen in the past and certainly is more consumer friendly. It is a greener energy bill because it is nearly a 20-percent reduction in future CO2 output by the year 2030. It is a greener energy bill because it does make mandates on the Federal Government's use of energy. In fact, it is a 30-percent reduction in energy used by Federal buildings, resulting in a $4 billion annual savings to taxpayers by 2020. I know that may be hard for some people to believe and understand, but it is a lot of savings considering that there are 500,000 Federal buildings and that Government is the largest user of electricity in the country. So mandating these energy reductions is going to make us more efficient and certainly apply the use of those savings to help American taxpayers.

It is also a greener energy bill because it sets up new appliance and lighting standards. Again, I know people underestimate efficiency. Today household appliances, lighting, and electronics use up to two- thirds of the energy in households. By requiring these new standards for manufacture of these products, we will save over 40,000 megawatts of energy. That is the same amount of electricity used in 19 States today. It is certainly a greener energy bill because we are putting at the pump for consumers a renewable fuel competition for fossil fuel. We are doing that by mandating 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2020. That amount is the same amount we import from the Persian Gulf today. So swapping that oil out for a greener energy supply for our future is a tremendous benefit.

This also is a great consumer bill. It is a great consumer bill because of the fuel efficiency standards. The 35 miles per gallon will save American drivers over $200 billion at the gas pump. For my State of Washington, we will give consumers an annual $436 million of savings. It is also a consumer-friendly bill because we are reducing our dependence on foreign oil. This is a 35-percent reduction in our foreign oil consumption, and American consumers view this as one of our Nation's biggest priorities.

And it is a consumer-friendly bill because we have protected consumers by making market manipulation of oil markets a Federal crime. I know we have heard stories. I know there are lots of issues about speculation. But by giving the FTC new authority to issue fines per violation, we are giving consumers more protection.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I too want to add my thanks to my staff--Amit Ronen and Lauren Bazel--for their hard work, as well as the staff of the Finance, Energy, and Commerce Committees.

I commend Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye for working so hard to get this landmark legislation, which has been 30 years in the making, to pass here in the Senate. Everybody from these committees has worked very hard. I thank the staff for their diligence and their perseverance in making this happen.

Mr. President, I would like to briefly address H.R. 3688, the Peru Trade Promotion Act. While this agreement stands to provide significant benefits to our country's agricultural industry, it comes with unfortunate consequences for our country's asparagus growers. My home State of Washington is one of the top asparagus producing States in the country. However, since the passage of the Andean Trade Preferences Act, Washington has lost 21,000 of its 30,000 acres dedicated to asparagus and all three of Washington's asparagus canning facilities have now moved to Peru. This is the reason that I worked so hard to include a $15 million Market Loss Program dedicated to asparagus growers in the Senate's version of the 2007 farm bill. This program will support domestic asparagus producers, helping them plant and harvest more efficiently and remain competitive in the international market. In the past 17 years, the $200 million Washington asparagus industry has been reduced to a $75 million industry. To say that I am concerned about this trade agreement's effect on Washington's asparagus farmers would be an understatement. I implore the Senate, as it continues negotiations on the farm bill to support these hard working individuals remain competitive in our international economy.

With that said, the Peru Trade Promotion Act stands to significantly benefit the majority of farmers both in Washington and throughout our Nation. Under this agreement, Washington businesses will increase their exports to Peru by an estimated 45-62 percent and will immediately eliminate significant tariffs on many key goods. For example, Washington leads the Nation in potato exports and the current tariffs, now reaching up to 25 percent, will be eliminated immediately on most potato products. Washington's wheat farmers, whose exports are currently valued at over $314 million, will benefit greatly by the elimination of the 17-percent tariff on wheat. Washington's third largest industry, beef, has much to gain from the elimination of the 25-percent duty on beef. Dairy, our second largest farm industry will benefit from the elimination of a tariff system that has reached as high as 68 percent for dairy products being exported to Peru. Perhaps the most significant impact for Washington, however, will be for our

fruit growers. Washington ranks as the second largest fruit exporter in the Nation, bringing in $833 million for the State. Duties on fruit exported to Peru are currently 25 percent and would be immediately eliminated under the PTPA--a huge win for Washington and its fruit growers. Peru is a new growth market for Washington's fruit industry and the elimination of these tariffs will make our fruit much more competitive in the export market.

Given the significant benefits the vast majority of farmers in my State stand to reap from the Peru Trade Promotion Act, I will vote in favor of it, despite my grave concern for its effect on our asparagus industry. As PTPA is implemented, I will continue to fight to support asparagus growers through the Market Loss Program included in the Senate farm bill or any other means available to me and I strongly urge this body to do the same. The PTPA will benefit many, but it is up to us to assist those whose livelihoods are affected in the process of its implementation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Climate Change Adaptation Act of 2007.

Before I describe the merits of this bill, I would like to take a moment to commend many of my colleagues for their ongoing efforts to develop legislative solutions to meet the enormous challenges global warming poses to our Nation and our planet. I feel this bill helps address a somewhat overlooked, but key tool, to tackling this preeminent challenge facing our Nation.

I am proud that Washington State is taking the lead on the issue of global climate change. While my State's contribution to global warming is relatively small--because we are fortunate enough to derive about 70 percent of our electricity from inexpensive, emissions-free hydropower--global warming threatens to seriously impact our economy.

Ironically, one of the primary impacts of global warming on the Pacific Northwest will be to change our rainfall patterns in a way that reduces the amount of water available for hydropower production.

And these changes will not only harm electricity generation, they will also impact billions of dollars of economic infrastructure associated with irrigation systems, municipal water supplies, even ski resorts that depend on our historic snowfall patterns.

Faced with these possibilities, we must ask several simple questions: What are we doing to prepare for these changes? How are predicted sea level rises being incorporated into shoreline restoration projects, siting of public infrastructure, or disaster response plans, among many other examples? What tools do we need to give Federal, State, and local decisionmakers to take climate change into account on long-term, multibillion-dollar decisions?

Unfortunately, we don't have any answers.

As we discovered when I held a hearing on ocean acidification as chair of the Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard subcommittee last May, our Government is ill-equipped to plan for the consequences of global climate change. We simply lack the tools to develop the strategies we need to adapt.

In August, the Government Accountability Office found that the Federal government is not providing Federal agencies with the proper tools or policy mandates to take climate change impacts into account in carrying out their responsibilities to manage public resources.

In September, the National Academy of Sciences concluded there is a tremendous need to improve the delivery of climate change information to Federal, regional, and local levels so they can take climate change impacts into account in planning and managing resources.

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 2 or 3 decades.

While my top priority is to move our Nation to a clean energy system, we must face the fact that global warming is happening already, and it is only going to get worse.

That is why I am pleased today to be introducing the Climate Change Adaptation Act--a bill to ensure that our government plans for the changes that global warming will inevitably bring. This bill will require the President to develop a national strategy for addressing the impacts that climate change will have on our natural resources. It will also specifically require NOAA to conduct vulnerability assessments on the impacts of climate change on coastal and ocean resources, and to prepare adaptation plans for those resources.

Planning for the future isn't just common sense--it's responsible government.

This bill is complementary to several bills under consideration by the Commerce Committee on which I serve, including the Kerry-Snowe bill that was under discussion at a Commerce Committee hearing earlier today. Their bill contains many provisions I believe are vitally important--including language I authored with Senator Collins on the need for a program to study the threat of abrupt climate change. I'm also proud to work with Senator Lautenberg on legislation combating ocean acidification.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to move all these critical bills out of the committee and through the Senate in the coming weeks.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Climate Change Adaptation Act of 2007.

Before I describe the merits of this bill, I would like to take a moment to commend many of my colleagues for their ongoing efforts to develop legislative solutions to meet the enormous challenges global warming poses to our Nation and our planet. I feel this bill helps address a somewhat overlooked, but key tool, to tackling this preeminent challenge facing our Nation.

I am proud that Washington State is taking the lead on the issue of global climate change. While my State's contribution to global warming is relatively small--because we are fortunate enough to derive about 70 percent of our electricity from inexpensive, emissions-free hydropower--global warming threatens to seriously impact our economy.

Ironically, one of the primary impacts of global warming on the Pacific Northwest will be to change our rainfall patterns in a way that reduces the amount of water available for hydropower production.

And these changes will not only harm electricity generation, they will also impact billions of dollars of economic infrastructure associated with irrigation systems, municipal water supplies, even ski resorts that depend on our historic snowfall patterns.

Faced with these possibilities, we must ask several simple questions: What are we doing to prepare for these changes? How are predicted sea level rises being incorporated into shoreline restoration projects, siting of public infrastructure, or disaster response plans, among many other examples? What tools do we need to give Federal, State, and local decisionmakers to take climate change into account on long-term, multibillion-dollar decisions?

Unfortunately, we don't have any answers.

As we discovered when I held a hearing on ocean acidification as chair of the Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard subcommittee last May, our Government is ill-equipped to plan for the consequences of global climate change. We simply lack the tools to develop the strategies we need to adapt.

In August, the Government Accountability Office found that the Federal government is not providing Federal agencies with the proper tools or policy mandates to take climate change impacts into account in carrying out their responsibilities to manage public resources.

In September, the National Academy of Sciences concluded there is a tremendous need to improve the delivery of climate change information to Federal, regional, and local levels so they can take climate change impacts into account in planning and managing resources.

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 2 or 3 decades.

While my top priority is to move our Nation to a clean energy system, we must face the fact that global warming is happening already, and it is only going to get worse.

That is why I am pleased today to be introducing the Climate Change Adaptation Act--a bill to ensure that our government plans for the changes that global warming will inevitably bring. This bill will require the President to develop a national strategy for addressing the impacts that climate change will have on our natural resources. It will also specifically require NOAA to conduct vulnerability assessments on the impacts of climate change on coastal and ocean resources, and to prepare adaptation plans for those resources.

Planning for the future isn't just common sense--it's responsible government.

This bill is complementary to several bills under consideration by the Commerce Committee on which I serve, including the Kerry-Snowe bill that was under discussion at a Commerce Committee hearing earlier today. Their bill contains many provisions I believe are vitally important--including language I authored with Senator Collins on the need for a program to study the threat of abrupt climate change. I'm also proud to work with Senator Lautenberg on legislation combating ocean acidification.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to move all these critical bills out of the committee and through the Senate in the coming weeks.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Will the Senator yield?

First, I compliment the Senator for her very articulate understanding of the impact of greenhouse gases and where our country needs to go. So thank you for your leadership. We are so happy that you are chairing that committee and showing the fortitude to make sure this legislation starts moving through the Senate.

You mentioned California's experience. I wonder if you would just elaborate on that one more time because I think the point may have been--it sounds so simple but yet so complex. California's savings is what we are trying to do in the Energy bill. Here we have a 20-percent reduction of fuel consumption and a 20-percent reduction of greenhouse gases. That is why we need to pass the Energy bill. But you are talking about California's efficiency, and the efficiency that it achieved was monumental and significant. If you would, emphasize or explain how it is that we should be doing the same thing in the Senate in moving forward on efficiency.

Madam Chair, did that cost California jobs?

Madam Chair, I thank the Senator from California for answering that question and again for her great leadership on trying to push forward global warming and climate impact legislation in the Senate.

We do have to move forward. Her resiliency in saying the committee will address it, the committee will mark up legislation is the next step in what we need to do in following through. I applaud her for her dedication and for answering that question.

At $90 a barrel for oil, I certainly wish the rest of the Nation would have followed what California has done in that consumption reduction because it would have helped all of us on today's oil prices.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the sequential referral of the nomination of Julia L. Myers, of Kansas, to be an Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, to the Committee on Judiciary be extended until November 2, 2007; further that if the nomination is not reported at that time, the nomination then be automatically discharged and placed on the Executive Calendar.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 255, R. Lyle Laverty to be Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife; that the nomination be confirmed; the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 359, submitted earlier today.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m, Tuesday, October 30; that on Tuesday, following the prayer and 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; that there then be period of morning business for 60 minutes, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 294, the Amtrak legislation; that on Tuesday, the Senate stand in recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. for the respective party conference meetings; further, I ask unanimous consent that the Members have until 12 noon to file any second-degree amendments.

Madam President, as a reminder to Members, a couple of votes with respect to amendments are expected to occur prior to the cloture vote; therefore, up to three rollcall votes could occur prior to the Senate recessing for the caucus meetings.

Madam President, if there is no further business, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, the President is turning a deaf ear to the crying needs of millions of American children by vetoing the Children's Health Insurance Program. The President claims this is an inefficient use of Federal dollars, but nothing could be further from the truth. When a family goes without health insurance, it means going without regular checkups, children missing more school than other children, and children waiting until the emergency room is the only answer.

It means we don't catch ailments like ear infections and cavities and diabetes and asthma. It means treatable conditions are more likely to spiral out of control. And it means American taxpayers are spending billions of dollars for uncompensated care instead of spending money up front to provide continuity of care.

It is not more efficient to veto this bill. With better coverage, we can treat things like fevers and injuries and infections before they turn into something far worse. We can catch chronic illnesses earlier and help children manage their conditions. We can save American taxpayers' dollars.

But the President is turning a deaf ear to over 3.8 million Americans who simply cannot afford health insurance. How could they? Mr. President, are your budget analysts just numb to the fact that Americans are seeing higher and higher costs of health insurance? Are you choosing to ignore the fact that health insurance premiums grew by 78 percent since 2001, while wages only grew 19 percent? Are you choosing to ignore that nearly half of the increase of uninsured children in America in the last several years occurred among those between 200 percent and 400 percent of the poverty line? That means more Americans are falling into the category of not being able to cover health insurance.

Are you ignoring the fact that record numbers of businesses are dropping health insurance for their employees? That means a family with $41,000 trying to find health insurance could end up having to pay 30 percent of their annual income. What American family can afford to pay 30 percent of their income to find health insurance? American families are being squeezed out of health insurance, and the President of the United States is turning a deaf ear to the crying health care needs of our children. All we are doing is paying the bill later.

The President should not be so heartless when it comes to the children of America. I know my colleagues are working shoulder to shoulder, Democrats and Republicans, trying to stop the President's veto. I hope my colleagues in the House of Representatives will have the courage to stand up to the President. But be assured that Republicans and Democrats in the Senate will continue this measure in whatever ways we can on behalf of America's children.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.