ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 -- (Senate - June 22, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for the time. I appreciate the 10 minutes. I will try to reduce that time because I see the congested calendar here today.
Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment, first, about the very serious situation with oil prices--approximating $60 a barrel now--and the average cost of gasoline across the country at $2.13. This is a problem which has beset the United States and the world for decades now. I remember with clarity the long gas lines in about 1973.
I have believed for a long time that we ought to be moving against OPEC under the laws which prohibit conspiracies and restraint of trade. I set forth, in a fairly detailed letter to President Clinton, on April 11, 2000, my recommendations for litigation by the Federal Government against OPEC, and I repeated it in a letter to President Bush dated April 25, 2001. I ask unanimous consent that both of these letters be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. SPECTER. I was then pleased to see my distinguished colleagues, Senator DeWine and Senator Kohl, introduce what is now S. 555, the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2005, which was accepted by voice vote yesterday. What this bill does essentially is to codify the ability of the Government to proceed against OPEC under the antitrust laws.
It is my legal opinion, as set forth in the detailed letters to both President Clinton and President Bush, that the United States has that authority now, that it is not governmental activity when OPEC gets together and conspires, it is commercial activity. They do business in the United States. They are subject to our antitrust laws. And we should have moved on them a very long time ago.
It is my hope the DeWine-Kohl bill, which I cosponsored, which has come out of the Judiciary Committee and the Antitrust Subcommittee, will be retained in conference. It is always a touchy matter to have a voice vote as opposed to a rollcall vote where if the numbers are very substantial it may be that the amendment will be taken more seriously in conference than if it is a voice vote. But I urge the managers to take the DeWine-Kohl amendment very seriously, which I have cosponsored. We ought to be moving against OPEC because of their cartel activity.
To that end, I voted earlier today for the Schumer Sense of the Senate amendment calling on the President to confront OPEC to increase oil production and vigorously oversee oil markets to protect the U.S. from price gouging. I supported the amendment even though I disagreed with another section calling for the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. While I recognize that the Sense of the Senate amendment is not binding, I believe the strong vote sends a signal to the Administration that there is support for action against OPEC.
I know the floor is going to be very crowded a little later, so I am going to take this opportunity to speak very briefly on the amendment which is offered by Senator Bingaman--cosponsored by Bingaman-Byrd-Specter. And I think Senator Domenici is going to join it as well.
I commend Senator Bingaman for his initiatives on the issue of our energy policy to try to cut down on emissions and to try to cut down on the problems of global warming. We have just had a vote on the amendment offered by Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman. We had a vote on it in the year 2003. It has always been a very attractive amendment.
I opposed it because I believe that it puts the United States at a very substantial economic disadvantage with other countries that are not compelled to comply. As a Senator from Pennsylvania, I have a duty to be specially concerned about what is happening in coal, what is happening in steel, but I think the thrust of it is something. The objectives need to be obtained.
The National Commission on Energy Policy published a report last year which deals with the problems of emissions reductions and the cap on emissions in trade so that one company may utilize the emission limit of another company. I have been in discussions with Senator Bingaman on that, and I am glad to see his amendment is moving forward at this time. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of his amendment. I believe this will take a significant step forward on the issue of global warming. It would always be desirable to move farther ahead in a more dramatic fashion, but I think this is a significant step forward.
I have been pleased to work with Senator Domenici. I compliment the chairman. And Senator Bingaman, the ranking member, I compliment him on a number of amendments which I think will strengthen the energy policy of the United States.
Exhibit 1
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to address the issue of climate change and the various proposals that have been debated this week on the energy bill including the McCain-Lieberman amendment, the Hagel amendment, and the Bingaman-Specter amendment. Climate change is a matter of great international importance and I believe any successful plan to address it must balance environmental protection with the need for economic development and jobs.
I have voted many times for environmental protection for renewable energy and conservation measures. Most recently, on this Energy bill I voted for the Bingaman amendment to mandate that 10 percent of U.S. electricity production be from renewable sources by 2020. I also supported the Cantwell amendment to reduce U.S. oil consumption by over 7 million barrels per day by 2025, in addition to the 1 million barrel per day reduction by 2015 already incorporated into the Energy bill which I have advanced since 2002.
On climate change specifically, the most recent vote of significance prior to the current debate was on October 30, 2003, when the Senate voted on the McCain-Lieberman bill, S. 139, the Climate Stewardship Act, which failed by a vote of 43 to 55. The Senate again today rejected a similar amendment to the Energy bill by a vote of 38 to 60. I voted against this amendment and the previous bill because it is very difficult to meet the strict emissions limit of the year 2000 by the year 2010 in times of unpredictable national and State economies. Additionally, it is very difficult to limit industry in the United States when we do not have a plan for the rest of the world in curbing greenhouse gas emissions. I have urged the President to work through international means to address global climate change and support his efforts and those of individual companies to voluntarily curb domestic emissions, but stronger action will have to be taken in the future on a multilateral basis.
I have been encouraged by the recent efforts of Senator Bingaman, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, to bring to the Senate a proposal based on the recommendations of the National Commission on Energy Policy, NCEP, which issued its report in December 2004. The Commission's recommended approach on climate change would be to implement a mandatory, economy-wide, tradable-permits system designed to curb growth in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2.4 percent in 2010, while capping initial costs at $7 per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent. This would start the U.S. on a path toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions compared to business as usual, while calling for Government reviews at 5 year intervals of global action on climate change. This new approach addressed two of the basic questions that have led, in my opinion, to the failure of the McCain-Lieberman legislation concerns about cost and U.S. action in the context of international efforts.
Senator Bingaman decided to offer a sense-of-the Senate amendment in place of this more complicated technical amendment to further this discussion on the important issue of climate change. I cosponsored this Bingaman-Specter-Domenici amendment calling on Congress to enact a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of such emissions. It calls for this to be done in a manner that will not significantly harm the U.S. economy and will encourage comparable action by other nations that are major trading partners and key contributors to global emissions. This amendment received a very substantial vote of 54-43 against tabling, or setting it aside, and was subsequently accepted by voice vote.
I am also pleased to see the action taken by the Senate to include the Hagel amendment to the Energy bill, which would promote the adoption of technologies that reduce greenhouse gas intensity--emissions per dollar of GDP by providing loan guarantees for up to 25 percent of the total cost of eligible projects that employ advanced climate technologies or systems. This amendment also promotes the adoption of such technologies in developing countries by allowing U.S. companies that invest in such technologies overseas to fully deduct the cost of investment. I supported this amendment because I believe it is a step in the right direction, however, I believe further action is necessary to address global climate change.
While I was unable to support the McCain-Lieberman amendment, I believe the actions on the Hagel and Bingaman-Specter amendments will give impetus to further action to deal with global climate change. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate on this important issue in the hopes of finding common ground and a sensible balance between the goals of environmental protection and economic development.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov