Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I hope I can say what I want to say in 6 minutes. If not, I will ask the Senator for a couple more minutes. I note Senator Bingaman is in the Senate. About a week ago, 6 days ago, there was a comment that Senator Bingaman had a proposal that would move in the direction of mandatory cleanup for carbon. I was intrigued by the group that made the study and suggested a way to do it. They had testified before a committee hearing in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. We were intrigued when they talked about their idea. Senator Bingaman had taken it upon himself to put those preliminaries into the format of a bill. It was said, and I was quite surprised at how much notoriety ensued, that I might be joining my New Mexico partner in this proposal. And that was true, I was considering. And, in fact, we did consider it. The Senate should know, at least from this Senator's standpoint, what I found out. I found out it is very easy to say we ought to have some mandatory reductions. It is very easy to say what percent reduction there should be. As a matter of fact, the proposal we were looking at sounded rather achievable. Certainly, when compared with the Kyoto accords and when compared with the McCain-Lieberman proposals, quantitatively in many areas--effect on growth, what it will do to the use of coal, how many jobs might it cause, what will it do from the standpoint of real reduction in carbon--compare the NCEP, which was the group that put this study together that Senator Bingaman brought to the surface that I just said I was considering, when compared with McCain and Kyoto, the effect on GDP loss used in the same consistent way, and using the same way the President has been talking about it, impact on units of growth, the effect was--get this--0.02. The effect of Kyoto was 0.36. That is a huge difference because one is two-tenths of a percent and the other is 3.6 percent. That was the impact. That attracted my attention because it seemed to me if we were going to start this process, we ought to start at something achievable. We had pretty good evidence it would not have any great big effect on the economy. All the others are similar, emphasizing that the very notorious Kyoto agreement was, on every single one, at the very extreme other end compared to the high end, compared to the NCEP. I regret to say, other than to report the facts I know, McCain-Lieberman was not in the middle of the two but very much toward the very high end Kyoto reductions. I had come to the conclusion we ought to look at the NCEP. This is my first time to say in the Senate why I cannot do it. I hope those who are so excited about mandatory impositions will look carefully at what I found and what--although I do not want to speak for him--I think Senator Bingaman found. To go from the generation that we will reduce in a mandatory manner the carbon emissions, the 2.4 percent--the McCain-Lieberman is much bigger--this was going to start 8 years from now. I said maybe we should start it 10 years from now. But the next thing was how to implement it. How do you allocate the winners and the losers? Under that approach someone has to ratchet down more, somebody has to ratchet down less, somebody has to ratchet down none, and somebody has to get credit because they are so good. And some have to pay penalties because they are not so good. I don't think you can change that mix no matter what you call the bill. I think McCain-Lieberman finds an American environment with utility companies--some of which have to reduce a lot, some of which do not have to reduce any, some of which are so good they have to get compensated for being so good--so that when we add it up, you get reduction across the Nation. There is another way, and that is to say you cut down an even amount across the board. I guarantee if we have an even cut across the board, everybody gets cut 2.4, or maybe under McCain-Lieberman you get cut 5 or 6, nobody can live with that because then there is no benefit from having very clean utility companies. What if you had all nuclear powerplants and there was no carbon; would you still have to reduce whatever the amount is? The reason, I said to my friend, Senator Bingaman, there is not enough time to implement a plan under the NCEP proposal is because we do not know how to draft a set of rules that will carry out our process that would be fair and that would achieve the goal. When we looked at possibilities, it was in my way of thinking impossible in 3, 4, or 5 days to write such a proposal. Senator Bingaman might have suggested--and he still may sometime if we cannot finish it out--that we do it differently. We assign somebody the job of doing that detail. That could have been an approach. But it was not what we were talking about. We were trying to write it in. I submit to the Senate I do not see how there can be a mandatory reduction program that does not have a very detailed approach to who gets allocated what--who wins, who loses, who reduces, and who gets compensated because they already reduced. And all of that across an American universe of production facilities that goes from all of the nuclear powerplants. Maybe all the nuclear powerplants are old, but they are very clean. Then we have very old powerplants, still in production, but they are very dirty in terms of carbon. How we go about doing that in statute without causing extreme, hard unfairness, inequities, is beyond me. Having said that, the Kyoto agreement still is being bantered around as if it is viable. I will ask unanimous consent to have printed a chart showing how big the reductions would be compared with the Lieberman-McCain and how big they would be compared to the NCEP. People ought to look at that. Kyoto is unachievable. We still keep talking about it. It is a pipe dream. When you look at the numbers and what has to be done, we can understand why the Senate voted 95 to 0 that we would never approve a treaty under Kyoto. They blamed the President, but we said that in this Senate. Nobody here voted to implement Kyoto. I will tell you why. When you look at what you have to do compared to any other program, including the McCain program, but including the one that Senator Bingaman and I were going to do which we could not find a way to allocate the winners and losers, you will understand this is a tough job. I don't think we should do that, whether we call it Kyoto, whether we call it McCain. We should not do anything that risky and that uncertain unless there is somebody magical that has a way of putting this formula together--who wins, who loses, who gets money, who cuts, et cetera. I ask unanimous consent the chart be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 2 minutes to answer the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. DOMENICI. Well, I had 30 minutes a while ago. Did we use it all up?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I do not mind the Senator from Arizona saying whatever he likes on the floor. I do not mind him getting red in the face and pointing at me and talking to me like I don't know what I am talking about. But he did not listen. I did not say global warming is not a problem. He might be talking about somebody else. I did say it was. Instead of saying what he said, he should have said: I am glad Senator Domenici is finally recognizing there is a problem. To recognize there is a problem does not mean that his way of solving it is the only solution. In fact, I am telling the Senate what he is suggesting will not work. That is all I am saying. I have the right to do that, and it does not have to be said that I am going to hurt the young generation. I am not hurting the younger generation. The reason this amendment cannot pass is because it cannot be implemented. It is that simple. Nobody knows how to do that because nobody knows the results. You could just as well introduce a bill and say: I want to do twice as much as Senator McCain. And that would be wonderful. You could then say: I am really for the young people. I am doing twice as much. The problem is, you do not know how to do it. You cannot do it. And everybody who has looked at it, except those who want to set a goal, know that is not so. That is why it will lose. I thank the Senator for yielding me 2 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first I remind everybody that 2 years ago the President of the United States gave a speech on this subject. It was a very lengthy speech, but there are two provisions, which I do not have in front of me--so forgive me, I am not quoting, I am just stating to the best of my recollection. In the second part of the speech, which I want to mention, the President said that we should proceed to reduce carbon greenhouse gases by 18 percent through 2012 on a voluntary basis, and thereafter we should use incentives and other ways to accomplish further reduction. First, I think that means the President of the United States is saying we should reduce carbon greenhouse gases. In fact, he, in a sense, is saying that is a good thing. In fact, he said recently we are doing it. ``We are going to meet the goal,'' said the President. When I was trying to put together a package, I was recognizing everything the President said, and I was recognizing that voluntary is the best way. Then I was saying: What if we do not get there when the voluntary time arrives? So anybody who suggests there is nobody around who thinks this is a problem, why is the President saying we ought to reduce them if there is no problem? Are we just doing it because it is the flavor of the times? I don't think so. I think the President is saying we ought to get on with doing it. He thinks there is a way to do it, and he thinks voluntary is doing it, and I do not argue with him. As a matter of fact, I think anybody who tries to start capping in any way one chooses to call capping early is mistaken because the United States of America is doing many things with many dollars on many fronts to reduce greenhouse gases. The question is, Do we do anything if we are unsuccessful in achieving some goal? As I read what I have agreed to help Senator Bingaman with, it says there is a problem. It says we ought to do something to reduce the problem, and it is says precisely that ``it is the sense of the Senate that Congress''--it does not even say when-- ``that Congress,'' not next year, ``that Congress should enact a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits.'' Then it says, ``and incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases,'' that do what? `` . . . that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of such emissions,'' and then it says--these are the goals, the concerns--that it will not significantly harm the economy. One could say you should not put ``significantly'' in there because is some OK? What does ``significant'' mean? I say it means what we want it to mean. It just says something. Should we put in ``no more than one-half of 1 percent''? Then we would be prejudging what can be done. ``Significantly'' means to me something with which we can live and still have a very viable American growing economy but make some achievements in terms of diminution of carbon. Then it says this will also encourage a comparable action by other nations that are trading partners of the United States. That is what we are trying to do. Frankly, I know some will read more into this than is here, and I understand. I am not critical of anybody. Everybody has views on this issue. I also hope those who understand what we voted on a little while ago--I spoke in opposition to it--I think I understand it as well as anybody. It received 38 votes. I did not vote for it. Likewise, I am on this amendment because it is making a statement with reference to this issue. I, frankly, believe the time has come for some of us to make a statement regarding this issue, and I choose this one. Some others would say we want to be purely voluntary, and they could put in a sense of the Senate that we will remove as much carbon as we can, as soon as we can using all voluntary means, and that is a sense of a Senate. I would not be against that. I would say that is probably something good. That is all I wanted to say. I thank the Senator for yielding me whatever time I have used. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I did not hear. Pardon me. What is the question?

Mr. DOMENICI. Are we finished? Is the Senator finished with his time?

Mr. DOMENICI. I understand that there is no further time. I am supposed to sit down. We are not supposed to ask for a motion, say we move to proceed, we just sit down, and then the Chair does it.

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are not going to have any additional votes tonight. That is the first announcement I would like to make. But I also would like to suggest that, while the principal amendment, in terms of time tomorrow, is the McCain-Lieberman amendment on global climate change, there are now a number of amendments that are percolating up on the Democratic side predominantly. We are unable yet to come up with a list, but we are trying. It seems the distinguished Senator from New York, standing right in front of me, might have one we could go with rather quickly in the morning and perhaps the Senator from California, but I have to consult both with Senator Bingaman, obviously, and others. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I have a unanimous consent request which has been cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that there now be 60 minutes of debate in relation to the pending amendment with the following Senators recognized: Senator Voinovich, 15 minutes; Senator Reid or his designee, 15 minutes; Senator Inhofe, 15 minutes; Senator Hagel, 15 minutes. I further ask unanimous consent that following the use or yielding back of the time the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Hagel amendment, with no second-degree amendments in order to the amendment prior to that vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand that this is satisfactory with Senator Hagel.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I know we just set this in motion, but I ask Senator Hagel if I could use 2 minutes of his time now.

Mr. DOMENICI. We can get the yeas and nays now?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays at this time.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to address the Senator for 30 seconds without being charged.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, my fellow Senators, we have heard the Chair announce we will have a vote that is set. The Senators have time to speak, so they should get down here and speak. We have Senator Landrieu, Senator Bingaman, the distinguished majority leader--although he can take time off his own time. For any who have remaining time agreed to, it would serve their purpose if they would use their time because the time will run against them. I am not going to yield. I have only 7\1/2\ or 8 minutes in opposition. I cannot yield. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Do we need a quorum call for that to occur?

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself 30 seconds. What we are asking is nothing more, nothing less than on behalf of the American people, let the experts go out and find out how much is there. In a rather superficial way, without having ever done the real seismic work, we have an idea of what is there, across the circle around America that has been described so eloquently by Senator Landrieu. We know somewhat what is there. But we don't know with any kind of assurance. We need that. That is what the amendment is about. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, is not a vote in order at this time?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.